August 12, 2008

Argh

First, John McCain assures Georgia that we are "all Georgians" today. Of course, when Obama dared to speak to a German audience in relatively vague terms about where we might go on fighting terror, McCain called him presumptuous and acting like he had already won the election. But in this case, McCain speaks literally for all of us, and also comes very near to promising military support for the Georgian state. Are you kidding me? First it was "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," and now this saber rattling with Russia. How many wars do these people want to fight?

Top it off with the former Democratic vice presidential candidate (and suspected McCain VP candidate) saying that Obama does not put America first and I feel the screaming coming on. A hot button issue for me, as everyone here knows, but I am so tired of just how casually conservatives can doubt a liberal's patriotism. And evidently, John McCain agrees
Just moments ago, the McCain campaign emailed out the same Lieberman quote to its full press list -- putting its official stamp of approval on Lieberman's assertion.

This is effectively an abandonment of the campaign's quasi-official position, which used to be that the McCain camp saw questioning Obama's patriotism as off limits. Last month, senior McCain adviser Charlie Black said explicitly that "we don't want to talk about his patriotism and character. We concede that he's a patriot and person of good character."
The Republican party (and Lieberman might as well join the GOP now) has left the stable of just being the "party of the stupid" and now is the "party of the horrible." I am sorry, but John McCain may have served his country with honor during Vietnam, but his campaign against Obama is dishonorable and disgraceful.

Of course, when Lieberman was the VP candidate for Gore (Gore must lay awake nights thinking, what did I do?) he was a horrible campaigner and refused to fight at all for Gore. What a horrible person.

Speaking of horrible people, the odious Michelle Bachmann says that we don't need environmental controls because "Jesus already saved the earth."

Seriously. Two things. 1, either the Republican party gets rid of these neo-con warmongers or we will spend the next several generations fighting their wars. You don't think they will stop with the next war, do you? Someone else wants to fight us, and John McCain is there ready to offer up more American lives (in an Army we don't have, btw) for their next war.

And 2) if conservative Christians don't rescue their faith from the likes of dipshits like Michelle Bachman and the Osteen's, you will have a faith of pure Capitalism and Greed, merged with one that disbelieves in Gravity, and is firmly convinced that Jesus Christ is an American Republican who loves war.

Joel and Victoria Osteen, just the latest

Barbara Ehrenreich succinctly nails the problem with the Prosperity gospel, and this kind of misuse of prayer:
"Consider the ways the Lord works in the life of the Osteens, as recounted in Joel's book Your Best Life Now, which has sold four million copies and is graced by a back cover photo of the smiling couple. Acting through Victoria, who kept 'speaking words of faith and victory' on the subject, Joel was led to build the family 'an elegant home.' On other occasions, God intervened to save Joel from a speeding ticket and to get him not only a good parking spot but 'the premier spot in that parking lot.' Why God did not swoop down with a sponge and clean up the offending stain on the armrest remains a mystery, because Osteen's deity is less the Master of the Universe than an obliging factotum.

Plenty of Christians have already made the point that the positive thinking of Christianity Light is demeaning to God, and I leave them to pursue this critique. More importantly, from a secular point of view, it's dismissive of other humans, and not only flight attendants. If a person is speeding, shouldn't he get a ticket to deter him from endangering others? And if Osteen gets the premier parking spot, what about all the other people consigned to the remote fringes of the lot? Christianity, at best, is about a sacrificial love for others, not about getting to the head of the line."

These people drive me nuts, and I know that I am not alone here. This is not Christianity, and it is a shame that they represent the faith to so many people. We all know that most Christians are not like this, and make a positive contribution to their community and their world.

Focus on the Family pulls video seeking prayers for rain at Obama speech

But they only meant it to be mildly humorous. You know, asserting that God prefers Republicans and that Obama is our enemy.

Birthday Wishes for Ubub

Today is friend of the blog, and a personal friend of SOF and myself (as well as Anglican) UBUB's birthday. I won't say how old he is (for national security reasons) but Ubub has been one of my very best friends now for many years. I can't say enough good about him, and I know that SOF and Anglican will agree. On the other hand, once the Birthday wishes are over, we can get to the ritual "airing of the grievances." :)

Happy Birthday!

August 11, 2008

Bush people silent on this Hamdan verdict

Maybe, argues Jonathan Diamond, because they realize this verdict was a strong rebuke of their administration of the war on terror. Even with the court stacked against the defense, and an administration bent on a kangaroo verdict, all they could get for OBL's driver was a few more months in prison. Even the presiding judge wished Hamdan well.
"I don't hold much hope that this lesson will be taken by the current administration, whose moral bank account is woefully overdrawn. I would not be surprised if Bush/Cheney harmed our international standing even more by ignoring the jury and holding Hamdan indefinitely."

Suskind's big claim

Perhaps not that the VP ordered a forged letter, but that White House knew Saddam didn't have WMD:
"The former head of Britain's MI6, Sir Roger Dearlove, confirms to Suskind on the record that both Bush and Blair received late-breaking but excellent first-hand intelligence that Saddam was bluffing on WMDs. A James Bond character, British spy Michael Shipster, secured a real line of information from an Iraqi intelligence chief. Blair had tasked MI6 with getting to the bottom of the WMD question. Suskind's original source, a high-level American intelligence agent, puts it this nway:
'We knew,' he says.
'Knew what?'
That there were no weapons in Iraq.'
'Sure,' I say, 'people suspected. Define knew.'"

If true, this war becomes not well-intentioned blunder ("we had bad intel") but horrific crime. If true.

August 9, 2008

The Past

Yes, I am watching some of the games. Blame SOF. And some of it is quite interesting. The human interest stories just drive me crazy, but the competition is fun. Watching some of the rowing this afternoon, I had to laugh when the analyst described one of the teams compared to 4 years ago. She said, "well, there is no Penske and no Hurtz (making the names up)" as if those names meant anything to me at all. I suspect that is what some of my friends feel like watching football and hearing references to Elway and Marino.

-----

Thomas Wolfe famously said that you can't go home again. I haven't read the book, but that quote has come up over the years--I think first from a good therapist. The allure of the nostalgic past is something I have written about in my work, and I am not immune from that call.

It has come to mind again this week. I have a membership on one of the social networking sites. I use it rarely, but was thinking the other day how has illustrated these weird connections to the past, present and other worlds of my life. Recently, I was added to the friend's list of a former high school colleague. That is 25 years ago. Yikes.

Then the other day, our old BSU sent out a request for people to join a group online, and I thought--how would I even start? SOF said it well last night when she noted that that old life is like a completely different country. I am certainly a different person. Almost hard to see the Streak of now in those old pictures. Who was that guy? I would need a translator and guide to negotiate that connection.

I have run into people from the past before, and rarely positively. Often, they are (or seem to me) to be very much as they were, while I have changed so much. When they see me, they just see the impish kid from Fort Collins. When I saw that invite from the BSU, it was "world's colliding" and I had no idea how to manage that. So I didn't.

Those close to me have watched me mature over the last 25 years, or have met me more in my current incarnation. I don't even know how to explain that transition who last knew me when I was 19 or 21. I am physically different (though not a lot) but emotionally, spiritually, and philosophically I am a completely different person. I can usually speak that language of 25 years ago, but am no longer fluent or comfortable. And those times when I have attempted to introduce the man to those who knew the boy--well, it hasn't gone well.

I am ok with that. I am happier and more relaxed with who I am in my 40s than I was in my 30s and sure as hell when I was in my 20s. But I must say I rarely seek out people from my past. Maybe that is for the best. I am happy in this country.

The Dark Side

And interesting interview with Dark Side author, Jane Mayer.

Political side

As I noted in the previous comment thread, I thought the last person who wanted to see the Edwards' affair scandal right now was John McCain, and it looks like Josh Marshall agrees.

Suskind may be mostly right?

Several conservative and liberal voices have expressed healthy skepticism about Suskind's allegation that the White House ordered a forged document to support their claims about Iraq and Al Qaeda. I shared some of that skepticism.

