Southern Baptists theology written on Etch-A-Sketch

Sad, but true:

The SBC president, who appointed that committee, would later say, "The wife should not be burdened with the necessity of working outside the home."

When he was chairman of the SBC's Council on Family Life in 2003, he said, "Particular attention should be given to the specific roles established in the Scripture for the husband and the wife in the areas of provision and management. The husband should be vocationally focused and able to provide for his family."

Now SBC leaders are reinterpreting their statement.

None does so more dishonestly that a seminary professor who wrote last week that "the Baptist Faith and Message does not address the question of women in secular leadership, only spiritual leadership."

Up is down, right is wrong, pre-marital pregos is great, Palin is a reformer, and God only dislikes pushy women who take charge in their house. Or a church. But they can rule a country. No problem.

Jeesh. And these are the people lecturing us on moral absolutes?

Wednesday morning

After a very tough day on Monday, I feel better these last few days than I have in over a month. I have been putting ice on the back routinely, and think that is accomplishing what taking some NSAIDs would do, without the additional stomach problems. Still a ways to go, as my right leg is not working as it should, but the pain is much less. Last two mornings I have been able to sleep later instead of waking around 5 in pain.

And I don't have a lot of time this morning, as I have to get going on some work. But saw a few things during the coffee/reading that might interest some.

Tomasky suggests that McCain and Palin have learned the lessons of the Bush administration and decided to "take them up a notch." Bush learned that the press didn't fact check, but merely passed on lies in a dutiful fashion. McCain has learned that lesson and he and his Alaska counterpart are lying on a daily basis. The Bridge to Nowhere nonsense continues, even though it has been refuted. Lately, the McCain camp is saying that Obama wanted to teach kindergartners explicit sex techniques. Nope. But until the press actually factchecks, we only have McCain and Palin's own internal morality to count on. I know she is a Bible believing Christian, but so far, that only means that the religious right loves her, no matter how badly she lies, or how juvenile and mean-spirited she is. WWJD? Lie his ass off, evidently.

Tony takes on the contradictions between the right's theology and their political stances.

And finally, this from a, er, Pennsylvania friend about the politics of racial resentment. I think he has a lot of good points--especially that the Republicans are playing to working class white resentments about "elites." We have discussed that here at the blog many times, but it is worth reminding how utterly ridiculous it is to suggest that voting for someone "like us" is a good idea. This "dumbing down" of the Presidency is ridiculous, and of course, we are living with the results after the last 8 years. That people want to spin the dial for 4 more with this same approach just makes no sense.

The Old 97's must have been thinking of Inhofe

When they wrote the song, "Let the Idiot Speak." The man, as this short piece shows is so unbelievably ridiculous that he makes me embarrassed to share a state with him. If you haven't heard, he said that it is relevant to ask if Obama really loves his country, all, you should know, because according to Inhofe, Obama is opposed to wearing a lapel pin. Moron. And inaccurate. But mostly moron.

Speaking of that, Governor Palin slipped in a very cheap shot at Michelle Obama when she noted that she had "always been proud of her country." Yeah, that just means that you aren't paying attention. If you looked at our history of racial injustice and didn't feel a little shame, then you need to seek help. If you looked at the poverty exposed by Katrina and didn't feel ashamed, you need to open your eyes. And if you didn't feel a little shame when Bush admitted that the United States of America now tortures prisoners, then you need to reexamine shame. And pride. And patriotism.

The thing is, I know she didn't write that line. The racist wing of the party did. They are constantly trying to portray the Obamas as other worldly and non-American. I would tell them to be ashamed, but the shame emotion was long eradicated from the right wing of the party.

As Jim Inhofe demonstrates every time he opens his mouth.

Sunday morning

A bit discouraged this morning. The back is better, I guess, but incrementally so. Over the last month or so, I think I have slept through the night once. My sympathy for those who live with chronic pain increases every day.

Ok, enough complaining.

Reading through the blogs this morning, I ran across this from conservative David Frum who, by the way, famously took credit for the phrase "axis of evil" as a speechwriter for W, so is hardly a common source for me to quote. But he is unsettled by the process of selecting Sarah Palin as much as many liberals. Here he answers an email and explains that he believes that executive decision making is incredibly important, and requires a specific skill set--a set that he sees no proof that Palin has:

"Worse, from my point of view, is the assumption that because she is a conservative Christian that she therefore has intelligent conservative views on every other subject, from what to do with Fannie Mae to what to do about Iran. That's a greater leap of faith than I can make."

He also compares her to Bush in how she appeals to Christian conservatives and notes, I think with regret, that Bush has lacked the leadership skills necessary to be a good President.

It is this approach to knowledge that bothers me more than anything--as I have said before. And this is not a new issue for me. I remember in my early college days, when I was still more comfortable in the church setting, I still resisted the assumption that a Christian was inherently more moral or competent than a non-believer. But some around me in the church, would automatically hire someone, or rent a spare room, or trust a Christian with important business solely on that identification rather than turn to a reliable and vetted non-believer (or perhaps a believer who didn't advertise it). Perhaps I knew too many in the church who I didn't trust, like the guy in BSU who could quote chapter and verse, but also liked to play dirty in our sports games, and who I never trusted behind my back.

None of this is to say that being Christian disqualifies either. I don't mean that. Just as I knew Christians I wouldn't trust with anything, I knew many I trusted with my life. But a person's beliefs about salvation and the after-life don't say anything about their ability to govern or make good fiscal or policy decisions. Christian conservatives seem willing to turn over the entire store to someone who sees the world as they do, regardless of if they have the expertise or experience to make those decisions. In the case of Palin, she not only seems to buy the creationist argument, but also has hinted that the Iraq war is not a geopolitical conflict of interests and different identities, but is a simplistic "good v. evil" contest.

On that note, I found this interview on the role of expertise:

"The attitude that anyone's opinion on any topic is equally valuable could spread, and there are some indications, such as widespread vaccine scares, that suggest it is happening. A world in which there is said to be no difference between those who know what they are talking about and those who don't is not one that anyone who thinks about it wants. Such a society would be like one's worst nightmare, exhibiting many of the characteristics of the most vile epochs of human history."

I am afraid that the Republicans are playing to just such a constituency that believes their opinion on cell division and historical complexity is equal to any expert.

*****

Finally, this morning, saw this "quote of the day" from the DMN Religion blog. This entry from friend of the blog, Gordon Atkinson, aka the Real Live Preacher:

"'I am considered by many to be a liberal minister, which is the kiss of death for any Baptist preacher with ambition. Fortunately for me I have none in this regard. However, I'm always amused by my reputation, because I am so careful about this sacred calling and the scriptures from which all sermons are born. I have no tricks. I don't tell stories that are not my own. I never do anything but read the text and try to encourage my congregation to wrestle with its meaning, just as I have the week before. That's all I am called to do. I don't have the right to do anything more than that.'

McCain/Bush--updated

Nothing seems to make one of my Republican friend's head asplode more than the suggestion that McCain is Bush 3. Not so, he declares. Sure, he may have hired the exact same neo-con advisors who thought invading Iraq would be easy. And sure, he is appealing to the same anti-intellectual religious crowd who cared more about gays marrying than torture. But he is a mavrick, goddamnit.

Sigh.

From Sara, this comparison between John Bush McCain and George Bush is quite striking.

McCain:
"I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn't even noticed. Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That's going to change on my watch. My opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We're going to help workers who've lost a job that won't come back, find a new one that won't go away.

We will prepare them for the jobs of today. We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities. For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage."--from John McCain's Nomination Acceptance Speech 2008

Bush:
"America's growing economy is also a changing economy. As technology transforms the way almost every job is done, America becomes more productive, and workers need new skills. Much of our job growth will be found in high-skilled fields like health care and biotechnology. So we must respond by helping more Americans gain the skills to find good jobs in our new economy... we must ensure that older students and adults can gain the skills they need to find work now. Many of the fastest growing occupations require strong math and science preparation, and training beyond the high school level. So tonight, I propose a series of measures called Jobs for the 21st Century... I propose increasing our support for America's fine community colleges, so they can... train workers for industries that are creating the most new jobs. By all these actions, we'll help more and more Americans to join in the growing prosperity of our country. Job training is important, and so is job creation."--from George W. Bush's 2004 State of the Union speech

Jon Stewart has some clips of those similarities.



Sure glad they are different people. If we keep repeating the "mavrick" lie enough, will people believe it?

