The campaign that will not die

Yet another book is out on the 2008 Presidential race. I am not sure I can read the thing, but there are some interesting tidbits coming out, and not all of them concern Palinisms.

For example, we learn that Harry Reid uses language like "Negro dialect," and that Bill Clinton remarked to Teddy Kennedy about Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." I think we knew that the Clintons were ruthless, but it is rather shocking to read of this kind of racial language coming from our side. Well, not shocking. Disturbing.

But there are some wonderful tidbits on Palin, and this is my favorite (from the caucus blog):

"* In the days leading up to an interview with ABC News’ Charlie Gibson, aides were worried with Ms. Palin’s grasp of facts. She couldn’t explain why North and South Korea were separate nations and she did not know what the Federal Reserve did. She also said she believed Saddam Hussein attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001."

Speaking of Palin, btw, even the McCain campaign recognizes now that Palin creates her own reality. As Mudflats notes, they caught one of the more bizarre "up is down" moments in the Palin campaign when the Branchflower report came out on Troopergate. Here is what the report said:

“For the reasons explained in section IV of the report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.11(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

But here is a transcript of Palin speaking to Alaska reporters, and referencing the report.

Palin: Hey, thank you so, Meg. Thank you so much. Thank you also to our local reporters up there in Alaska. Even hearing your names make me feel like I’m right there with you at home. It’s good to get to speak with you. Let me talk a little bit about the Tasergate issue if you guys would let me and, Meg, you want me to just jump right on in there?

Stapleton: Sure governor, go ahead.

Palin: OK cool.

Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that.

Perhaps Palin did nothing wrong in that situation. And perhaps it was a politically motivated investigation. But how do you read "Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statue" and say that you are "cleared of any legal wrongdoing...any hint of any kind of unethical activity?" How do you do that?

Mudflats ends with the bigger picture of how Palin demonstrated a threat to our democracy. Hell, she still does. But her idiocy and lack of honesty is just one part of the problem. Others, supposedly responsible adults, are culpable for making her a national star in the Republican party.

The thing that Steve Schmidt and others have failed to acknowledge so far is John McCain’s culpability in this near disaster. Regardless of who supposedly vetted her, the buck stopped with him, and he chose a woman to be his potential Vice President – OUR potential Vice President – who is not only incompetent by his campaign’s own admission, but who does not tell the truth. His decision was irresponsible, and absolutely reckless. As much as we chuckle at Sarah Palin, his judgment put our country, and the rest of the world at risk in the name of his own political ambition. History will not judge him kindly.

Agreed. John McCain has squandered what might have been a favorable legacy.

Normalizing torture

I keep thinking about that Rasmussen poll that had 58% of Americans calling for us to waterboard the Christmas day bomber. Perhaps it is a bad poll, I don't know. I read that he has worked as a Republican pollster. But even that is disturbing.

Just on a whim, I googled the phrase "Republicans against torture." My Safari browser found a lot of things that Republicans oppose, or at least common search phrases. They included Obama, healthcare, Obamacare, and even Sarah Palin. But no torture.

But I did find stories on torture and Republicans. Stories like this one where a retired Lt. Colonel named Alan West is running for Congress in Florida. He very nearly went to prison for staging a mock execution on a suspected Iraqi insurgent. West now says that he might have been wrong about that Iraqi, but he would do that all again. Further, he says that no one was even tortured at Abu Ghraib. He often jokes about his own torture to Republican audiences, telling them that wasn't torture, "seeing Rosie O'Donnell naked would be torture." Turns out he isn't just a open torturer, but also an ass. Those Republican crowds love him, though.

To be fair, his initial run for Congress included no support from the RNC who wanted nothing to do with him during the 2006 election. But I wonder what his fundraising efforts are now. During the 2008 primary season, John McCain (to his credit) was booed by Republican audiences when he called waterboarding both torture and wrong. Booed. Liz Cheney still says that waterboarding isn't torture, and that sentiment is echoed by the Republican candidate in the special election to replace Ted Kennedy. Or watch here as Republican Congressman Aaron Schock openly defends what he calls "alternative torture" techniques, as long as they save American lives.