Well, a couple of items this morning. First, the author has posted a transcript of his interview with the CIA's former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations that tend to support Suskind's claims.

And if that wasn't enough, from a very odd source an allegation that Suskind was both right and wrong about the letter. The American Conservative says that Suskind was right that the VP ordered the letter, but not through Tenet and the CIA. Instead, he tagged Doug Feith with the job.

August 8, 2008

Oh damn

I know this is not new now, but I think everyone has now heard that John Edwards admited to having an affair. This is obviously not good. Not only did he cheat on his ill wife, but he lied about it during the campaign.

It is always frustrating when someone you admire or support does something so stupid and so wrong. And I don't begrudge the media for following this story--well, not completely. I am not condoning adultery, by the way, but I have never quite figured out when that became the unforgivable sin for a politician. As Cenk Uygur asks, how does his affair make John Edwards any less capable at pursuing good public policy?. And more importantly for our current discussion, why is this affair a career killer for Edwards, but the GOP is running someone who is now married to the "other woman." McCain not only cheated on his first wife (with several other women) but he dumped her after she had a very bad car accident.

I remember the bullshit from the Clinton years--"if he will cheat on his wife, how can we trust him to not cheat on us?" And "he lied to his wife and therefore is untrustworthy." At the time, I suggested that HW Bush had not cheated on Barbara, but had certainly lied to us about Iran Contra. His son has taken that ridiculous metric to another level. I have no reason to think that Bush has been anything but faithful to Laura--but he certainly has not been faithful to us. His supposed fidelity to his wife didn't stop him from lying us into war, turning us into a torture nation, and gutting our Constitution. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

And, I suspect, most Republicans will respond that way about McCain. "It was many years ago, and has nothing to do with his potential as a President." Evidently, fidelity is only required of Democrats.

I am sorry for the Edwards family and the harm he has caused to his wife and children. But I remain disgusted by the double standard that will spur countless hours of OUTRAGE on cable news over the weekend.

McCain might be a little quiet, however....

Know-nothing politics

I often find Krugman a bit shrill, and even think he loses a little of his argument in this piece, but he is on to something when he suggests that the GOP has become the party of the stupid:
"Now, I don’t mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don’t mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.

What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”"
That is certainly how it looks. This drilling policy is simply ridiculous--as a policy. Maybe we should drill in some of those areas (I don't think so) but it should be part of some kind of plan, not a political stunt.

But it isn't just drilling, it is abstinence only, attacks on science, and tax-cuts regardless of the situation. It is a party that has demonized government to the point where the logical extension of their platform is disaster. Hard to implement killing the government in an effective and efficient way.

And, as Krugman notes, the Patron Saint of the GOP's turn to "dumbness" is George W. Bush. They used to worship this man as some kind of idiot savant who didn't need "no fantsy booklarning" to govern. He just needed his "gut."
“Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man,” declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. “He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.”
And it has already started again this year. Obama is the "elitist" who likes "arugula" instead of regular food, while John McCain is "one of the people" who wears 500 dollar shoes while his wife says that the only way to travel around Arizona is in private plane--you know, like normal people. Meanwhile John McCain switches gears on drilling to utter "we should drill here, and drill now" after saying that it would do nothing for us. He thinks that the voters are too dumb to notice.

Eight years of Bush has made me far too sad to disagree.

August 6, 2008

A house guest

Our friend L took care of our menagerie while we were in Hawaii, and she brought with her a newly adopted kitten. As you will see, the little guy was injured by a car or something when he was very little and still doesn't have the full use of his left foreleg. She named him Trypod, appropriately enough.

Note, I tried to upload some video, but ran into some problems. So here is a little screen shot of the little guy. You can see his damaged limb.




L had to leave town and wondered if we could take care of the little guy for a few days. He was familiar with the house and our animals, so we quickly said yes. But we didn't anticipate just how much we would like the little guy, and how inspiring he has been for us. As SOF said, when you look at him with that little injured paw, it makes you sad. But Trypod isn't sad. He is fine--something I realized when the three (and a half) legged kitten launched off the table on top of Abbie, and then chased the 28 pound dog around the living room. I just wish I had video of that.

Abbie, by the way, loves this kitten and plays with him in a really fun and gentle way. The rest of the animals are fine with the little guy (for the most part). We caught this picture of Calvin looking at the visitor.



We are going to have a tough time giving the little guy back to L. He seems to be teaching us something about acceptance and perseverance every day. Plus, he likes to crawl in our laps for naps.

Joel Osteen and his Slapping Wife

Tony has a couple posts on the case of Victoria Osteen, accused of slapping a flight attendant for a stain on her first class seat.

I loathe the commercialized Christianity these two sell (and "sell" is the operative word), but as Tony noted, some of the prospective jurors suggest that they will never have a need for a future lobotomy. So awestruck of the Osteens, several said that they were inclined (heavily) to believe whatever the Preacher and his wife said.
"As a Christian, I wouldn't feel it would be my place to judge them," another prospective female juror said.

I may be sick now.

August 5, 2008

Silly Obama--expecting rational discussion to work in America?

As Dee Dee Myers notes, Americans shouldn't have to check the air in our tires:
"As one of President Bush's spokesman once said, ours is a blessed way of life. And if we want to drive on mushy tires, then dammit, we should be able to drive on mushy tires. Oh, and go shopping. That's the American way."

McCain's campaign

Has reduced itself to simply mocking Obama. Nothing else. Obama is too arrogant, too out of touch, too elitist. Whatever.

Interesting as the accusation used to be that Obama was simply a media creation with no substance beyond his beautiful speeches. Turns out that Obama has much more detail in his proposals than McCain. Don't tell the media. They are still saying that McCain is a "maverick" and that "some people say" that Obama "might be a muslim." Sigh.

The latest effort from Camp McCain has been to ridicule Obama's energy plan. Seems that the Illinois Senator suggested basic maintenance and conservation, including checking those tires to keep them properly inflated (reminds me....). Republicans from Newt to whoever else is on Fox have jumped all over Obama. Of course, they want to "drill now" to, uhm, er, possibly lower your gas prices in many years. Turns out that Obama's common sense approach is far from stupid, it is just more evidence that McCain has no real ideas.
"But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right."

More on Suskind

As Tony noted, the White House response to Suskind was to call him a "gutter journalist" only interested in selling books. The big news, of course, is the allegation of the WH forging a letter, but there is potentially other problems for Bush and Cheney, namely that
"in early 2003 in secret meetings with British intelligence, Habbush revealed that Iraq in fact did not have weapons of mass destruction. That information was passed on to the CIA. Suskind claims the president wasn't interested in information that contradicted the case for war. After the president was told about Habbush, Suskind quotes Mr. Bush telling an aide, 'Why don't they ask them to give us something we can use to help us make our case?' Suskind writes that Mr. Bush later dismissed Habbush and cut off the channel of communication to the Iraqi intelligence chief. . . .

Froomkin excerpts part of Suskind's prologue which has this description of our President:
Suskind writes about the dilemma "that would come to define America's posture in the world: Bush's powerful confidence in his instinct. It might be called a compensatory strength, making up for other areas of deficit. He's not particularly reflective, doesn't think in large strategic terms, and he's never had much taste for the basic analytical rigors embraced by the modern professional class. What he does is size up people, swiftly -- he trusts his eyes, his ears, his touch -- and act. . . . [His] headlong, impatient energy fueled his rise. . . . It's how Bush -- like many bullies who've risen to great heights -- became the president. Once he landed in the Oval Office, however, he discovered that every relationship is altered, corrupted by the gravitational incongruities between the leader of the free world and everyone else. Everything you touch is velvety, deferential, and flattering. To fight this, presidents have been known to search furiously for the real, for the unfiltered, secretly eavesdropping on focus group sessions far from Washington, arranging Oval Office arguments between top aides -- a Gerald Ford trick -- or ordering policy advisers, as Nixon often did, to tell them something the advisers were sure they didn't want to hear. These men, even with their overweening confidence, embraced a unique kind of humility, recognizing they were in a bubble and fearing they would make historic mistakes.