This is a small one, but the lies really start to mount

And I am wondering why it doesn't matter more that Palin and McCain repeat lies like her selling the luxury plane on Ebay for a profit when they actually sold the plane through a broker for a loss.

As many have noted, Bush and Rove seemed to have read Orwell (well, no one thinks Bush read Orwell) as a manual rather than a warning. Their willingness to repeat demonstrable lies over and over again with absolutely no shame really should be one of their legacies. That McCain and Palin seem to have gone to school on that tactic should be of great concern.

And let me also note, for the record here, the insanity of religious conservatives supporting this kind of behavior. When I left the Republican Party and the Baptist church, I heard from many that I was leaving a foundational approach to truth, where there was "one truth" and instead becoming a moral relativist where "truth was my opinion." I think you can see the disconnect there.

I know politics are politics, and politicians will often spin and spin and spin. (Funny aside, according to one report from the forthcoming Woodward book, John McCain got so angry at the Bush admin for their constant spin. I think he has gotten over that--perhaps as he has decided to listen to all the same advisors who got us into this mess in the first place). I know politicians can't be counted on to be openly honest, but the Bush people seem to have so lowered the bar that they don't even have to try any more.

I am hopeful that one positive thing out of this last week is that McCain has lost the edge he had with the press, and am hoping that they will (gasp) fact-check these bastards more often.

sigh.

Friday.....finally

This week has been extra long--which is odd for a short week. Perhaps it was avoiding the RNC Convention as much as I could, yet trying to keep up with what happened.

And the back has been a problem. This week, the therapist wondered if there wasn't some kind of herniated disk involved in the sciatic pain. I didn't want to hear that, but doing a little reading suggests that I am in good company. Today's treatment added the traction table to my experience. Hooked up to electrical impulses before, then strapped down on a table and stretched out. Before the traction, one of the techs said to the guy helping me, "did you have the talk with him about traction?"

That was ominous. But the treatment was really pretty cool, consisting of two velcro belts--one around my ribs and one around my hips as I lay on top of a two part table. Then they hooked a cable up to the hip belt and towed me out of the room. No, not quite. They alternated half my body weight and a quarter of my body weight for about 12 minutes. They actually gave me a "kill switch" in case it became too uncomfortable or started to pull me in two. Ok, I made up that last part. It was mildly uncomfortable at first, mostly because of the tightness of the belts, but the traction itself felt pretty good. The therapist said I might have grown an inch or so during the treatment. Maybe I should have started that earlier in life....

This has not been a fun month, I must say. I have very gradually improved, but still feel far away from where I want to be. I think this weekend will be interesting to see how the traction helps. Next week, I have two more sessions scheduled, and then we will see what happens after that.

But for this weekend, I would like to watch a little football and do a little relaxing. Hope you all have a great weekend.

Westmoreland says he was clueless in making 'uppity' comment

Westmoreland says that he grew up around Atlanta, was born in 1950 and never heard the term "uppity" used as a racial warning. I think either this man is too dumb to run for office, or is a complete liar. Or both.

Elegy for a Maverick

Dionne's column this morning is on point:

"The Republican crowd here has gleefully played into the worst stereotypes of their party as a privileged class resistant to change.

When Rudy Giuliani referred to Barack Obama's past as a 'community organizer' Wednesday, the crowd broke into ugly, patronizing laughter. These, presumably, are people who never needed a neighborhood advocate. Imagine if Democrats ever reacted that way to someone who worked as an entrepreneur or a church leader."

I avoided the speech last night, as I have avoided the convention as a whole. And I am sure I am not the only one who is glad to see both conventions behind us. If only we could say the same thing about the election!

Kind of funny

But also perhaps Republicans might want to look a little closer at Lynn Westmoreland's "uppity" comment to understand why their outreach to black voters has failed , most starkly when they hosted a reception for black participants only to have no black delegates.

If Westmoreland was from somewhere other than the south, he might be forgiven for thinking that he could use the word "uppity" without it being a racial slur. But he is from Georgia. He knows what that word means.

As Ubub noted in an email, perhaps this is preferable to the coded racism that we often see from the Republicans. Better to be openly racist, perhaps.

I didn't watch Palin's speech. I am sorry, but I can't watch the Republicans right now. Perhaps sometime in the future, I can stomach it. But several have noted one thing that was not there was much attention to truth. Palin continues to lie about her opposition to the "Bridge to nowhere" even though she ran her gubernatorial campaign in support of that Bridge. Finally, even the AP calls her on that, among other lies.

As many have noted, Palin seems to have incorporated the Bush approach to truth--which is keep telling your lies without shame in the hope that your base will believe them. Just keep lying. Palin seems to have learned that lesson well.

In addition, as Bruce, at Mainstream Baptist notes, community organizers are deeply offended at how dismissive Palin was toward community organizers.

All of this just reinforces what I argued the other night. This is the Rove playbook--run a divisive campaign aimed at getting your base active and screw the rest of the country. Bush has served (and badly at that) only half the country and has had very little concern for those of us who voted against him. That was made most literally true when his Hud Secretary turned down grants to someone after finding out the person voted for Kerry, and learning that Monica Goodling filtered interviewees based on their love and adoration for the President.

If Obama does nothing else, I would like him to show that the President is the President of all of us. Palin has learned the opposite lesson, and McCain has demonstrated that same disdain for those of us who question him. That isn't leadership.

New language--Palinguage

A primer of sorts: My favorite item:

"Black teen pregnancies? A 'crisis' in black America.

White teen pregnancies? A 'blessed event.'"

Palin and Special Needs Children

She claimed in her speech to be an advocate but slashed funding for special needs education.

Palin as unreformer

TPMMuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Palin As Reformer? Not Quite...

Speechless. Just speechless.

This guy is big on the 10 Commandments (can't remember them, of course) but evidently not beyond racism. Openly.

Why Susan Eisenhower matters

Or part B to Tuesday's post on ID and knowledge. And thanks to everyone for not jumping on the fact that I mistakenly had Eisenhower's name as "Sarah." I know you all saw it, but decided to be nice to a guy too lazy to google her name. You are all too kind.

But back to the topic at hand. This concept of replacing knowledge with "belief" and "feeling" is all too common these days. I was musing the other night (that is right, I muse) about all the disasters we have experienced under Bush. Not that all of them are his fault, mind you, but just thinking through these bad occurrences. I wonder how many of them, since Bush was in charge, are assumed to be "acts of God" by religious conservatives? How many assume that God called Bush so "who are we" to question that calling?

I have run into this, and even blogged about it before. While Hurricane Katrina was clearly an natural occurrence, the NOLA disaster was man made. Completely. And by no means does all the blame lie at Bush's feet. Only the last few issues, but there is blame to spread on reducing the marshlands, not funding the levies to keep up with their maintenance, and of course the level of local political corruption that undermined all of that. Bush responded horribly, and had turned FEMA into a joke and a political chit, but the damage to NOLA was deep and longstanding.

Yet, everyone I talked to from the conservative side saw this only as an "act of God" and no one was to blame. Same with many of the other disasters. The bridge collapse in St. Paul. Clearly a human creation, but people talked about it as random. Same with the mortgage crisis, and as far as I know, the problems in Iraq.

When details and facts are secondary to belief and feeling, that is how we approach these issues. You notice that we have done nothing to shore up those bridges, right? Andrew Rice (running for Senate here in Oklahoma--send him money!) repeated just recently that there are bridges in Oklahoma that he drives over campaigning (and of course, locals do all the time) where you can see through the bridge as you drive over it. And that is not by design. But if we run a "faith" based government, then God will decide when those bridges fail.

So why does Susan Eisenhower matter? I saw her last night on Colbert and was struck again by her intelligence and bearing. She is not only the granddaughter of the President who led the "Greatest Generation" and won World War II, but she is an expert on Russia and the Near East. She understands foreign policy and that understanding led her to leave the Republican party of her family. Not an easy task--something I can understand.

And you would think that a person of that stature and experience would carry some weight. But in the Sarah Palin constituency, her expertise is a bad thing. Instead of saying, "hey this person understands Russia and she is more comfortable with Obama than McCain" people are most likely to simply dismiss her. They prefer Palin because she is more "like them." They like how they "feel" with Palin.

The religious right has been trained and taught for generations to distrust experts and academics. Not just to approach them skeptically and critically, but to distrust and dismiss their expertise. Unless, of course, they agree with conservative Christianity on some point.