I recall so vividly when conservative evangelicals wrung their hands over their concern that Bill Clinton's sexual misdeeds would somehow teach the children bad morals. And remember, Clinton may be a lot of things, but he never said that what he did was right or ok. He may have lied about it in the beginning (actually he did) but I never recall that moment where he justfied his actions as moral or appropriate. On the contrary, Republicans commonly defend these techniques. And the people most likely to say they vote their "moral values" are at best, silent. At worst, they cheer the torturer against those they see as foes in a spiritual war.

I should not be shocked by any of this. As I told SOF this afternoon, I fully expect the next GOP candidate for President to be a torture apologist. The fact that so many Republicans consider themselves Christian makes that all the more troubling. The fact that Dick Cheney's warped morality may be seeping into the American culture is simply appalling.

I do know that the next time I hear a Republican talk about moral values, I just might puke.

on Brit Hume

If you haven't seen Jon Stewart's take on Brit Hume and his comments for Tiger Woods, you can now. Pretty smart stuff. As I told a friend this evening, Hume has every right to speak his mind, but I seriously wonder today if conservative Christians even care how non Christians (or non Conservatives) see them. They don't seem to act as if they care at all. They seem to act as if they are yelling in our face about their faith, and then wondering why we are looking the other direction. In fact, if we object, we are part of the "war on Christianity."

One of our Christmas letters was exactly like that. This from a relative, btw, who dropped me like a bad habit when he found out I was not as concerned about the Boy Scouts and the Gay agenda as he was. Fine. Drop me for my political ideology. But then don't get in my face about your faith when I am pretty damn sure that wasn't exactly in the WWJD territory.

I am again reminded of the Thomas of Assisi quote about always preaching the gospel, "if necessary, use words." Hume and his type seem to reverse that and never demonstrate anything approaching grace. Then he gets mad at me when I object to him lecturing Tiger Woods about a religion that Brit Hume knows nothing about.

Anyway...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Temple of Hume
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

2010 blogging

It has been a while. Christmas was a blur (as it always is) and here in Oklahoma we experienced a blizzard for the ages on Christmas Eve. It was beautiful, fun and scary and infuriating--all at the same time. My parents visited and I was so glad their drive avoided the bad storms on both legs.

Christmas was good. But then on New Years Eve, as SOF and I attended an Oklahoma City Thunder game, I realized that my congestion was more than that. I woke up New Years Day with a fever and grinding headache. That cold (or whatever) has persisted and hit me hard again yesterday. This morning, I feel like I might have pushed through toward the good side, or can see it in sight.

_____

So, what else is going on? During Christmas, I heard second-hand about the Christmas bomber on the flight headed to Detroit. I heard that security would make travel much harder on flyers and thought that the terrorists got just about exactly what they wanted. We often seem to forget that terrorism is not intended to destroy us in some kind of violent military strike, but to undermine our ability to function. In that vein, it has worked quite well.

But then, after Christmas, I read about the number of Republicans and conservatives calling for the bomber to be waterboarded or otherwise tortured to find out what else he knew. Rasmussen (a questionable pollster, btw) reports that some 58% of Americans support that view.

Everyone reading here knows that I consider the Bush administration one of the worst in American history--shockingly incompetent and destructive. And this is one of the by-products of that administration that shocks me to my core--that so many Americans embrace torture. And not just the bigoted and stupid--but the supposedly moral and churched--those most likely to report their political decisions based on "morality."

It still boggles that mind that people who rant about the torture of Christ, or even (as I noted before Christmas) will raise the specter of tortured Christian dissidents, see no disconnect between that sense of outrage and their endorsement of the torture of terrorists. That is how they see it, of course, that all of the people we tortured were actual terrorists. Never mind that the torture of terrorists is still immoral and counter to the teachings of Christ. Never mind that it is ineffective. (Never mind that we have tortured people to produce false confessions: see Andy Worthington: A Truly Shocking Guantanamo Story: Judge Confirms That an Innocent Man Was Tortured to Make False Confessions).

Terrorism may have won after all. It has turned our moral compass so much that we now make the same kind of moral judgements as the terrorists themselves--that it is ok to do evil things to people you consider to be evil.