"Bush, with his distaste for analysis and those who contradict him, didn't go down those paths, and he seemed unconcerned, unlike other presidents, that isolation would prompt errors in judgment. . . . [He was a] man who trusts only what he can touch placed in a realm where nothing he touches is authentic.

"It's a diabolical twist worthy of Sophocles or Shakespeare. Either would have written it as a tragedy. Because, over the years, the bullying presence of Bush -- making things personal without hesitation or limits -- became the face of America. . . . After eventful years and Bush's re-election, the nation and its leader became inseparable, as America, itself, was viewed as angry, reckless, petulant and insecure, spoiled and careless, with a false smile that concealed boiling hostility."

White house behind forgery?

Ron Suskind has a new book out this week that claims White House ordered the forgery of a letter linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. If true, this seems like a big deal to me.

Of course, I thought that torture might actually lead to impeachment, so what in the hell do I know?

August 4, 2008

The liberal media

And I think this is a great example of what we are talking about here. I was just about to post something like this the other day (seriously) but ran out of time/took a nap.

But seriously, as The BRAD BLOG notes, the death of the alleged anthrax killer has been covered without anyone noting the political bent of the attacks. Two of those letters were sent to prominent liberals (Daschle and Leahy in the Senate), a fact that most coverage of the recent suicide failed to mention.

And to be fair, there is a great possibility that this guy was as unhinged as the latest church shooter, and that his "political" was actually "crazy."

But here is the kicker. You tell me (honestly) if the victims had been conservative, and the alleged killer were percieved to be liberal--don't you think that would have led every broadcast and been in every headline? When the media repeats McCain talking points about Obama being too arrogant (because McCain is humble because he repeats "my friends" instead of "um?") don't you think even the so-called liberals in the media would have led off with, "some say that the attacks were politically motivated by liberal hatred of conservative blah blah?"

I think absolutely they all would have. The church shootings in Colorado were explained exactly that way. Columbine was explained that way. But the only time I can remember any discussion of right wing hatred was the OKC bombing. And even that became a defensive effort on the behalf of Limbaugh and his drones.

But now, with a clear opportunity to talk about the political bias of the alleged murderer, and the media omits the question?

August 3, 2008

The campaign that might have been

From an Andrew Sullivan reader last January saying that a John McCain would be "rich in ideas and poor in rancor" because JMC represents "an integrity and heroism that simply cannot be denied."

Yeah, until that same Hero started using Britney Spears in ads against the candidate he supposedly respected. Ads, I might ad, that McCain is very proud of today.

Obama's response was spot on: "is this the best you can come up with?" Is this really what the country needs to worry about?

David Gergen says that McCain is playing an old race card

And I agree. Watch it here.

And one more thing. I am so annoyed at the media in this country. They are so damn stupid. The very same people who turned the son of a President, who was also a Yale and Harvard graduate, who was also filthy stinking rich from birth--into a Washington outsider Bubba Texan regular guy--remember that? Well, those same geniuses are now telling us that John McCain, who married into money and buys 500 dollar shoes is "everyman," while Barack Obama, who worked for everything he has earned and has essentially fulfilled the American dream--he is an elitist snob.

Quote of the day

Or week. Whatever. This from a the coal industry:
"Bill Raney, president of the 93-year-old trade association, called Bush's visit 'one of the proudest moments' in the organization's history.

'He is the voice of reason inside the Beltway,' Raney said."

Sometimes the material just writes itself.

The Dark Side

First, a look at the Dark Side, or at least a review of Jane Mayer's book by that title on torture from the NYT by historian Alan Brinkley (I used to use his textbook). Worth the read, but a few graphs that jumped out at me.

First, talking about a group of staunch Republicans who tried to oppose the torture policy within the system, this story:
Matthew Waxman, a Defense Department lawyer overseeing detainee issues, who sought ways to stop what he believed to be illegal and dangerous policies. Waxman summoned a meeting of high-ranking military officers and Defense Department officials (including the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force), all of whom supported the restoration of Geneva Convention protections. Waxman was quickly hauled up before Addington and told that his efforts constituted “an abomination.” All of these lawyers, and others, soon left the government after being deceived, bullied, thwarted and marginalized by the Cheney loyalists.

And this concluding paragraph putting this in some historical context.
The Bush administration is not, of course, the first or only regime to violate civil liberties. John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt all authorized or tolerated terrible violations of civil and human rights, all of them in response to great national and global crises. In some respects, the Bush administration is simply following a familiar path by responding to real dangers with illegal and deplorable methods. But Jane Mayer’s extraordinary and invaluable book suggests that it would be difficult to find any precedent in American history for the scale, brutality and illegality of the torture and degradation inflicted on detainees over the last six years; and that it would be even harder to imagine a set of policies more likely to increase the dangers facing the United States and the world.

August 1, 2008

More

Eric Martin at Obsidian Wings, notes the recent story of Walmart warning its managers of problems should the Democrats get power. The boxstore could be forced--gasp--to allow unions or even possibly pay a living wage.

Yes, by all means, let's make sure that Walmart has a free hand. What could go wrong?

****

More on the Bush policy of misgoverning America:
His administration immediately abandoned the modern techniques of governing developed and used by both Democratic and Republican presidents in the years after the end of World War II. What distinguished the Bush presidency was the small, insulated White House clique that made critical policy choices without using either sound information or outside advice to guide decisions. Bad policies continued despite overriding evidence of failure and made disastrous outcomes a near certainty.

The Bush presidency will go down as providing by far the poorest quality of governance in the modern period of big government that began with Franklin Roosevelt. Sound management, however, is not associated with political party or orientation. Conservative Republican Dwight Eisenhower ranks as far ahead of other postwar presidents in managerial capability as Bush is behind.
Just another example of what we are talking about. Conservatives don't have to be against good governing, and the fact that so many right winger are shows how irresponsible they are. It is amazing that we have a major Party that essentially wishes for our government to fail in its basic tasks.

Couple more items

First, and related to my previous post, this quote from Thomas Frank's new book--The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule:
"The best public servant is the worst one. A thoroughly first-rate man in public service is corrosive. He eats holes in our liberties. The better he is and the longer he stays the greater the danger. If he i an enthusiast—a birhgt-eyed madman who is frantic to make this the finiest government in the world—the black plague is a housepet by comparison."


****

And second, for those who accuse me of hating Bush so much that I would not recognize a good thing when I see it, let me post this story that suggests that a recent report showing that
"homelessness in the United States decreased by 30 percent between 2005 and 2007."
might actually be the result of Bush policy. Seems he appointed a man named Philip Mangano who borrowed from the British to develop a very aggressive policy to get the chronic homeless into some kind of shelter immediately--thus relieving the shelter beds for those in need of short term help. Seems like a really good idea.

See what a government program can do? I sure hope that Bush's people don't realize what he did--screwing up like this and succeeding. /snark

My problem with the right--continued

Leighton posted a very thoughtful comment in our thread on right-wing rhetoric:
"So the core problem I see with right-wing hacks on Fox and talk radio (as distinguished from principled conservatives like the ones in my family) isn't their violent speech, though that is a problem; it's the hopelessness and fearmongering they sell, appealing to the worst parts of people for profit, even when there is no overt suggestion of violence."
I couldn't agree more, and that is just one of the things that makes me sad about our state of political rhetoric.

But it isn't just that we have prominent and vocal right wing commentators who routinely refer to me (as a liberal) as a bigger threat than terrorism, or suggest that we are traitors to our country, or should be killed--but the far right has articulated a policy of government that is, by definition, destructive. Eric Lotke borrows Rick Perlstein's description of this approach as E. coli conservatism:
"Once in power, E. coli conservatives shrink government by hamstringing it. They weaken rules that protect people, slash the budgets of consumer agencies and appoint industry friends to oversight commissions. The result: Some government regulatory agencies that we trust to protect us have shrunk to insignificance or serve private industry rather than consumers."
Here's the thing: I think that responsible liberalism and responsible conservatism both have negatives and positives, but both of them are workable, and both call for good and responsible governance.