It puzzles me to no end that we would turn over policy decisions to people who base their decisions on what they believe, but we did it for the last 8 years. Say what you will about Bill Clinton (and I have much to say), he relied on a lot of experts to determine many policy decisions. He politicized some decisions, no doubt, but some were heavily informed by some non-partisan expert approach. Bush has completely removed those. He makes every decision, famously, by his "gut" and by what he believes. And that "belief" overpowers any rational discussion.

That isn't faith. Don't try to tell me it is. It is irrational and destructive policy. And the same people who would never turn over their financial well-being to a financial analyst with no background in finances, and who made decisions purely from his gut--have turned our national security over to someone who does exactly that. And with the pick of Sarah Palin, conservatives are primed to do that again. National security? God will take care of that. We need to stop abortion.

Sigh.

Jon Stewart on Republican inconsistency

And it really is genius. Give it a watch.

Key points from that last link on Palin

Because I forgot to include them in the original post. Sarah Palin - Note from Anne KilkennyHer take on Palin's attributes:

•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at
explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores
and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city
without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built
streets to early 20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on
residents
•pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city
government in Wasilla’s history.

Several points there, but the one that jumps out at me is her lack of transparency. Elsewhere in the email, she also points to her vindictive firing. Both are features of the Bush administration and I am unsure why we would want more of that.

Sarah Palin from someone who knows her

H/Tip to Ubub for this. Worth the read.

Wednesday afternoon

Or whatever. PT didn't go quite as well today as I had hoped, but I think this is just a long process. Frustrating, but part of it, I guess.

****

After class, I have glanced at the news and a couple of interesting notes on the blogs. I wonder if the cool weather outside is sign of hell freezing over, because Dr. Laura is furious about how Palin is managing family and politics. Just not what I would have expected. So many conservatives have just switched how they evaluate women and family that I expected all of them to.

And Byron York (not a liberal) echoes what many of us liberals have asked:

“If the Obamas had a 17 year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if that they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.”

Instead, we are getting lectures about Palin's superior family skills, and the superiority of conservative Christians on family. Even when the women put their professional life ahead of their family. If a liberal does that, she is selfish and secular. If a conservative does it, she is self-less and deeply pious.

Sigh.

All signs point to the McCain camp blaming all their troubles on the "liberal media" and even spreading stories about the Palins to drum up sympathy among conservatives and disaffected Dems. Perhaps the definition of cynicism, but I have come to expect that from this crop of Repubs. Joe Klein pushes back, and points out just how bizarre this is for someone like McCain who used to enjoy the full support of the media, or what Chris Matthews called "his base."

***

Tony has a good post on Palin's theology that is worth reading (of course, all his posts are worth reading!).

Many parts of this impromptu speech given at her church is problematic but this one on Iraq is unconscionable. America's unilateral invasion of Iraq is a "task from God?"

This reminds me of a conversation I had with an older gentleman outside of the annual camp meeting in our community last week. He and were exchanging idle pleasantries as we talked about our families. He asked how many siblings I had and I should not have remarked that I have a brother serving in Iraq. He then went on a diatribe about how this is God's war and how the terrorists want to kill us all and that we should be thankful for President Bush and that he has the "cajones" to take it to the terrorists. Whatever.

This blurring of faith and policy is exactly what last night's post was about, and this is a good example. In Faith World, Bush isn't a bumbling, incompetent torture enabler who compares liberals to the VC, but the hand of God.

****

Some Christians are questioning this, and even someone who worked for Jerry Falwell (good God, are those locusts?). See Steven Waldman's warning for Christian conservatives

Mark DeMoss, former chief of staff to Jerry Falwell and now a leading Christian public relations executive, is hoping that Palin turns out well but has been shocked and worried by the reflexive Christian embrace of her.

"Too many evangelicals and religious conservative are too preoccupied with values and faith and pay no attention to competence. We don't apply this approach to anything else in life, including choosing a pastor." Imagine, he said, if a church was searching for a pastor and the leadership was brought a candidate with great values but little experience. "They've been a pastor for two years at a church with 150 people but he shares our values, so we hired him to be pastor of our 5,000 person church? It wouldn't happen! We don't say, 'He shares our values, so let's hire him.' That's absurd. Yet we apply that to choosing presidents. It blows my mind."

****

Josh Marshall has a great open mike conversation between Peggy Noonan, Mike Murphy, and Chuck Todd. Too bad the media can't be this honest on the air:

Chuck Todd: Mike Murphy, lots of free advice, we'll see if Steve Schmidt and the boys were watching. We'll find out on your blackberry. Tonight voters will get their chance to hear from Sarah Palin and she will get the chance to show voters she's the right woman for the job Up next, one man who's already convinced and he'll us why Gov. Jon Huntsman.

****


(cut away)

Peggy Noonan: Yeah.

Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --

PN: It's over.

MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

PN: Saw Kay this morning.

CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --

MM: They're all bummed out.

CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --

CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.

MM: I totally agree.

PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.

MM: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.

CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.

MM: Yeah.

****

Sullivan returns to the Bush/Torture meme and has a great explanation why Bush describes McCain's torture, but doesn't actually call it torture in his ass-holish speech last night (my descriptor, but what else you you call someone who equates the VC with liberals angry at Bush's policies?).

The reason he put it this way, I infer, is that if he describes what was done to McCain as torture, he has incriminated himself for war crimes.
I repeat: The reason he put it this way is that if he describes what was done to McCain as torture, he has incriminated himself for war crimes.

Wednesday morning, RNC version

I am not watching. No way. Sorry, but my anger and rage is enough as it is. :) Watching George Bush is enough to make me spew obscenities. Watching people applaud him? Forget about it.

Reading through the blogs this morning, a couple of interesting notes. Sullivan, who has been a watch-guard on torture, notes that both Bush and Thompson describe John McCain's POW ordeal without mentioning torture. Of course, for Bush he can't, because the techniques that McCain experienced are not torture under his definition. That is really stunning to me. Still. I still remember telling SOF that torture would force evangelicals away from Bush in droves. I don't think I have ever been so wrong, or so surprised to be so wrong.

Of course, both are speaking to the same group of people who applauded Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani for embracing torture. Republicans, your base is fucking scary. Sorry.

Then just read at Yglesias that Bush said this:

If the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry Left never will.”

Sigh. People angry about George Bush's policies are the same as Vietnamese Communists. Bush is so unbelievable it makes your head spin. Dishonest to the core and lacking even basic morality, I still wonder what conservative evangelicals saw see in him. What a thug. Sorry, but it is hard to describe this man's lack of character. Thugish, dishonest, stupid, and mean. Wow, what a poster child for the Gospel! Heck uv a job there, religious right! You have just made your heartfelt faith synonymous with this guy. More like a mob boss than the Jesus I know.

But to the topic of the week, Sarah Palin. Turns out that as Governor Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms. Part of why it is hard for me to take the pro-life people seriously. If you really want to preserve life, you don't fight contraceptives for teens, and you sure as hell don't cut funding for homes that help teen girls bring their pregnancies to term. Let's see if I have her take on this:

1) abstinence only sex education with no instruction on how to safely protect from either STDs or pregnancy outside abstinence.

2) if teenager gets pregnant--no abortion

3) and no state resources to help that pregnant girl bring that pregnancy to term

Sigh.

And as the vetting continues, we find out all sorts of things about her past. When she ran for mayor (part of her executive experience, you know) she did so in a very small town, where locals there remember her injecting national politics into what had always been a non-partisan, and mostly congenial race. She made abortion and gun rights part of her race in a tiny town, and when she won election, she ran with an iron fist--firing people disloyal to her, and not allowing her staff to even speak to reporters.

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

My way or the highway. And boy do I love the conservatives who think that we should have less government, but enough to censor the books at the library. Wow, where has traditional conservatism gone?

(I was thinking about that in conversation with Ubub last night and remembered that Barry Goldwater lost patience with this crowd. BARRY GOLDWATER! And he was crazy! )

Those are all deeply relevant to this discussion about her governing approach. And then there is her crazy pastor. I am really curious how this will play given that conservatives still like to throw Reverend Wright in my face. Just two weeks ago, Sarah Palin sat in church during this:

Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

"Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment — you can't miss it."
Palin was in church that day, Kroon said, though he cautioned against attributing Brickner’s views to her.