This is not a new observation, but one that shows up in such amazing clarity when we watch our political discourse. When you see people who embrace torture and wiretapping then calling healthcare a form of "tyranny," then you see that our moral compass has had the indicator ripped off the base and thrown away.

Well, this was odd

During a conversation regarding the War on Christmas (which everyone here knows I find ridiculous), I stumbled across the American Family Association website. Often known for its right-wing nuttery, I found it ironic to find an ad there for a book called Tortured for Christ.

Am I the only one struck by the contrast between a book about a tortured Christian and the right wing's support or tolerance of Christian George Bush's own torture regime?

____

And speaking of the Bush approach to the world, I heard a very interesting interview last night with an author studying Blackwater:

"When we left off, we were talking about a civil suit against Blackwater in which two affidavits submitted by former Blackwater employees, each known only as John Doe, make several allegations against Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, including that he's a Christian crusader and that he may have facilitated the murder of individuals cooperating with the criminal probe of Blackwater.

So in one of these affidavits, John Doe A or B says that Prince views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe and that his companies encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.

That's a really strong statement. It...

Mr. SCAHILL: Well, I mean...

GROSS: Yeah.

Mr. SCAHILL: ...that was one of the least shocking things that I read in there because, you know, I've been tracking this story since 2004 and it's abundantly clear to me that Erik Prince views himself, and I don't say this rhetorically, Terry, Erik Prince views himself as a Christian crusader. There's almost no doubt about that. I wasn't stunned at all when I read that. Everyone at Blackwater knows that."

Joe Lieberman is an ass

And I have never really trusted or liked him. I still remember him allowing Dick Cheney to lie his way through the VP debate in 2000 without a single challenge. What an idiot. And now, he seems hell-bent on killing health care. Why? Because he is a bitter, bitter man. Chait seems to think that perhaps it is because Lieberman is is not that smart, but benefits from a general stereotype that Jewish people are generally smart. I am not sure about the Jewish thing, but am convinced that Lieberman is not a good person, nor terribly smart.

Two other small notes

One, from my new favorite conservative columnist, Bruce Bartlett on the stimulus. He concludes that the evidence suggests that it worked, and continues to help the economy. The worst elements of it? Tax cuts. Worst, in that they aren't actually helping the economy, while putting money into state and local governments, and even assisting with unemployment benefits is actually contributing to the GNP in a positive way.

Second, I have to note that Sarah Palin came to Norman the other night for a "book" signing. Evidently, the Palinites from all of Oklahoma made the pilgrimage to see the addled celebrity, and my friends reported seeing a lot of "Palin 2012" signs. There were some protestors there, including one who held up a sign saying something like, "darn, I thought I was going to get to see Tina Fey." That was my favorite.

But on a serious note, I have noticed that Palin likes to bring her Down's syndrome child (Trig) to her speaking engagements. I have no problem with that, as far as it goes, and certainly never had a problem with her bringing that child to term. But on several occasions, people notice her bringing the child to the podium to hold up to the crowd before handing off to an aide. This tactic of using her child as political prop lowers her in my estimation almost as much as her recent statement that the "birthers" have a "fair question" about Obama's birth certificate.

I know that many conservatives (including a few here) think that Palin is irrelevant and unimportant. But her celebrity among the right and her continued relevance in political discussions (poll numbers, etc) make her relevant. She is the face, like it or not, of the modern Republican party, and every irresponsible thing she does (which is often) exposes just how unserious the right is about responsible governing. That should never be ignored. And won't be, I am afraid, until the "grownup Republicans" step up and rescue their party from Beck and Palin and their disgusting ilk.

Obama and the surge

I am curious what my blogfriends have to say about this most recent Obama decision. SOF and I have spent some time talking about it, and we are still unsure. I just lectured on Vietnam and it is hard not to see the parallels between the late VN war and Afghanistan, when in both situation we tried to win the "hearts and minds" of people by killing a lot of their neighbors. They are not the same situation, to be absolutely fair, but it gave me pause as I spoke the other day.

We are, however, quite impressed with how Obama makes decisions. He has a good track record on this of making decisions that look "iffy" at the time, but prove to be pretty well thought out. As I said to SOF the other night, "he doesn't think with his gut, and thank God for that." And I mean that wholeheartedly. I think some of his critics on the right simply don't recognize serious consideration of a complex and perhaps unwinnable problem. Instead of the "decider," we have someone who actually deliberates.