The far right, however, says every governmental program is bad, and every tax is evil. How do you make that work? How do you find responsible governance in that mess?

And when you see the crumbling infrastructure (have we forgotten the Minnesota bridge) routine food safety problems, dangerous toys, the absolutely preventable mortgage crisis, etc., you don't have to be a leftist to think that there is a place for government regulation. Absolutely we should argue about those regulations and use them with caution, and absolutely some taxes are bad and some programs irresponsible.

But conservatives have created a dynamic where their goal for governance is completely destructive. I don't believe most conservatives want this anymore than they cheer for Ann Coulter (well, Dobson cheers her) or Michael Savage. Time for them to regain their party.

July 31, 2008

This is funny

You have all heard about the McCain latest juvenile attack on Obama that compares the Illinois Senator to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears? Well, evidently, the Hilton family are big McCain supporters and they don't appreciate the ad. Heh.

Everywhere I turn, I read sharp critiques of McCain's campaign. It started out with the man saying he would run a dignified campaign that was respectful of Obama. Then he is saying that Obama would win a political campaign even if it meant losing a war. Then he bashes Obama for not visiting the wounded troops (even as he shows a clip of Obama playing basketball with the troops) and we learn today that McCain had a clip ready that was going to bash Obama for visiting the troops if he went.

No wonder lifelong Republican and Ike's grandaughter, Susan Eisenhower is not only endorsing Obama, but says today that McCain's campaign shows that the Republican Party is out of ideas.

July 30, 2008

Right-Wing and the TN shooter

First and foremost, just like the Columbine and Va Tech (and every other shooting), let me be clear that the person responsible for the shooting is the shooter. I agree with those who say he is obviously mentally ill (perhaps not technically).

So, I post this with a bit of trepidation. For me, the issue is not really who is to blame for this shooting. As I said, that is obvious. But it does seem to me raise some of the issues of public responsibility and hate speech. I have suggested here that conservatives have let their right wing idiots into the mainstream much more than the left has. Ann Coulter routinely says something incredibly offensive about gays, minorities, or liberals, yet always lands on some show.

Many say that the political dialogue is poisoned on both ends, and to a certain degree, I think that is true. Certainly there are many on the left that make me wince when they speak. Hell, Pelosi does sometimes.

But it seems to me that the right advocates or jokes about violence toward the left much more casually than the left does. As the piece notes, I can not recall Olbermann calling for the death of right wingers. He mocks O'Reilly incessantly, and derides many on the right--but I don't recall him ever calling for them to die, or suggesting that he would like to kill them. The closest I can think of was when Bill Maher seemed to cheer an assassination attempt on Cheney, and he took a lot of grief for that.

I know that the left demonizes some conservatives--gun owners, Christian conservatives, militia members, etc. But I don't recall those liberals suggesting (even tongue in cheek) that those conservatives be killed.

Kim has a good list of quotes from the right, and look at worst, how often they have called for the death of liberals for being liberal, or at best, have equated us to those terrorists who are trying to kill Americans:
"I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." — Sean Hannity
"To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who." — Michael Savage
"Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces." — Rush Limbaugh
"It is not a stretch to say that MoveOn is the new Klan." — Bill O’Reilly
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could." — Glenn Beck
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too." — Ann Coulter
"I don’t see any difference between [Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis." — Bill O’Reilly
"The Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri, Oba -- Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points." — Rush Limbaugh
"There are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of ‘em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the [House] speaker." — Sean Hannity
Of those, only Savage has been punished to some degree for his hateful approach. Still on the radio, though (and most recently mocking autistic kids).

I am not suggesting censorship, mind you, though I wouldn't mind a little corporate responsibility. But mostly, I am suggesting that the middle of America start to recognize that this kind of hate speech has consequences.

Reading the Bible through the eyes of America

Natalie always gives me something to think about, and this post on the Americanized Bible is no exception. At Tony's blog, he and I have been arguing with a Huckabee supporter who thinks a) that waterboarding is not torture, and b) that the state can and should do whatever is necessary to protect us--including torture. The gist of his argument seems to be that what we do to protect ourselves is, by definition, moral.

Natalie suggests another perspective, and challenges that American-centric viewpoint that seems to be filling the church--to say nothing of the push for the "masculine Jesus" and away from what Mark Driscoll calls the "limp-wristed hippie" image. You know, the Jesus who actually told us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.
"Claiborne and Haw write that “the empire of violence and nationalism has crept into the church” (193). We are faced with the danger of reading the Bible “through the eyes of America rather than read[ing] America through the eyes of the Bible. We just want Jesus to be a good American” (194)."

Click over to read her entire post and check out the wonderful images she included.

July 29, 2008

Backyard chickens

I wonder what my neighbors would think of this. Hell, I wonder what Abbie the Wonder Dog would do?

A Torture Paper Trail

Eugene Robinson on the Bush legacy:
"I still find it hard to believe that George W. Bush, to his eternal shame and our nation's great discredit, made torture a matter of hair-splitting, legalistic debate at the highest levels of the U.S. government. But that's precisely what he did.

Three previously classified administration memos obtained last week by the American Civil Liberties Union add to our understanding of this disgraceful episode. The documents are attempts to justify the unjustifiable -- the use of brutal interrogation methods that international agreements define as torture -- and to keep those who ordered and carried out this dirty business from being prosecuted and jailed."

The American Lawn

Our neighbors to one side are both zoologists, and we have had more than a few conversations about water pollution and environmental responsibility. That, plus reading a book on America's obsession with the lawn, annual discussions about the "dead zone" of oxygen depleted water in the Gulf created in part by fertilizers has made me a pretty hand's off lawn manager. I don't water (unless it starts to turn completely brown) and have not applied either weed killer or fertilizer for many, many years. If I could get around to it, I would like to replace a lot of the grass with some kind of drought-resistant monkey grass to further reduce the mowing.

So, it makes me feel a little better when I read this about how much money, water, and chemicals go into our lawns:
"Amount of lawn in the United States: 40.5 million acres
Total amount of money spent on lawn care: $30 billion

Percent of residential water used outside: 30 to 60%
Amount of water used daily for residential irrigation: more than 7 billion gallons

Amount of fertilizers used on lawns annually: 3 million tons
Percent reduction of nitrogen fertilizer needed if clippings left on lawn: about 50%

Amount of synthetic pesticides used on lawns annually: over 30 thousand tons
Amount spent on pesticides in 2001 for home and garden use: almost $2.2 billion
Ratio of pesticide use per acre by the average homeowner versus the average farmer: 10 to 1"
More.
Steinberg estimates that we spend $40 Billion a year on lawn care, that some 75,000 + Americans are injured using lawn mowers (roughly the same as injured by firearms).

Americans spill about 17 million gallons of gas each summer (or 50% more than was spilled in the Exxon Valdez).

Millions of birds die each year as a result of lawn-care pesticides.

July 28, 2008

More Monica

And I will bring this up every single time someone tells me that the Bush people were trying to protect us from the terrorists.

Seems that the prosecutor that Monica Goodling refused to hire because the candidate's wife was a Democrat--yeah, he was one of the most qualified counter-terrorism prosecutors around. But Monica refused to consider him (pages 53 and 54). But surely they hired someone just as good who happened to complete her little Bush-love test, right?

Similarly, Kelly told us that Goodling refused to allow EOUSA to hire the candidate because his wife was active in Democratic politics.

--snip--

Because EOUSA had been unable to fill the counterterrorism detail after Goodling vetoed this candidate, a current EOUSA detailee was asked to assume EOUSA’s counterterrorism portfolio. This replacement detailee had been an AUSA since September 2004, after having served as an assistant district attorney for 3 years. He had been detailed to EOUSA in 2006. He had no counterterrorism experience and had less than the minimum of 5 years of federal criminal prosecution experience required by the EOUSA job announcement. Battle, Nowacki, Kelly, and Voris all said they thought that he was not qualified for the position, since he had no counterterrorism experience. The replacement candidate was a registered Republican who Goodling had interviewed and approved before he was selected for his EOUSA detail.