Does that reflect Palin's views? I have no idea. But the same scrutiny that followed Obama better be applied here.

Then there is this nice video the Governor sent to the Alaska Independence Party. Here she welcomes their convention and speaks about how much she shares their approach to defending the Alaska constitution. While it does appear that Sarah Palin was not a member, her husband certainly was. The founder of the AIP had some very strong words about America.

The founder of the Alaska Independence Party -- a group that has been courted over the years by Sarah Palin, and one her husband was a member of for roughly seven years -- once professed his "hatred for the American government" and cursed the American flag as a "damn flag."

Does Sarah Palin share those views? I doubt it. But her husband was a member of the party until recently, and I think it is fair to ask her about both these issues. Don't you? Since Obama has been linked to William Ayers, isn't it fair to wonder if Sarah Palin objected to the AIP's denigration of America. Does she actually love this country? Perhaps she needs to prove her patriotism in her speech tonight. My friend D was laughing about the AIP--"a group that loves America so much they want to stop being a part of it!"

Oh wait. Not only is she white, but she is conservative. As Jon Stewart joked last week, "everyone knows Republicans love this country. They just hate half the people in it."

A note about Palin's family. I really appreciate that Obama responded so well to this. He has to, and it was a good thing. But I also want to note that McCain and Palin made her family, including her infant with Down's syndrome and teenage pregnant daughter--political pawns. We are supposed to vote for her because, in part, her family values and her willingness to bring that baby to term and support her pregnant daughter. They made family just another political commodity, much as they have done to faith. Well done.

And let's just play a little party game. Imagine any of these scandals attached to Obama and tell me how Richard Land and James Dobson would respond. This will be fun. We can turn it into a drinking game. Or take anything that Dobson and Land have recently said about feminism and replace the word "Palin" with the word "Hillary" and watch their heads asplode.

Sigh.

Why Palin's views on ID matter

I have a friend who says that the Religious right's control of the GOP is a myth and a conspiracy theory. That is much harder for me to swallow when I read that John McCain chose someone who the religious right absolutely loves and has been lobbying for for months. Richard Land, James Dobson and the entire Council for National Policy crowd loves this pick. Or that those same religious conservatives were threatening a revolt if McCain chose a moderate.

Steves asked a perfectly reasonable question about addressing ID questions that come up in class, and Palin has clearly presented her answer in this kind of "first amendment context." But I think Palin's response also speaks to broader problems in our political dialogue and the relationship between church and state and knowledge and faith--and even this election. I just read about McCain hiring the same slime merchant who slimed him kind of cemented it. Add that to the Palin VP choice, and you see McCain is returning to the Bush playbook. He is appealing to the same religious base who has, in my opinion, ruined the Republican party. He is appealing to people like Dobson and Richard Land who cared little for torture issues, but everything about abortion and gays. Cared little if the economy struggled, but wanted to make sure that gay people weren't marrying. Cared nothing about programs to clean up the environment, but wanted to make sure that sex ed included no instructions about sex--just abstinence. No teaching kids how to use condoms correctly. That is the base that Palin brings in to play. And I have no clue why Republicans who watched the last 8 years would want to revisit that. In other words, anyone who makes James Dobson happy, should make the Republican party rationals nervous.

Palin's response to the ID question made evolution and science something you have opinions about. How do you feel about evolution? We might as well ask people's opinion on gravity. "Do you feel that gravity is a force or is it something else?" Yet that is where religious conservatives come at science and knowledge. And it isn't just science. Just last week, had a conversation with a very conservative religious person about our history. They had an email about our "godly heritage" and knew for a fact that our country was "founded on Biblical principles." How do they know? This is a smart person, don't get me wrong, but has not read a history book since college, if then. We are a Godly nation because that "feels right" and has to be true. The details of history are irrelevant, and people like me who study the past are wrong. Just as my zoology neighbors are wrong about evolution. Sure, they study it every day of their lives in their labs and experiments. But Sarah Palin and her constituency can tell them they are welcome to their "opinion," but they don't "believe" in evolution.

This has infiltrated so many of our policies. As polar bears swim for their lives in the warming arctic ocean, the people making policy decisions about climate change simply ignored those experts who warned them of global catastrophe. Why? Because of some version of "faith based politics." Sarah Palin doesn't "believe" that global warming is man made. I am not doubting her intelligence, but has she read the studies? Has she looked at the evidence and the models? Or does she simply "not believe" it to be true? How important is her "belief" here? Why do "beliefs" trump studies and scientific models, which might be flawed, but at least are out of the realm of pure "instinct" or what we want to be true. Facts and data should matter, even if what they tell us is limited.

Abstinence only became the law of the land, practically, and has been shown to fail in study after study. Rational people would stop that, but those who base their policies on what they "feel" and "believe" don't. And they haven't. Palin herself advocates abstinence only even though she has a very personal example of it not working. What is worse, many of those taught in abstinence only classes are exposed to stds and dangerous situations. They aren't better off. It actually endangers kids.

This, by the way, is not a shot at their intelligence. I have no doubt that Sarah Palin is a very smart lady. My problem is not with their smarts, but how they understand knowledge. Here in Oklahoma, the same religious legislator who said that gay people were a bigger threat than terrorism, pushed a bill through our state house (governor vetoed it) that might (depending on how it was interpreted) made it illegal for teachers to count a student wrong for answering according to their heart felt beliefs. Can't force a student to learn evolution, if their belief says otherwise. I honestly wonder if there will be a day when I have to somehow address historical concerns that God created the constitution, and if I dissent, I run into trouble. If I challenge basic ideas about American Exceptionalism I would run afoul of those who "believe" that God created our nation. My historical knowledge against their religious "beliefs." In a discussion about religion and theology, we are all in the same boat. But when studying history or science, their beliefs are not terribly relevant.

McCain could have reinvented the Republican party and brought back in the Sarah Eisenhowers, but he chose to bring in the Sarah Palins. He could have pushed the religious radicals out of the party and taken so many from the center (the old Republicans and conservative Democrats) that Obama would have had to run far left to even have a chance, and then he would have aced himself out of the race. The McCain who ran in 2000 had the credibility to openly reject the politics of the far right. But he chose to go to Falwell and beg his forgiveness. He then started his run for the far right, cementing that with the nomination of Sarah Palin. He didn't have to do this. But he chose to do this. And if he wins, the people who took the Republicans to the disaster that was the Bush presidency are right back in it. And those of us who watched with horror, are wondering again, where the rational Republicans are? Karl Rove told Bush after 2000 that the middle didn't matter. All that mattered was the base. Which might be fine for winning an election by a slim margin, but as we have seen, it sucks for governing. One of McCain's campaign people said that issues didn't matter. We are in two wars, facing huge economic issues, but McCain doesn't think that issues matter. It is all about what people "feel" about their candidates. So we can count on the same people who savaged McCain in South Carolina, to savage Obama on the orders of John McCain.

That is why this all matters to me.

Richard Land is dishonest

Hardly news, I understand. H/t to Bruce at Mainstream Baptists for this story from Christianity Today where Republican operative SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission director Land gave an interview glowing about the Palin pick:

My wife says to her Sarah Palin is what the feminists’ movement was all about. You can have a family and a husband and a career, that you can do it all. My wife has a Ph.D. in psychology, she’s in private practice as a psychotherapist.
I find these questions about ‘how can she take care of her children and be vice president’ sexist. Nobody asked that question to any of the male candidates. That’s a family decision. As long as she and her husband are comfortable with it and they seem to have done a wonderful job with the children they have, it’s nobody’s business.

I agree. I just don't remember such inclusive language about Hillary Clinton who, by all accounts, also did a fine job of raising Chelsea. I guess that just doesn't count.

Let me answer a question you haven’t asked me. I had two secular reporters ask me, ‘Dr. Land, you as a Southern Baptist believe that women are not to be pastors of churches and women are not to be head of the home. Wouldn’t it mean that if Sarah Palin were elected vice president, her husband would tell her what to do? And I said, ‘If you don’t mind my saying so, that’s an asinine question, but I’ll answer it.’ Mrs. Thatcher said that her husband was head of her home and she ran the country. Queen Elizabeth said that Prince Phillip was head of the home and she was head of the country. If Mrs. Thatcher had been an American, I would’ve enthusiastically supported her for president of the United States.
The only restrictions we find in Scripture are, that for whatever reason women are not to be in charge of a marriage and women are not to be in charge of a church. That has nothing to do with governor, or senator or the House of Representatives, or president, or vice president.