In conversations with some conservative friends, I have been struck by the difference in how they see our country's founding. A) they most often see the government as some kind of external and evil force, as if the people have no say in our government, and B) they often see the role of representation as some kind of direct vote in Congress. In other words, they think that their reps have to do what they tell them to do, rather than the representative republic where the people elect virtuous representatives who then make the best decisions they can--even if they differ from those of their constituents.

Anyway. Hope you are all having a nice weekend. I would love to hear your thoughts on Afghanistan.

One of the reasons I am proud to be a liberal

Is that I have watched as my liberal colleagues have stepped outside their ideological bias time and time again. Liberals defended Larry Craig, and here is a good example when Ta-Nehisi Coates defends Mike Huckabee on the clemency issue. I agree with him here. The guy was in jail for 100 years for crimes committed when he was a teenager. Clemency was deserved here, and the problem is that there didn't seem to be a followup to make sure that this guy got the help he needed.

Conservatives seem to take pride in their tough on crime stance, even when that tough on crime stance includes innocent people. This person clearly was not innocent and clearly was a threat, but Huckabee's actions were not out of line. I don't like the guy and think he should not be President, but the right has completely turned on him over this.

Palin as Christian icon

Tony just mentioned that he went to his local Christian bookstore only to see Palin's book prominently displayed. I hadn't even thought of that angle, but of course they would promote this book. Everything I have read suggests that Palin exhibits the absolutely worst elements of Bush's persona--without the possible good sides (giving him some benefit of the doubt). She lacks even basic curiosity about matters she would decide; prefers what she "feels" over demonstrable fact; and is completely and nearly pathologically incapable of admitting error.

The fact that she has become a poster child for religious conservatives is simply sad.

Happy Saturday after Thanksgiving

I hope you all had a nice Thanksgiving week. We went over to one of our friends here in Norman and ate very well while enjoying lively and thoughtful conversations--ranging from the OU Football program to the nature of American power since the 1950s. Not bad.

One thing that came up in our pre-turkey conversations was the changing role that Americans have decided for government investment. I am starting to see the world we live in as "Reagan's world" or the world of tax "cuts" and deregulation. I would say the world of small government, but that is increasingly clearly as mythical as some kind of pure communist state. Just doesn't happen. Not where you have a complex and large economy. My conservative friends cling to the myth of the small government, just as they cling to the myth that cutting taxes on the rich magically helps out the poor.

Paul Krugman may have not originated this term, but he refers to those tax "cuts" as actually being tax "shifts," meaning of course that the burden of that tax simply went elsewhere. Perhaps to a state or local tax. Perhaps to property taxes, or more likely into regressive fees and licenses. Or, in the case of universities, in increased tuition and fees.

Take my university. My chair told me that in 1980, state appropriations made up 40% of our operating budget. That is now down to 18%. Meanwhile, our dedication to science has also decreased and my scientist friends tell me that getting those national science grants is harder than it was. Little truth of those universities, is that those lucrative grants then get spilled over into the less expensive departments where research is an issue of travel and photo-copies, rather than labs and equipment.

Where do universities make up that shortfall? They do it, of course, in a couple of ways--they raise tuition and fees. Fees, after all, are the hidden costs for most students. Second, universities increase their fund raising to wealthy donors and alums. They promise to name buildings after prominent families instead of prominent scholars--leaving our campus with a journalism school named after the family that has produced some of the worst journalism in the country.

And there is the rub. That system works ok when the economy is booming. Wealthy people have a lot of extra money, foundations and endowments are growing, and tuition increases are both smaller and less noticeable. But when the economy turns down, a rather large part of the University's budget goes down with it, making a state "funded" university as prone to the boom and bust cycle as any farmer--actually more so.

I really wonder if my conservative friends will find that their tax cut from Republican politicians comes even close to covering the cost of their increased tuition.