In sum, we concluded that Goodling prevented EOUSA from selecting an experienced career AUSA to handle counterterrorism issues because of his and his wife’s political affiliation. As a result, a much less experienced, but politically acceptable, attorney was assigned this important responsibility. (emphasis mine)
May this be attached to every discussion about the Bush Justice department from now on.

Sigh.

Remember Monica Goodling?

Well, evidently she refused to hire a qualified prosecutor Because He Was Married to a Democrat. And there is more, from Kyle Sampson's specific intent to only hire Republicans to Monica Goodlings interviews with prospective employees with questions like:
Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.
[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.

These people tried very hard to ruin the Department of Justice and turn it into a GOP Pac.

Interesting Obama interview

With the Jerusalem Post. Read the beginning where he compares Obama's approach to McCain and Bush--their comfort level with the region's issues and how many staffers they had in their interview. McCain brought Lieberman and (according to the writer) looked uncomfortable and ill-at ease several times. Bush brought a whole team to help him. Obama sat down with one aide--who's sole contribution seemed to be setting up the pictures.

With that in mind, read his interview and see how intelligent this man is.

July 27, 2008

Sport Utility Bicycles

These are kind of cool.

Chuck Hagel on McCain's irresponsible attacks

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME: "I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, “You’re less patriotic than me. I’m more patriotic.”"
Most conservatives I talk to don't seem to recognize just how casually they can question the patriotism of liberals. A friend of mine compared it to the assumption that conservatives are accused of being racists. I countered that whereas he had never had his patriotism challenged, I had been accused of racism. And sexism. The only parallel I can really imagine are those in the Christian community who decide that the people they disagree with are not just honorable people trying to understand God who have come to a different conclusion--they are actually not Christians.

Sunday morning roundup

Good morning, everyone. Hope your summer weekend is going well. I have some good coffee and SOF is making something delicious for our brunch--so I am doing very well.

This week, of course, saw Barack Obama tour the Middle East and speak in Germany. And by all accounts, he did very well. All the talk about the increased scrutiny giving him more opportunities to screw up proved to be false. Obama looked presidential, and from what I saw, gave a speech for the ages in front of 200,000+ Germans. To be fair, after the last 8 years, this inanimate carbon rod looks more presidential than this.



But the scrutiny given Obama's visit coupled with John McCain's unbelievably inept campaigning this week led to increased whining from the right that the "liberal media" loved Obama and was shafting McCain. One report showed that Obama received nearly twice the minutes of coverage as McCain. But the LA Times points out that more is not necessarily positive:
"The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative."


If you want an example, just look at CBS's decision to edit McCain's interview to clip out his mistakes.

I still believe that our media is driven by money and what is "easy." And Obama is scintillating and interesting, and very easy to cover. Add to that the corporate machines running our media, and their clear conservative bent, and you have an interesting "capitalistic" approach to media. But conservatives have repeated this lie (in addition to others) so often that even some liberals assume that the media is biased toward them. And, I think, many analysts believe it and so go out of their way to dispel the fear that they are too liberal.

*****

Speaking of McCain, he has a new ad out that challenges Obama's commitment to our troops. What a shock! A conservative saying that liberals don't support the troops. McCain used Obama's recent trip, and mischaracterized Obama's decision to not visit the troops in Germany as a snub. Even some conservatives cried foul, and many have noted that McCain seems to have thrown the clean campaign out the window. Perhaps it is to be expected. His entire campaign has been predicated on the idea that Obama was wrong on Iraq and he was right. Maliki's endorsement of Obama, and even our President's decision to suggest "time horizons" undercuts McCain's approach, and has left him stuttering about "we will win, we have won, we are winning," in a completely incoherent way. Chris Bodenner, at Sully's blog said it best:
I predict these nasty, petty, and desperate attacks will only grow as Obama soars into November. What else does McCain have to run on? It's the same approach Clinton took after Feb. 5: if I can't beat him, I'll drag him down to my level and hope he hits back, besmirching his image as a "new politician." It wasn't exactly a winning strategy.

All in.

July 26, 2008

The Olympic games

Over a lovely dinner last night with some friends, we discussed the relevancy of the Olympics. I am pretty sure I was outnumbered at the table last night. Of course, they were all wrong, so that makes it easier.

In all honesty, I really understand why so many true sports fans love the Olympics. They love seeing those sports that never get any attention elsewhere, and as several noted last night, for track and field, it is the pinnacle of the sport, and the only real goal of the top athletes in the sport.

But here are my problems with the Games.

1) The American coverage. I think the Simpsons said it the best when they had their own Olympics in Springfield where athletes received the "glorious gold, so-so silver, and shameful bronze." If I hear one more of our idiot reporters ask someone how bad they feel for getting the silver, I will puke. I will. Not only that, but they add drama to events that are naturally dramatic. Kind of like adding sugar to sweet tea. Disgusting and annoying.

2) American coverage, cont. I hate the national jingoism on display. Rarely do we see coverage of sports where Americans are not competitive. That may have made sense in the Cold War when we were fighting the dirty Commies in hockey, but it makes no sense when a good number of those athletes competing for other nations live and train in the US.

3) The lack of true national rivalry. Perhaps a contradiction with the last point, but I stand by it. When the Olympics were a way to compete with our enemies, the games had a sense of peaceful coexistence and healthy competition. Better to wave flags at each other's bob sled teams than shoot each other, as it were. But Al Qaeda is not likely to field a bob sled team.

4) The increased corporatization of the games. I remember when Bob Costas got in trouble during the Atlanta games for criticizing China's human rights policies. China complained to the corporate sponsors, and they reined Bob in--for saying the truth. The real rivalries are there, but we can't talk about them because our corporations are too busy selling out to China.

5) As a result, we get made-up rivalries, like the US and Australian swim teams. Really? I am supposed to care about that?

I will probably watch some of the games. I always end up doing so. But they often don't make me happy.

So, tell me. Why will you watch (or not watch) the Olympics? And if you are not going to watch, why do you hate America?

July 25, 2008

New Poll

I posted a new poll in the right side for your Friday democratic impulse.

July 24, 2008

Lincoln Chafee on Bush's economic diagnosis

And he suggests that Bush's tax policy certainly didn't help:
The president reversed his predecessors' good, conservative fiscal policies -- responsible stewardship of revenues and expenditures. So who's drunk?
But my favorite little line:
"True to form, the president prefers simplistic jargon over communicating the complexity of any subject."
Why is that? Does he really not understand the complexity of any subject? Seriously. He describes terrorist motivations as "they hate us for our freedom," and our approach to the world as "you are with us or against us."

Does he communicate so simplistically because he thinks that is the best way to communicate to people? Or does he want to appear "dumb" to appeal to American stupidity?

July 23, 2008

Wow

Robert Novak hit a pedestrian (minor injuries) and fled the scene? And he isn't in jail?

More on McCain's foreign policy

Following up in McCain's attack on Obama, several have taken note of McCain's recent error on foreign policy. It isn't quite the Iraq/Pakistan border, but while he dismissively attacks Obama for his stance on the surge, McCain gets the key chronology completely wrong.

Oh, and for those who still cling to the "liberal media" mythology, CBS evidently spliced the video tape to not show McCain's completely wrong answer.

McCain and Bush's war

While not completely fair, a video showing how supportive McCain has been for Bush and his war.

July 22, 2008

Wow

Joe Klein (not a big fan, btw) on McCain's suggestion that Obama would rather "lose a war in order to win a political campaign":
"This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad."

Bush--economic geniuser

The Houston Chronicle obtained a video of Bush speaking to a Republican fundraiser, where he says that Wall Street got drunk, and now has a hangover. Of course, no mistakes by the "decider," but as with everything, bad decisions made by other people.