Ok. Got it. That seems like blockheaded theology, but whatever. Land is openly about electing Republicans, not about speaking truth to power. And that should be patently obvious with this response. What is more amazing, to me, is that Palin gets absolutely no criticism for exposing her teenage daughter, or infant son to national attention.

Palin pro birth control?

Or she seemed to be in 2006:

"Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.

'I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."

I don't have a problem with any of that. Kind of wonder why she would support abstinence only sex ed with that belief?

More on the vetting

A good article from the Times on McCain's vetting (or not) of Palin:

"At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.

Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania."

As one blogger noted--what a maverick! Can't even choose his preferred VP candidate.

Palin: Day 5

And we are already seeing the risks of choosing someone not very well known. What I am hearing is that McCain really wanted to nominate Lieberman, but was told that his Republican base would throw a hissy. Richard Land and the fundy wing of the GOP had been demanding one of their own, and pushed for Palin. The Council for National Policy (ultra-right wing and secretive group that all Republican Presidential candidates have to cowtow to--includes Dobson, Lahaye, and God only knows who else) also pushed for Palin. McCain went with her.

There is much for a liberal like myself to oppose Palin. She supports abstinence only sex education, and actively opposes the alternatives. But as a historian, this caught my eye and made me cringe. During her run for the Governorship, she responded to a questionnaire about the issues:

1. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

I hope everyone realizes that the Pledge was written in the 1890s and the "under God" phrase was added in 1954. It wasn't "good enough for the Founders."

Sigh.

The McCain camp and even one of my friends claims that McCain had been looking hard at her for months, and that the vetting was sound and thorough. As ubub pointed out in an email, hat seems very hard to believe given all of the real distracting problems that have come up in the first couple of days. And, in fact, now we know that McCain is sending a team of lawyers to Alaska to, well, vet her. Seems backwards to me.

And the problems are many. By the way, the pregnant teenage daughter is not a problem for me because of the daughter. It seems bad judgement for parents who know about this, but still say yes to the McCain camp. However you slice this, that pregnancy would become news, and as Tony has noted on his blog, that girl is going to resent her parents for making her embarrassment a national issue. So, not about the pregnancy, but about judgement, Palin looks bad.

But the other, regular political problems are also an issue. She isn't the anti-earmark hawk McCain (and Palin) said she was. She was more than happy to take federal funds for the "bridge to nowhere" though she now says she said "no thank you." She is under investigation for an ethics violation, and while she was cooperating with that investigation, she has now used Alaska funds to hire a lawyer to dispute the investigation in full and is now avoiding a deposition. We also now find out that she was a director of Ted Steven's 527 (some had defended her experience and maverick standing by noting she had fought Ted Stevens or stood up to him). Just this year, she said she didn't know what the VP did on a daily basis, and she has demonstrated less than an informed understanding of the Iraq war. And more curious is her membership in an Alaska secession movement.

As Hilzoy noted:

The McCain campaign has been more than willing to question Obama's patriotism on the basis of nothing at all. Yet when asked about Sarah Palin's past membership in a secessionist party, "a McCain spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment."

As I have tried to make clear from the beginning, this is not an attack on Palin personally. She may be a very nice and good person. But McCain did not vet her and made this decision in a slapdash manner. Some say that the first Presidential decision is picking a VP. Obama chose someone very smart who has extensive knowledge of foreign affairs and by all accounts knows how to govern--how to get stuff done. McCain picked an evangelical woman to play to his base and didn't even bother to check on her past issues. His judgement in this issue does not suggest a reasoned and intelligent choice, and I must say that I trust him even less when thinking of him making decisions about American national security.

At some point, the GOP is going to have to stop listening to Dobson and Land. But as Tony noted in the comments, many conservatives love Palin and refer to her as "God's woman for God's time." That confusion of the spiritual and the political is part of why we are on the end of a disastrous Bush presidency. At some point, perhaps Republicans are going to say "enough."

Sigh.

Ah, Evangelicals

Tony pointed me to this support from evangelical leaders for the Palin family. And you know what? I don't mind their support for the Palins. This family has been through a lot. Yeah, the mom knew that her daughter was pregnant and still thought that putting her on the national stage was ok, but regardless, these are just people and just another family trying to negotiate difficult times. Evangelical leaders like Richard Land and James Dobson want to extend grace and acceptance to this family trying to do the right thing.

If that were all, of course, it would be nice. But, of course, they refuse to extend that level of grace to liberals in a similar situation. If Obama were the one, of course, with a pregnant teenage daughter, can you imagine Dobson and Land reaching out and defending his family?

Nope, because Land and Dobson are conservatives first, and maybe Christian third.

Limping through Labor Day

Sigh.

And just about to go on a news fast. Saw that McCain and Palin's slogan is "country first." Because the rest of us are traitors and only Republicans love their country. And of course, because a 72 year old man nominating a 44 year old, untested woman from Alaska is "putting country first." Did you know he was a POW? And I saw that Mona Charen (conservative) said that Palin was "from America. Obama is not." I am sure there was nothing about race in that statement. Not at all.

Sigh.

And I am sure that Palin's supporters are consistent in that they want opportunities for all women. To her credit, I saw that she mentioned Hillary at a speech the other day crediting her for opening opportunities for women in politics. Nice. Kind of like the Democrats mentioning McCain's service positively numerous times during last week's convention--to widespread polite applause.

Conservatives booed when Palin mentioned Hillary. Because, of course, they are the party of morality. I keep forgetting that. God prefers them, and they are more moral than us Godless, morally relativistic liberals. Just ask them. When they support torture, by God, it is justifiable. When they invade other countries, it is moral. Feminism is evil even when it opens up opportunities for conservative women too. And at least they don't like gays.

Sigh.

*****

So I will turn my attention back to music. And football. Looks like some good music coming out this September. Jenny Lewis and Mark Erelli both have new albums, and the Kasey Chambers/Shane Nicholson album will finally be available in the states. Calexico finally has a followup to Garden Ruin. All of those look intriguing.

Saturday morning and a rough night

I assume that this is all part of progress of therapy, but I had the worst night in over a week. It will get better, or at least that is what I keep telling myself. Meanwhile, my sympathy for those who battle pain on a daily basis grows.

One thing is clear about the McCain vp choice, they bumped Obama's excellent speech off the front pages, which was one of the things they wanted to do. Everyone is talking about Palin and trying to figure out who she is. Turns out she is quite attractive, and well-spoken. But she was also a Pat Buchanan supporter during his last run for office, and has said some really odd things of late. She doesn't really know what the VP does, for example, and she has no idea what our plan is for ending the war in Iraq. Good to know that McCain sees national security as so very important. We also learned that until last week, McCain had met her once and talked to her on the phone. She is also under investigation for ethics violation

The scandal concerns allegations that Palin's office improperly fired the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to remove Palin's ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper after his bitter divorce from Palin's sister. In addition to the legislature's investigation, the Alaska attorney general is also looking into the matter.

Not only that, but she then appointed a sexual harasser to replace the person she allegedly fired improperly. The Alaska AG is supposed to wrap up his investigation in early November.

I think this pick is unbelievably irresponsible. People will talk about Obama's inexperience, but he has, in the last year, mounted an impressive national campaign and defeated one of the strongest political machines in modern memory. Can anyone imagine Palin doing that? And while we can argue about the VP (is it important, is it not?) Obama clearly picked someone who can help him govern. Biden knows how to get things done, is widely admired for his knowledge of complex issues and his competent staff. McCain, in his seventies with some health problems, chose a completely unknown and untested person as his Vp. Which decision shows concern about long term? Which decision demonstrates a continuation of Bush's governing from the "gut?" Which decision reminds us of Harriet Miers for SCOTUS?

Oh, and this from Karl Rove when he thought Obama was going to pick Virginia governor Tim Kaine for veep:

With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished. I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it’s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It’s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I’m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?

As I just noted on Tony's blog, I am sure Karl will sing a different tune for Palin. Her experience in a much smaller state with a tiny population will mean that she is actually more prepared than Obama. It must be nice to not have to worry about truth when you speak. (In fact, Tony has several posts on McCain's choice this morning if you are interested.)