Yglesias points to another example of this tax shift. When the economy goes down, state and local budgets are hurt at a greater level than the large fed. Of course, since we have cut taxes and reduced our dedication to supporting state services, those services often end up being cut at the time when people need them most. And in this case, more and more kids are relying on their local school lunchroom for their food source.

Think about that the next time you hear a Republican bleating about cutting taxes. Those taxes don't just go to programs you don't like. They go to feed people who are hungry. They go to help unemployed attend college to retrain. They go to help research new technologies that fuel the economy.

Ah Republicans: If the past is a problem, just change it.

Think Progress Foxx: Republicans ‘Passed Civil Rights Bills Back In The 60s Without Very Much Help’ From Democrats

I would just dismiss this as a very uninformed Rep, but I have heard this from numerous conservatives. Most, I would add, as this post notes, miss the distinction between Northern Republicans and Southern ones, and assume somehow that the conservative Republicans of today are the same as those Northern liberal Republicans.

But make no mistake, the current GOP is the GOP who opposed every measure for social and environmental justice. To say otherwise is simply a denial of history.

back to politics

Streak had another good night and once again awoke once in the middle of the night but then went back to sleep. We are experimenting with cutting back on the sedatives for a bit, and see if that actually helps him. He still seems to be afraid of napping in the morning, and here I am not much help, because I am afraid of him napping. Well, not the napping, but the waking.

Anyway. As SOF says: we are in the bonus round and will enjoy the bonus time as long as it lasts.

Now, back to the politics of the moment:

Firedoglake continues this long discussion about the conservative nostalgia for a non-existent past. And if you haven't seen the Jon Stewart interview with Lou Dobbs, then you might want to check it out. Speaking of non-existent, that is. I used to think that Dobbs was intelligent. I am now realizing that I fall into the same trap that everyone else does with him and Dick Cheney. Their appearance, voice, etc., communicates gravitas and intelligence. Their words, however, do not.

Dobbs is convinced that Obama is no different than Bush in that he is taking the country out of the middle. When Jon tries to get him to explain why the crazies didn't somehow accuse Bush of tyranny or taking their country away, Dobbs dissembles and distracts. I don't think he knows how to answer, because he is so far to the right (while still believing he is in the middle) that he can't see it.

But amazingly, he asserts that Obama is trying to hijack the country with healthcare, and that it is a subversion of democracy, and that is why the teabaggers are so angry. Jon does a pretty good job of noting that people voted last fall, but doesn't make it explicit that Obama won a hell of a lot of votes promising to bring healthcare reform. How Dobbs can then see healthcare reform as some perversion of democracy is beyond me.

I have also been enjoying Sullivan and others post on Sarah Palin's "book." Conservatives (well, the grownup kind) are also pretty dismissive. Rod Dreher's blog is not impressed and especially with her muddled form of populism where Big Business is a problem, but then also says that those who disagree with Big Business are echoing Marx.

It is fascinating, though, to read how she discovered through her work how big business gets cozy with big government, to the detriment of the common good. But she cannot let that knowledge get in the way of reciting her 1980s GOP catechism about the market. Weirdly, she goes on and on about how capitalism must be allowed to work, and let the creative-destruction chips fall where they may ... and yet later will talk about how wrong it is that Alaska's natural gas industry remains undeveloped because it's been cheaper for Big Oil to explore and develop natural gas sources in places where the labor and infrastructure is cheaper. Sarah, I hate to break it to you, but you can't complain about government meddling in the economy as a Bad Thing, but then turn around and complain about Big Business doing what Big Business does, which is to maximize profits by cutting labor costs.

And concludes:

But she is so far from being capable of being president of the United States it's not even funny. I know, I know, this isn't news, but you'd think that if there was anything more to her in terms of intellectual seriousness and judgment than we saw last fall, she'd have brought it out in a memoir she had most of a year to write with the help of a professional writer. But there's no there there. I'm not saying she's a bad person -- I don't believe she's a bad person at all -- but I am saying she's not a credible national political leader.

Putting that mildly, I think.

A better night and morning for Streak

As I think I noted the other day, each day has been a bit of a roller coaster. Yesterday was pretty frustrating and long. But last night, for whatever reason, Streak slept a little better. He awoke around 3 with a yelp (similar to his other yowls, but much shorter) and then we heard him turn around a few times and lay back down in his crate. He then slept till 6 and was awake in a normal way and not yelling.