And because I haven't posted it in a while....



More right wing nuttery

Obama is being sponsored by Al Qaeda. Ah, the lovely American Family Association. Hating liberals, gays, and now Muslims (and supposed Muslims) since the 1977.

Nice.

Interesting

Acceptance of Gay People in Military Grows Dramatically:
Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
And this:
"Fifty-seven percent of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military, compared with 82 percent of white Catholics and 80 percent of those with no declared religious affiliation."

A pretty seismic change, don't you think?

How Obama Sees the World

Fareed Zakaria suggests that Obama is the real conservative on foreign policy in this race. More like HW Bush and miles away from the idealistic and ideologue-driven W foreign policy.

200 year old tips for a balanced life

And several of them are just as good now as they were then. A few of my favorites:
"1st. Live as well as you dare.
3rd. Amusing books.
5th. Be as busy as you can.
6th. See as much as you can of those friends who respect and like you.
7th. And of those acquaintances who amuse you.
8th. Make no secret of low spirits to you friends, but talk of them freely--they are always worse for dignified concealment.
11th. Don't expect too much from human life--a sorry business at the best.
13th. Do good, and endeavour to please everybody of every degree.
17th. Don't be too severe upon yourself, or underrate yourself, but do yourself justice.
18th. Keep good blazing fires.
19th. Be firm and constant in the exercise of rational religion.

Is it wrong of me to laugh at this?

When Republican presidential nominee is worried about the trouble on the Iraq-Pakistan Border?

July 21, 2008

Stay classy, Republicans. Stay classy

State Senator Kevin Bryant Posts Osama-Obama Photo.
"It was meant tongue in cheek," he said, adding, "I've got some questions about Senator Obama's ties to -- such as his comment that we should negotiate with Iran. Iran's a country that would like to destroy Israel, that bothers me. But is this picture appropriate? I don't know." He let out a loud laugh. "It's gotten a lot more attention than I would have expected."

Does he think Obama is actually has terrorist ties? "I don't think he's tied to terrorists, no. I do think he's probably more sympathetic to nations that allow terrorism than I would prefer. And that's why I posted it. Am I saying that him and Osama work together? No, I'm not saying that at all."

And what religion does Bryant think Obama practices? "That's a good question. I don't know."
Sigh.

July 20, 2008

More on McCain and Obama's supposed FP weakness.

hilzoy says a few things I have also said:
"First the Bush administration started appeasing negotiating with Iran, as Obama had suggested; then McCain essentially adopted Obama's position on Afghanistan; then the Bush administration agreed to what they called a 'general time horizon'for withdrawing troops. (Wait: now it's 'Joint aspirational time horizons'!) McCain and Bush seemed to be adopting Obama's positions all over the place. For a risky, inexperienced novice, Obama seemed to have gotten a lot of things right. And for an experienced, serious old hand with a command of foreign policy, McCain seemed to be spending a lot of time playing catch-up. And every time Obama gets to say, in effect, 'Hi, John! What took you so long?', McCain's only winning message gets that much weaker."
But nails the other problem for McCain--one I had missed--that it is incredibly problematic for McCain to suggest that al-Maliki doesn't adequately represent the country's wishes:
But saying something like that about the Iraqi government -- that it doesn't really speak for the Iraqi people, or isn't capable of making its own decisions about Iraqi territorial integrity -- would undercut McCain's claims about progress in Iraq. Again, McCain would have to choose: does he say that Iraq's government has made some real political progress, and is capable of making its own decisions? In that case, he should accept its wishes. Does he say that he can disregard its requests on matters of Iraqi sovereignty? In that case, he undercuts a lot of his claims that the surge has enabled real and lasting progress in Iraq.

Politics draws me in once again

In 1996, SOF and I volunteered at the county Democratic office. Those were easy times to be a Democrat with Clinton riding high. Gore did not inspire me in 2000 and I was frankly tired of the Clinton/Gore camp by then. I voted for him, of course, but did so tepidly. Little did I know that Bush would be such a giant cluster. But even with that, I didn't have the energy to volunteer in 04. Not sure why.

Well, today, we walked down to the Midway Market which is one of those cool little old style markets tucked back in the neighborhood. State Senator Andrew Rice spoke at a rally, and he was quite engaging and inspiring. I don't know if he can beat Inhofe (our idiot incumbent) but I believe he is worth getting behind. He told a couple of interesting stories, including some polling data that suggests that only 39% of Oklahomans want to definitely reelect Inhofe.

Well, today I signed up to volunteer. If anyone is interested in following suit, you can do that or contribute to his campaign here.

Because what we have right now isn't working.

Oh Good God

The Bush administration really went to school on the whole Orwellian language, didn't they? When I saw they wanted "time horizons" but not timetables, I nearly gagged. I think we can all imagine the group huddle in the WH, "ok, we need a term to describe a timetable, but we cannot call it that or the Democrats and terrorists win."

Then al-Maliki endorsed Obama's 16 month timetable and the Republican heads started to asplode. This morning, I see from Petraeus that al-Maliki doesn't want what he said he wanted. And earlier, from Centcom, came a statement that al-Maliki had been misquoted.

To be fair, I have no clue what the best course of action is in Iraq. As far as I am concerned, the Bush people have left us with no good options. Likewise with Afghanistan, where I am unsure that Obama's stance is the right one there either.

But it seems clear that the Bush/McCain people are not as good at the foreign policy as they pretend. Not only is Bush now talking time-whatevers, but he is actually talking to Iran--the very same thing he accused Obama wanted to do when he called it "appeasement."

The Hold Steady Stays Positive

Halfway through this year, and my fears of a weak music year have proved wrong. So far. The Kathleen Edwards "Asking for Flowers" is as good as music gets, and other albums from Tift Merritt and the new Frightened Rabbit are very solid.

This last week, I was pleased to find the new Hold Steady album available on Emusic, so I downloaded it immediately. I have mixed emotions about this band. As one of the reviewers noted,
Like all The Hold Steady's albums, this one is basically about young folks behaving badly (booze, sex, fights).
That is about right. But when you hear their guitar licks, the bizarre lyrics work. And this new album (Stay Positive) is no different. Stirring guitar licks with some great rock anthems. This album, more than the previous couple, reminds me of early Sprinsteen--when the Boss's songs were long and rambling stories. With the Hold Steady, those stories are usually about bad behavior or very odd people. Like "Your little Hoodrat Friend," or the "Chillout tent."

But they also have songs that build beautifully. I said to SOF the other day, as we were listening to my favorite off this new album "Slapped Actress" that this is the kind of music that Beethoven would have found intriguing. He would have loved the chord progressions and musical hooks. Not just your basic 1,4,5 progression, the song just keeps running through my head. Still not sure about the lyrics, though as I read them, it is not an endorsement of slapping, but the song is a great one, and the album a cinch for top 10 albums of the year.

A "giving kiosk"

Courtesy of my friend Mary, this from a mainline Methodist church. One of my Baptist friends pointed out that there is very little difference between paying a tithe with check or credit card. I think in isolation, that is exactly right and this just reflects the changing ways we move money in our society.

But in the broader contexts of churches relying on business models, focus groups, and preachers trained in communication rather than theology, it concerns me.

July 19, 2008

Just too funny

Guitar lesson time (courtesy of my guitar teacher)

Why McCain's "socialist" comment offends me

The other day, a reporter asked John McCain if he thinks Obama is a socialist:
McCain responds with a with a shrug, 'I don't know.'"

A commenter at Tony's blog took offense at my characterization of this exchange, and I think I was unclear. I said that either McCain doesn't know what socialism is or he is lying.

Let me explain.

While there are actual definitions of socialism, I believe that Americans hear "socialism" as the same as "communism" and equate both to being "unamerican." And I believe that John McCain understands that very well. He knows that he can very subtly imply that Obama is not a loyal American. He knows that for two reasons--one that the American people respond to that assertion, and two, that liberals would be unable to suggest the same thing about McCain.