The other part of this is the unbelievable cynicism of this pick. While Cindy McCain bashes Michelle Obama, and Republicans everywhere bash feminism and refuse to support equal pay, now we are supposed to look at Palin and take this seriously? Religious right organizations are all applauding, but they have done nothing to support a woman in this role. Why are people who use the term "feminazis" applauding a woman Veep pick?

Christine Wicker thinks that this support is thin:

"First off, a big chunk of Religious Right folks wouldn't let women lead prayer; they're sure not going to let a skirt lead the country.

Fundamentalists can prove that God wants women to be under the dominion of men with a whole slew of Bible verses. It's God first. Men second. Women and children last."

That may be true, but those same people also supposedly believe in honesty, humility, and some basic Biblical injunctions that might, just might mean that our country wouldn't torture. Those same people have proven to be the strongest support for Bush in the country--still a majority of conservative evangelicals give Bush thumbs up for his performance. I don't trust for a moment that their racism against Michelle and Barack will overpower any poorly positioned opposition to women in power. That opposition only refers to liberals like Hillary.

Can anyone imagine talking heads saying about Palin--as they did about Michelle Obama prior to her speech--that she needs to demonstrate her patriotism? The fact that those words were uttered about Michelle Obama should make us all ashamed. But Palin is white and pretty and conservative. Her patriotism is assumed.

None of this is helping my mood, my back, or my plummeting view of conservatives and evangelicals. Sigh.

McCain picks a woman VP

I am sure that has nothing to do with how well the Democrats did this week in undermining the message the GOP had tried to create about Obama. You know, spending months trashing him as a superficial, celebrity air-head with no experience. That is a hard argument to sustain, and I think McCain knew it. Had to go for the long ball (sports metaphor) and so chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The problems with this pick are pretty clear. If the problem with Obama is lack of experience, then McCain (not a young man) just chose a VP candidate with even less experience. And while it is notable that she is a woman, I am not sure that will appeal to feminists who wanted Hillary, or will completely shore up that religious right group--many of whom like to talk about women being submissive and staying home. Of course, they also believe in morality and humility, but they had no problem with Bush, so we can't discount their ability to self-deceive.

But while I think Obama chose Biden primarily for his ability to actually govern (not saying there weren't political considerations), McCain chose Palin ONLY for the politics of it.

Then this morning, I see this interview where Palin was asked about teaching intelligent design in schools:

"Next, Carey asked about teaching alternatives to evolution - such as creationism and intelligent design - in public schools. […]

Palin: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information."

Right, because they are of equal weight and value. The same logic would lead us to teach the holocaust deniers right next to the actual history, or the mound builders as aliens right next to, real history. Any alternative explanation is equal.

During the olympics, someone noted that China's great economic expansion is helped by the fact that they don't have debates about evolution and intelligent design. Of course, they are not a democracy, so that changes it too, but they are too busy using science to fuel their economy. But we must spend half our damn time arguing about a faux science.

Our global competitiveness is at stake. But this "alternative viewpoint is just the other side" is also part of our problem. Kudos to the Republican party for being the party of anti-science. And kudos for opposing equal pay for women but deciding that you can still use them for political means.

Sí, se puede

Another historic night. And another night where I am proud to be a Democrat, and proud to be an American.

We are a better people than this last 8 years have shown. We are better than torture. We are better than bullying war. We are better than an economy that tells people "you are on your own." And btw, when every Democrat has noted that we have to take better care of our wounded veterans, I think of what a huge moral crime it is to send people into war and then not take care of them. We can do better. We have to.

Sí, se puede

Physical therapy, pain, and introspection about politics

Today I returned to the doctor who sent me to a nearby physical therapist for some work. They were able to work me in, and I spent two hours with electrodes, ultrasound, stretching, wrenching, twisting, and some moist heat. When she hooked me up to the electrodes, the line from Strange Brew flashed through my head:

See, if you'd stick to your 12-point maintinence program, eh, then we wouldn't have to jump-start you like this. Oh, no, you had to do it your way... you think you know everything, eh.

But afterwards, I felt better than I have in weeks. Not back to normal, but better. And I realized just how much pain had weighed on me. It made me so much more compassionate for those who struggle with chronic pain in their lives. And I have just had a few weeks of it.

Last night I felt about as close to needing to call my therapist as I have in over a year. I felt the rising anger and frustration and feeling almost out of control. Part of that, I see now, was the pain wearing on me. Very hard to see clearly in that setting.

Doesn't mean that my issues are gone. But when I was laying on my back, with electrodes sending a very nice little current into my lower back, I considered why I have been taking the current political debate at a personal level. No real answers yet, mind you, but some good questions. Clearly, for me, politics is more than just some abstract issue that is "out there." Some of my friends seem to see it that way, but for me, it is also personal. It is those relationships with people who lectured me about my liberalism and gloated when Bush won. It is the sense of disillusionment that I have recounted here of watching moral people turn away from torture. It is the sense that 8 years of Bush has given us nothing but failure--yet some seem to want to continue that failure. It is that absolute disdain this administration and supporters had for my concerns and political frustrations.

I am not sure how to make sense of it all yet. But I am working on it. And it is easier to see when the pain isn't shooting down your leg.

DNC night 3--Historical

And, as my best friends will attest to, I am in a pissed off mood. Not from the convention. Hell, I thought the Democrats actually did great tonight. No, I was pissy because I tuned into some conversations that were just bashing everyone from Clinton to Kerry.

Fine.

I really don't care what others think. I watched Bill Clinton give an amazing speech. One of the best I have seen. He actually raised the issue of torture, and called on us again to be better. But in between him and Joe Biden (who I also thought was great) was an amazingly fiery speech by John Kerry, (only to hear people grousing about him being boring). I bet you 100 dollars, Kerry had to rush his speech because Clinton went over time, but he still turned in one of the highlights of the convention. He also raised torture--dared to say that America doesn't torture (obviously a commie pinko wimp) and called the Swiftboaters what they were--smear merchants. He then pointed out the obvious, that the Republicans don't own the American flag--something that still grates with me personally.

And then, Barack Obama came out. Forget all the bullshit conventioneering. Forget the manufactured nature of this event (and next week's in St. Paul). Forget the pageantry.

The Democrats officially nominated an African American for President of the United States. Historical. Something many of us thought we would never see.

History.

Republicans offer us Swiftboating and smear for this campaign. I prefer history. And even if we lose this campaign, I will be proud to stand with history.

DNC thoughts

We watched Hillary's speech last night, and I thought she did a great job. Though I have few problems with her policies, I am not a fan. The way she played the primary game drove me crazy, and Bill did not handle himself well.

But last night, she turned in a great speech. It has been a long times since I actually got into one. When she quoted Harriet Tubman? Damn. That was something.

But her best line of the speech, and the one that the Obama people have to like the most was this one:

Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years. Those are the reasons I ran for president, and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for president.

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

Voting for McCain will do nothing to help those issues, and that was a masterful way to make that point.

Thinking back to the primary, I remember wondering about Hillary's electability. That was my big concern about her. I never doubted that she could govern, but I thought that the best way to raise money for the right was to use her name. Irrational as it often seems, people on the right just hate her. When I thought she was going to be the nominee, I suggested that was a little overblown--that the right would go after who ever we put up. In retrospect, of course, that is clearly true. McCain, after swearing off Swift-Boating style, now endorses it. They will do anything to make Obama a monster.

And that is the rather interesting thing, isn't it? After forcing us over the last 40 years to believe that Republicans believe in "family values" we have this situation--where a divorced and admitted womanizer who married into his money is running against a guy who grew up in a one parent household and worked his way up the ladder, forming what certainly appears to be a very healthy family along the way. Hard work, family values, commitment, etc., right?

Several observers noted that the Obama family presented up there Monday night, and through this campaign, has been far more traditional, and far more conservative, and far more familial, than anything the Republicans have tried to force down our throats.

Some of my real frustration of late comes from this lack of basic honesty and even decency in our political discourse. Oppositional responses are required, even if they are dishonest and clearly wrong--what Jon Stewart might call the "Crossfire effect." Calling something as a lie--as when the SwiftBoaters first disparaged John Kerry's service in VN--seems out of the Media's playbook. They have to address how it "played" politically. That made this Juan Williams reaction to Michelle Obama particularly refreshing. Calling it what it was.

Contrast that to those crickets you hear when you turn to the religious right--the self-proclaimed defenders of the family. Any of them standing up and applauding the Obama's work ethic, or approach to family, or, gasp, "family values?" Nope. Those are the same crickets you hear when you turn to them for moral outrage on torture.

No, we are forced to choose between Obama as "messiah" or Obama as "monster." Can't just see him as a great example of the American story. A great example of the American Dream, dare I say. Sullivan notes the complete disconnect between the rhetoric of the right regarding work and effort and reward and family, and how they address their own candidates:

"Mitt Romney is a bad thug, which is why he'd be a fatal choice for McCain. And so it was rather bizarre to hear him say that John McCain deserves all his houses/mansions/compounds because of the 'hard work' of McCain and his wife. McCain, to my knowledge, has never had a private sector job - unless you count working for his father-in-law - and his wife is a largely absentee heiress to her father's beer fortune. They inherited their fabulous life-style, and did nothing to earn it, unlike Mitt. For good measure, Romney, McCain and Bush were all products of the affirmative action called rich-and/or-powerful daddy. Obama did it all with no father and no inheritance. But he's the elitist. Their chutzpah is enough to drive you up the wall."

How dare he? No inheritance AND black? And still successful? Nope. He has to be a monster who kills live babies and secretly loves Bin Laden. When John Kerry married Theresa Heinz, he was a gold digging liberal. McCain, on the other hand, has received permission to cheat on his first wife because of his POW status.

I have said this before, but it merits repeating. I don't ever want to be lectured on moral values by anyone who has stood with these people. Just save it. And stop sending on those emails that whisper that Obama "might be a muslim."

Sigh.

Michelle Obama

Yeah, I watched her speech. And I can't help but walk away from it with the weight of history. An African-American woman speaking as potential First Lady. One who grew up in a working class family. Mock that all you want, but that is something. And that lady has substance.

Monday

And about to head off to class. Back is improved, though still stiff. No pain pills last night, so that is good.

In other news, I turned off the anonymous comment option. Just tired of the floaters. If people want to engage, that is fine, but I don't think requiring at least an alias is too much.

And finally, I am so tired of the Clintons right now. I understand not liking to lose, and I understand not even liking Obama personally. Who cares? What I don't understand are people who say they would have voted for Hillary as their first choice, but instead of voting for Obama (with nearly identical policies) they are going to vote for McCain. Can anyone explain that? Someone who thought that Hillary was a good choice instead is willing to go through 4 more years of Republican leadership?

sigh.

Obama's economic philosophy

And despite what you hear from Republicans, it is neither marxist or lacking substance. The entire (long) article is well worth the read, but here is Obama articulating essentially where he thinks his economic policy fits in:

"“I think I can tell a pretty simple story. Ronald Reagan ushered in an era that reasserted the marketplace and freedom. He made people aware of the cost involved of government regulation or at least a command-and-control-style regulation regime. Bill Clinton to some extent continued that pattern, although he may have smoothed out the edges of it. And George Bush took Ronald Reagan’s insight and ran it over a cliff. And so I think the simple way of telling the story is that when Bill Clinton said the era of big government is over, he wasn’t arguing for an era of no government. So what we need to bring about is the end of the era of unresponsive and inefficient government and short-term thinking in government, so that the government is laying the groundwork, the framework, the foundation for the market to operate effectively and for every single individual to be able to be connected with that market and to succeed in that market. And it’s now a global marketplace.

“Now, that’s the story. Now, telling it elegantly — ‘low taxes, smaller government’ — the way the Republicans have, I think is more of a challenge.”"

That is the challenge. Republicans have dumbed down our political discourse to the point that anything complex is incredibly hard to sell. Well, our economic situation is complex. Saying "tax cuts for everyone" is simply not a policy.

Sunday evening update--and a question

The back is feeling better after a pretty rotten night and very sore morning. I finally caved to the lure of the pain pills the other night, and they helped a little. Today, the pain seems to have moved back where it started in my lower back--a very familiar place, I might add. So I am mildly optimistic that I am improving. School starts tomorrow and the last few days have not been terribly productive, so I hope my lost time will not show up in a big way. Between that and my back, I am hoping to avoid too much of the political news of the day.

In one of my email conversations, we have been pondering the issue of race in America. Where are we on that subject? Is the nomination of Obama proof that we have made progress?

I kind of think that we have made progress. Not as much as we would like to think, but progress still the same. Not as much as we would like, because I truly believe that Obama had little choice but to nominate a white male as his running mate. Two minorities on the ticket, or even a white woman (imo) would have been too radical. But more progress than I sometimes see because I hear so many people looking for other reasons not to vote for him. They can't come out and say it is because he is black, but could perhaps believe one of the scurrilous rumors that the right has planted about him (radical Muslim, radical Christian, baby killer, etc).

On that note, Frank Rich suggests that the media is more concerned about race:

"Most Americans, unlike the press, are not obsessed by race. (Those whites who are obsessed by race will not vote for Obama no matter what he or anyone else has to say about it.)"

A good column, btw, that included this little tidbit on media bias.

What Obama also should have learned by now is that the press is not his friend. Of course, he gets more ink and airtime than McCain; he’s sexier news. But as George Mason University’s Center for Media and Public Affairs documented in its study of six weeks of TV news reports this summer, Obama’s coverage was 28 percent positive, 72 percent negative. (For McCain, the split was 43/57.) Even McCain’s most blatant confusions, memory lapses and outright lies still barely cause a ripple, whether he’s railing against a piece of pork he in fact voted for, as he did at the Saddleback Church pseudodebate last weekend, or falsifying crucial details of his marital history in his memoirs, as The Los Angeles Times uncovered in court records last month.

Ok, I am done for this evening. Hope you all have a good week.

Where McCain's income matters

Yglesias points to how McCain’s Tax Cut would mean that Cindy and John would get tax cut of over 370 thousand dollars. The Obama's would make out better under McCain's tax plan too.

McCain's comeback on the house gaff

And it strikes me as not a very good answer:

"McCain spokes-Doberman Brian Rogers had this to say, 'The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff. It's not as if he lives in ten houses. That's just not the case,' Rogers said. 'The reality is they have four that actually could be considered houses they could use.'

That makes it better, doesn't it? Only four houses? Wow, that guy really knows what life is like for most of us.

And then there is this, which many people are starting to point out is becoming a very tired response, and one that might end up costing McCain some votes:

He also added: 'This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison,' referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War."

This "I was a POW" card only goes so far. No one doubts that was tough on him, and no one I know doesn't appreciate and value that service. But at a certain point, this turns into a really cynical use. We can't criticize him on marrying into wealth (after dumping his first wife because of her injuries) because he was a POW? When Elizabeth Edwards pointed out that McCain has had government sponsored healthcare his entire life, he played the same card.

Just not sure how often he can go to that well.

Obama/Biden

I saw it in my email (along with several other million Americans). I have to say that I like this pick, though he scares me a little. Biden is the most dynamic and interesting of the picks floated out there. While Tim Kaine puts me to sleep, Biden keeps me watching. His stuff during the debates was just classic--like the one where someone asked him a very long-winded question about his own long-windedness. Could he be brief? "Yes." Or his take on Rudy Giuliani's message: "A noun, a verb, and 9-11."

A little hard to control, but smart, and unlike our VP pick in 2000, a damn fighter. He will not back down like Lieberman. I am still mad about how stupid Joe Lieberman was in the VP debate with Cheney. He was awful. Seeing him now, makes you wonder if he threw the campaign because he was working for the Bushies. :)

Ok, your thoughts? Will Biden be good?

Turns out that the McCains Own Eight To Eleven Houses

But Obama is the elitist. I think most of us can tell how many houses we own. The counting isn't hard.

Susan Eisenhower no longer a Republican

The National Interest:

My decision came at the end of last week when it was demonstrated to the nation that McCain and this Bush White House have learned little in the last five years. They mishandled what became a crisis in the Caucusus, and this has undermined U.S. national security. At the same time, the McCain camp appears to be comfortable with running an unworthy Karl Rove–style political campaign. Will the McCain operation, and its sponsors, do anything to win?

That appears to be the case. Eisenhower is now an Independent and this is how she sees the current Republican party:

"Hijacked by a relatively small few, the GOP of today bears no resemblance to Lincoln, Roosevelt or Eisenhower’s party, or many of the other Republican administrations that came after. In my grandparents’ time, the thrust of the party was rooted in: a respect for the constitution; the defense of civil liberties; a commitment to fiscal responsibility; the pursuit and stewardship of America’s interests abroad; the use of multilateral international engagement and “soft power”; the advancement of civil rights; investment in infrastructure; environmental stewardship; the promotion of science and its discoveries; and a philosophical approach focused squarely on the future."