Conservatives can casually question the patriotism or loyalty of liberals, but no matter how duplicitous, or corrupt, or even destructive, no one questions the loyalty of conservatives. They can do business with the enemy, or out a CIA agent working for us, and while they might be chastised and criticized, they will not be accused of being unAmerican.

There are definitions of socialism. Most of them include the government control of the modes of production and a controlling the distribution of wealth. We really don't have much of a socialist movement in this country, and while McCain tried to link Obama to " the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont," even that was a distortion. Sanders is a political liberal, calls himself a "Democratic socialist" and is hardly some Marxist.

So when McCain says, "I don't know," what he means is that he doesn't really care about Socialism. Hell, if Obama is a socialist, then so is McCain (or so he was when he was the self-appointed "maverick"). McCain means to undermine Obama's legitimacy. It is the very same tactic that Hillary used when asked if Obama was a muslim. She knows the answer, just as McCain did--in both cases, "no, of course not"--she left doubt because she wanted to question Obama's American identity.

The closest comparison would be if Obama had been asked if McCain was a "fascist" and said he didn't know. But even that doesn't work as well in our culture. I remember a friend of mine saying he voted for Bush in 04 because he was afraid of what a radical liberal like Kerry might do. Of course, as I pointed out then, he seemed completely oblivious that we were living with the disaster of a radical conservative agenda, but the "theoretical" liberal was more scary than the actual conservative agenda of war, torture, and reduced civil liberties.

Sigh.

July 18, 2008

Because I love the top ten lists

And saw this at Sarah's blog asking for your top-ten albums of the last ten years. Decided to post my response and open it here for others.

I said:
"Any of the Wilco albums
Anything from Kasey Chambers
Same from Kathleen Edwards
The Jayhawks, Sound of Lies or Smile
Springsteen’s Rising
Ryan Adams, Cold Roses
Uncle Tupelo, Anodyne
Son Volt, Trace
the Hold Steady (not sure which one)
Alejandro Escovedo, (several)"

Anyone?

July 17, 2008

Rape jokes

Just curious, but has any of you ever told a rape joke told a rape joke?

I am a big joke teller. Can't think of a time that I told one that made light of rape.

Just saying.

This makes me angry

Republicans really do seem to assume they are the only ones who care about national defense. Here in Oklahoma, we have a pretty liberal state senator challenging the corrupt Jim Inhofe for Senate and he has responded to a billboard ad by some asshat Floridian that connects voting Democrat with the WTC. Rice (our candidate) lost a brother in the World Trade Center.

The Conservative Nanny State

Thanks to a friend for pointing me to this book, on conservative economics.

In this book (which I have only read part), Baker suggests that our current dialogue is misleading. It isn't that conservatives don't want big government, it is that they want government to protect their interests. While rather harsh in phrasing, he has some very interesting points. For example, on the issue of free trade, he suggests that what we have now is not free trade, but selective free trade. Dishwashers, for example, compete for jobs in the US based on wages and ability (as such). If a restaurant can hire a Mexican (let's assume legally here) for cheaper wages, then he is free to do so. Let's remember that many conservatives oppose the minimum wage, so if they had their way, that Mexican immigrant could work for next to nothing if he/she were willing, and Americans would find their wages decrease. A good example of this, of course, is the migrant labor that picks our fruit and vegetables.

This "free market" serves a lot of good for our society, or at least most of us in this society, because it makes most of our goods and services less expensive. But, as Baker suggests, white collar professionals do not participate in such an economy. Yes, absolutely, a Mexican trained professor could be hired into a university program--competing on ability--but that University would not be allowed to pay that professor what might pass for a wage in Mexico city.

As a result, those wealthiest professionals prosper in a protected economy. Not only that, but often they participate with government in ventures that are exceedingly unfree and not governed strictly by the market. CEOs and executives at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will not suffer the market's consequence for screwing up. Individual homeowners saddled with poorly vetted mortgages will. Something about "socializing the risk and privatizing the profit," I think.

Anyway.

Another Conservative for Obama

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan: "I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America. This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.
When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins. Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance,' - Larry Hunter, New York Daily News."

July 16, 2008

Cannot make this stuff up

And that has been true for the last 8 years, especially, but today had a few like this.

First, of course, is the unbelievable gall of Elizabeth Dole wanting to name an AIDS Bill after Jesse Helms. Kind of like naming an evolution lab after Jerry Falwell. Or a library after GW Bush.

****

After all the years of Republicans complaining about Clinton auctioning access to the Lincoln bedroom, this HS advisor selling access to the Bush people for $600,00+ is kind of funny. I really don't want to hear a lecture from any Republicans in the future. Not about anything moral or ethical.


***

Speaking of our Republican friends, Yglesias has an interesting post on the right's love affair with Teddy Roosevelt. An interesting figure in American history, but far too concerned with his masculinity for me.

****

I love how Cindy McCain thinks that private plane travel is the only way to get around Arizona. And it is Obama who is the elitist.

Sigh.

****

Jane Mayer's new book is getting a lot of press. Seems she thinks that Cheney is responsible for a lot of our torture. Turns out he simply ignored or over-rode any objections by moral or legal critics who said this was not the way to go. And despite our commenter's critique, there is ample evidence that the torture was not only immoral, but also simply unhelpful:
Meanwhile, although President Bush has argued that “enhanced” interrogation had led to numerous breakthroughs he has never publicly acknowledged the false and fabricated intelligence it has yielded, too. One former top CIA official told me, “Ninety percent of what we got was crap.”

I think Cheney is going to have a lot to answer for as his "legacy" is written. At this point, I suspect that Bush will come across as a man in over his head, who delegated the wrong tasks to the wrong people.

****

I think some will find Obama disappointing as a Presidential candidate because he is so damn pragmatic, but I, for one, find that option quite compelling. After 8 years of idiot ideologues, I would welcome someone pursuing foreign policy more on the model of the first President Bush.

And I remember when we thought HW Bush was dumb. Turns out, he was quite smart and capable.

Some more Hawaii pictures

July 15, 2008

Sigh

Tony noted this the other day and I just saw it again on the DMN Religion blog. Evidently, a Baptist church right here in Oklahoma was planning on giving away a semiautomatic rifle to a lucky youth attending their conference. Really hard to figure out what is going on here. I guess I just don't see the connection.

But for a happier topic, here is another picture from our trip. Our Nikon Coolpix has a cool panoramic assist that really works! I took several pictures and then used their software to stitch them into one nice picture. See what you think. This one is a view of the Na Pali Coast on Kauai.



If you click on it, I think you can see a bigger version. I have a few more panoramic views to post. Maybe later this week.

July 14, 2008

Pearl Harbor

As I mentioned the other day, our trip struck me as a mix of authentic and contrived experiences, and this describes our trip to Pearl Harbor as well. Perhaps my expectations were a little on the high side. After all, I felt as if I had been there before. It was also one of the longer days on the trip, so my fatigue grew through the tour.

We started early and ended up in line waiting to get into the memorial and museum. I had been reading about the attack and how America experienced it almost as an archetypal American event similar to Indians attacking the generic homestead, or the shocking losses to the "other" at the Alamo or Little Big Horn. Pearl Harbor fell into that for many--a treacherous attack by the non-white other. The racial aspect was something that concerned the OWI (Office of War Information). They did not want our films and portrayals to emphasize the racial difference of the Japanese, but wanted to emphasize a conflict of systems and ideas.

So when I watched the movie introduction and went through the Arizona memorial, I had some of that in the back of my mind. When I referenced the propaganda movie, that was rather harsh, perhaps, but there is an element there. The film shows original footage (including obviously some gleaned from Japanese archives) and then some footage from early documentaries showing the American spirit responding to the attack--emphasizing the melting pot of American citizens (except, of course, Japanese Americans). Heartwarming stuff.

In retrospect, there was much I admired about the memorial. Seeing the outline of the Arizona and the seeping oil made it very real, and very authentic. But there were other issues (fair or not) that caused me some discomfort.

1) The idea that everyone who perished that day were heroes. This is not a criticism of their service or sacrifice, mind you, but I would imagine that many of those who died that day would have scoffed at the idea that they were heroic. They were just doing their jobs. Some, I am sure, acted heroically and tried to save others. But just being there didn't make them heroes.

2) Likewise, the arbitrary nature of the adoration. Is there a wall or memorial for those who died a few weeks after Pearl? In a battle that didn't conform to the idea of treachery and deceit?

3) (And this one was more unspoken, and not fair to attack to the memorial or the Park Service presentation) the specter of 9-11 and the "Greatest Generation." I recently received an email saying that Bush's error on Iraq was not the war, but the assumption that he led the same country that fought WWII. Yet, in the footage of the response to the tragedy of Pearl and the attempts to rescue the wounded and dying, I saw the previous versions of those rescue efforts here in Oklahoma City and following the World Trade center attacks. World War II was different because our President then called us to sacrifice and to rally behind the war effort against a known and definable enemy. Roosevelt didn't tell the American people to trust him and then go shopping. Likewise, black and white film doesn't mean that people in the past were more patriotic or "Greatest."

4) The assumption of victory and the "rightness" of our cause. In this case, I sincerely believe that we were on the right side of that war--don't get me wrong. Fascism had to be stopped. But out of that "victory culture" has come a sense that all of our wars or military actions are the same way. It almost becomes a circular logic--we are right because we fight, and we fight because we are right.



The tour of the Missouri was less emotional and more almost just factual in nature. It was cool to see a ship that size and to see how it operated. I had forgotten that it was still in use during the Persian Gulf War. But during our tour, we heard a couple of stories that were rather interesting. The first was about President Truman's visit to the Missouri. The ship's captain planned for the President to eat in the Officer's mess, but Truman insisted on eating with the men--and also standing in line for his food like everyone else.

The second story was actually the most positive and uplifting one for me. During the battle for Okinawa, a Kamikaze bomber hit the Missouri--you can still see the dent in the ship side. It caused very little damage and no casualties for the ship, but ended, of course, the life of the pilot. The men on deck wanted to throw the rest of the man's body overseas in disgust. But the ship captain insisted on waiting until the next day, folding the remains in a makeshift Japanese flag and giving the Japanese soldier a proper burial. The men questioned this, noting that he had been trying to kill them. The Captain said that the Japanese soldier was just doing his job, just like all of them. He was fighting for his country, and deserved this small bit of respect.

July 13, 2008

Back. Bleary-eyed, jet-lagged, and exhausted. But back.

So we went to Hawaii on a cruise with SOF's family. A once-in-a-lifetime vacation, and a very good family get-together. But I am exhausted and trying to avoid crashing too early. If that results in some typos or bizarre prose, you now the excuse. This time.

But also a trip that had us thinking a lot about a wide variety of things--from affluence, to colonialism, to historical memory. For once, I chose very wisely for my travel text. I am a fan of Tony Horwitz (Confederates in the Attic is still one of my favorite books) and realized I purchased a copy of Blue Latitudes some time ago, but never read it. So I pulled it out for the plane trip and cruise, and it served me well. Reading about Cook's voyages to the Pacific was a perfect way to approach and view the islands. Though it did present the experience through a particular lens. I was ever mindful of the European view of Polynesia and their cultural differences--the impact of Christian missionaries (both positive and the many negative impacts)--and the continual residue of colonialism.

This reading informed so much of my experience--from our brief experience in ocean kayaks to the most bizarre and awful Luau at a ritzy resort. Watching the "Polynesian" dancers (Maori, Hawaiian, Samoan, etc. all performed by the same dancers) made me feel more like a colonizing invader than ever before. Likewise, watching three drunk frat boys (or older) splash around in a hot-tub to a cover band doing the Beach Boys--WHILE reading a discussion of Cook's own rather reserved upbringing--simply made me feel queasy.



I finally decided that I was torn between the "authentic" and "in-authentic" experiences on this trip. That paradigm is not completely satisfactory, because many of the experiences included both "real" and "contrived" elements. The tour began with a trip to the USS Arizona Memorial and Pearl Harbor. One would think that would be an intensely authentic experience, but I found it oddly ambiguous. Real war experiences combined with a propaganda-style movie introduction--followed by a gift shop filled with all manner of consumer goods to commemorate.... something about "infamy."

But I return to that metric--flawed as it is--and will try to unpack some of those observations this week. But first, a few of our many photos:

Waikiki Beach



Arizona Memorial at dawn



And one of me on horseback on a beach in Kauai. For the doubters.... This horse doubled as a team-roping heeler when he wasn't ferrying around some tourists. His name was "7-11." I feared a broken down nag, but 7-11 was a cool horse.



Glad to be home...

July 3, 2008

Light blogging for a while

SOF and I are going to be taking a little time.

So, in the meantime, some discussion? The Holy Roman Empire was neither. Discuss.


July 2, 2008

More on torture's consequences

Not only does it create more terrorists, but it is endangering our own operatives

Key quote:
"Operationally, the torture story has already had a chilling effect in keeping CIA officers off the streets and out of the back alleys of a dangerous world. There is a deep and realistic concern that they could be captured and tortured themselves.

Old hands will recall the case of the CIA Beirut station chief, William Buckley, taken hostage in Beirut in 1984 by Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad, and held until his death there in 1985. An operational assignment to Beirut after the Buckley affair was a personal security nightmare -- but the heightened concerns were limited to that rough neighborhood. CIA officers could still do abroad what they did best -- move around and understand, perhaps as well as any, the lay of the land.

Today, for CIA officers, and literally all U.S. officials abroad, much of the world resembles Beirut in the mid-1980s. A look at any U.S. embassy must be through crash barriers and razor wire. These serve not only to keep America’s adversaries out, but to keep American officers in, crippling the intelligence and any foreign-policy missions at the worst possible time."
The author suggests that the CIA is damaged goods right now, and made less effective by these people. Let's remember, they took their operational manual from the Communists--even those operational manuals dedicated to getting false confessions. Are we now surprised that the very agency dedicated to keeping us safe through intelligence is now the hunted.

Add this to the list of things that Bush allowed under his watch. He delegated the hell out of this, and turned our military and intelligence agencies over to sadists and thugs. And not the good kind.

"Believe Me, It's Torture"

Hitchens chooses to be waterboarded and he still has nightmares about it.
One used to be told—and surely with truth—that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not. Did we notice what a frontier we had crossed when we admitted and even proclaimed that their stories might in fact be true? I had only a very slight encounter on that frontier, but I still wish that my experience were the only way in which the words “waterboard” and “American” could be mentioned in the same (gasping and sobbing) breath.

Americans and Communists

Turns out that that trainers at Gitmo were pulling verbatim techniques from the Chinese communists--techniques, it turns out, that were intended to produce false confessions. Earlier reports had some of the techniques taken from KGB manuals, and then there is, of course, the use of former gulags as "black sites" to hold terrorist suspects.

Some of you know this, but I grew up in a Republican world with the Cold War ringing in my ears. I remember, very distinctly, worrying about nuclear attack, and hearing phrases like "better dead than red." I remember every mention of how the communists in the Soviet Union and China had no respect for human rights--every example of "kangaroo courts" and other forms of fake justice. As a young man, the idea of who we were as a people was firmly rooted in the oppositional force of this kind of totalitarianism.

When I read about my country converting old gulags, and recycling old communist torture techniques, it makes me sick to my stomach. More than that, I see how little people (not readers of this blog, obviously) care about this. I remember when the first allegations of torture appeared. I said to SOF (incredibly naively, as it turns out) that torture would force a divide between Christian conservatives and the Bush people. To say I was wrong is to understate it. Amazingly, most of the conservative Christians who led the charge for Bush in 2000 not only signed on again in 04, but again for the party in 06. And even more, they said nothing critical about torture.

It makes me sad for who we have become.