Friday morning

And still cursing. Still avoiding the pain pills, for what that is worth, but not easily.

After swearing at me (as only Tony can) for beating him to a couple of blog posts, Tony has a couple of beauts. Interesting that the average senior pastor makes over 80k, and 25% make 97k. Serving God is good business, evidently, and may explain why so many of those pastors vote Republican ("the poor should become pastors"). But my favorite, out of touch pastor for this week is Rick Warren, with this amazingly self-righteous defense of his own success:

"“Do you know why God blessed ‘The Purpose Driven Life’ book and made it the best-selling book in the world and the best-selling hardback in history?” he asked, referring to his 2002 devotional book which has sold over 25 million copies worldwide. “You know why I think it went? ’Cause God knew that He could trust me with the money. He knew that we weren’t going to spend it on ourselves.”"

As Tony noted, the "next Billy Graham" seems to be pretty sure what God thinks (unlike the original). I never read the book, but is it possible that it is just another simplistic self-help book that took off? Or is the Da Vinci Code good history? I forget.

****

Speaking of Warren (and that Saddleback forum sure did raise his profile, not that that was his intent, of course), the discussion about Obama and McCain continues. Sully has a post that reminds me of one of my own regarding the two candidates view of evil.

McCain's vow to "defeat evil" at Saddleback was both asinine machismo - like we haven't had enough of that after eight years of Cheney - and deeply unChristian. There's no way a president of the United States or any country can "defeat evil." Evil is everywhere and always for Christians - until the Second Coming. Particular manifestations of evil can be defeated, but not evil itself. That endures, and is part of us too.

In this, of course, Obama's theology is far more mainstream than McCain's bravado. And Christians are first reminded that we too are capable of evil - even as we try to do good. And so a genuine effort to spread democracy and human rights can even allow some leaders, divorced from real Christianity, to commit absolute evil in the name of good.

Like, say, torture.

McCain, Bush and evidently the Religious Right still think that evil is only what other people do.

****

Not sure if this qualifies as evil, but it still stinks. The fat idiot who still draws big Republican guests said that Obama's nomination occurred because "nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy". Sigh.

The Olympics

Or the post I was thinking about this morning. Must of forgot with the pain and annoyance.

As I said, I didn't plan on watching the Olympics, but knew I would. SOF likes it more than I do, and I always get roped in. I enjoyed watching Phelps win his 8 medals, and have even enjoyed some of the gymnastics and beach volleyball.

SOF and I noted that this game did a little better job with the human interest stories. There weren't as many. Or maybe I just used the DVR better this time. I don't know. And the coverage was, for the most part, not bad.

Fewer stupid interviews. Fewer, but not zero, and one interviewer has to be the worst. The guy who interviews the track athletes on the field is just horrible. The other night, he grilled the American who was disqualified in the 200 and asked the dumbest questions imaginable. Hell, just interviewing a guy who went from Bronze medal to nothing was just dumb and heartless. And we were just watching the 4x100 relay where the Americans dropped the baton, and the same doofus asked Tyson Gay (who has had the worst Olympics--and not even counting when the American Family Association website filter had his name as "Tyson Homosexual.") what happened. He then asked him why his olympics had gone so badly, and I left the room when he asked, "Do you think part of what makes it so tough is that you were expected to win Gold in the 100 and 200?" Mr. Gay would have earned my respect for dropping that guy with a right hook.

And the commercial part of the games left me cold, as I thought it would. But it also just reinforced that the games are more commerce than athletics or good will. That became clear when I was watching the women's beach volleyball championship last night. One of the Chinese players kept adjusting her hat, and when she did, I noticed the little Nike Swoosh on the hat. Not sure there are different nations represented her as much as Corporate brands v. some real athletics.

But I watch, and part of it is that despite the waste of resources of these athletic ventures, and the stupidity of so many of the people (the gymanst's father who derides silver as some kind of failure) there is always a kernel of genuine drama and human connection that makes the games fun. During the last event final for the women, the Chinese gymnast gave the American gymnast a hug after her performance. Yeah, they all do these fake hugs and kisses, but this was one of those that spoke of something more than fake. It was a genuine connection between people.

Perhaps in the midst of a lot of stupidity and excess lay some actual human emotions and connections. Those aren't bad things.

Wiley Drake is back on the crazy

H/t to Jadon for more Wiley Drake the wingnut gift that just keeps coming. He is "sadden" that Focus on the Family pulled its "mildly humorous" video asking for prayer on Obama's speech. Drake says nuts to that, calls for more Imprecatory prayer using a "Telephonic Prayer Meeting."

Batshit crazy. And harmful to our political dialogue in ways that I can't even count. Humility, it seems, is only for other people. When you have God speaking directly into your ear, humility is for saps.

Grownup Christian Conservative Evangelicals? Time to retake your faith. Calling down curses on people isn't cool. It isn't cool when radical Muslims do it, and it isn't cool when dipshits like Drake and Shepard do it. You don't own God and it is time you recognized that.

Or perhaps it is just the meds talking. But I don't think so.

Thursday (I think)

And I had a rather bad night. I know others suffer with far worse pain, but this has made it tough to sleep. I may have to try the pain pills. Kept thinking all night of the Ryan Adams song "Drugs not working" (though I am pretty sure he meant something else).

Anyway. Back to the news. I am kind of shielding myself from some of the Obama/Mccain stuff. Just too painful. McCain is so far away from the seemingly principled maverick of 2000 when he called sleaze campaign tactics what they were, and stood up to the "agents of intolerance." This year, he uses the sleaze tactics and hugs the agents of intolerance.

Sigh.

One thing I will note, and I am not providing links on this one (just don't feel like it right now) is how desperate some on the right are to paint Obama as some kind of animal. That is what they mean when they say he is a closet Muslim, or a radical Christian (shouldn't you have to choose between those two?), and it is absolutely what they are trying to do by painting him as some infanticidal radical.
Obama is pro-choice, but the odious Jill Stanek is spreading around a story that Obama doesn't even care about infants who have a chance to live. To put her radicalism in respect, she recently called Michael J. Fox a "cannibal" for supporting embryonic stem cell research, and has called for the end to condom distribution in Africa. She is not an honest broker, something I found out in some real-life email exchanges over her willingness to use racist imagery to attack Native Americans.

But the part that disturbs me the most is their willingness to demonize him into some kind of monster. Those on the right seem to think that shame is only applied to liberals, and they don't even need to think about it. They should be ashamed every time some "religious" person spreads a scurrilous lie about someone. I believe there is something in the Bible about that.

***

Speaking of religious right voters, (H/t to Bruce at Mainstream Baptist) for this story:

People who listen to religious radio shows like "Focus on the Family" are less knowledgeable about current events than the average American, according to a recent survey on media consumption by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.


Just 12 percent of regular listeners of religious radio could correctly identify which party now controls Congress, who is the current U.S. secretary of state and name the new prime minister of Great Britain.

That is ahead of regular consumers of media like "Access Hollywood" and the National Enquirer but behind viewers of TV news magazines, morning news shows and network news. The national average is 18 percent.

People who view "fake" news shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" are better informed than readers of "real" news programs like "O-Reilly Factor" and "Lou Dobbs Tonight." The highest knowledge of current events was found among readers of The New Yorker and The Atlantic (48 percent), NPR (44 percent), MSNBC's "Hardball" (43 percent), and "Hannity & Colmes" at 42 percent.

While I cannot comprehend how Hannity and Colmes made the list, it comes as no surprise that religious radio does not encourage a thoughtful knowledge of the issues. I used to listen to Focus on the Family (before my car had a cd player) and I can't tell you how many times I heard actual, factual news spun and distorted.

Sigh.

Time for one more this morning, but one of the things I have written about a lot on this blog (I did a search one time, and need to count up how many times) is torture. The other person who has written about this as much (if not more) is Andrew Sullivan and he has had a few posts recently noting that John McCain, while he may have manufactured some of his Christian faith, actually experienced real and devastating torture. The same kind of torture that George Bush and Dick Cheney say are not torture.

The fact that John McCain can even look at Bush without puking suggests that he made some deal a long time ago to sell his soul for power. But it is Obama who is consumed by ambition. Right.