This morning, I decided that one of the things missing for him of late has been the daily napping that he used to do regularly. In fact, you don't realize how much dogs sleep normally during the day until one of them doesn't sleep at all. I crated him around 10 this morning and went off to do work at Starbucks (and catch up with some friends), and when I returned at 2, he was up and alert and ready to go outside. He even rolled in the grass--an old behavior I hadn't seen in a while.

I have no idea what to think at this point. I really don't. This is obviously better than the previous few days, but I am still very nervous about what is causing these episodes. The crate, however, has allowed us some freedom and him some safety and security, and that is a good thing. As SOF has said many times, we are just going to take this day by day, and appreciate the good days and good moments.

Where we are today

I posted this on Facebook as well, but here is the latest on Streak.

Yesterday was one of those days where we both went from deeply pessimistic to optimistic and back again. Streak's episodes continue, and mostly when he is coming out of sleep. I spoke with my vet friend last night and he wonders if this might not be some kind of old-age dementia where Streak is just not sure where he is when he awakes. Once he calms down, he moves well, eats, etc., though he does follow us around a lot, and he seems to not want to sleep. But last night, I took him on a cold walk and it was one of the better walks in recent memory. If you saw us last night, you would not know anything was wrong.

But something clearly is, and this morning I think we are not sure things will improve. Perhaps they will, and we all want that, but I am not hopeful for that this morning. I do know that we will take advantage of the good times we have with him and manage the bad. We bought a crate for him to sleep in a secured space, and that has already worked wonders.

FWIW, I am a bit of a basket case this morning. I seem to fluctuate between extreme grief and philosophical distance. Some of the things that have been constants are no longer constant--and it is amazing how quickly that can change. If you see me or speak with me, be warned that I might break down. I am well aware that there are bigger tragedies in the world than losing a 13 year old dog. But, as all of you know, when you spend every day with a being, even when that being doesn't talk back to you, you tend to get used to their presence. We have been talking about how much Streak has meant to us. He has pushed us out of our little nest, made us go on long walks, made us meet new people and new dogs, and has allowed us to enjoy our community that much more. For some he is "just a dog." For us, he is certainly a dog, but certainly not "just" a dog. He has been an amazing friend and companion for over 12 years.

Anyway, we will continue to enjoy Streak until it isn't good for him. And we appreciate all the nice thoughts and emails.

Good thoughts for our dog Streak

I know I have not blogged much lately. Part of it has been the intense schedule with 5 classes. Part, at least since last Saturday, has been the stress of Streak's illness. We still don't know what is going on, but he has had these seizures when coming out of a deep sleep. They are frightening to all of us (though we are slowly getting used to them) because he yowls terribly and is obviously in some discomfort. They don't last terribly long, and when he is back to normal, he really seems back to normal. The vet is treating a bladder infection as well, and we think that may be causing him some of his discomfort.

Streak is now 13, and has been with us for a long time. I am hopeful that he will be with us for more time. His latest seizures seem to be less severe and that gives me some hope. But the continuation is troubling as are some of the potential causes. Today, I am just worn out and feeling a little out of control. I need to get myself together for a couple of long days of teaching and am badly behind in my grading.

I appreciate your good thoughts.

The paranoid style of Republican politics

A good post from Anglican.

My Aunt

My aunt passed away yesterday morning. Her passing was not completely unexpected, yet....

Today I am thinking of my mother and her brother for their lost sister. I am thinking of my cousins, and my uncle who lost their mother and wife.

She was a beautiful person and a beautiful soul, and was a gourmet and lover of horses, cats and dogs. But she though was also beset by an awful lot of inner demons. Over the years, those personal demons robbed her of her physical beauty and caused untold problems throughout her life and relationships, but her inner beauty remained. Her battles took a toll on all of us, but more so the closer to the inner circle. I remember her as funny and engaging, and always interested in my life--especially how my pets were doing. :)

I say that her passing was not unexpected. Her health had not been good for years. Yet, after so many phone calls and emails warning us that "she may not make it through the night" her passing yesterday morning surprised me. Those bonus years, I think, were good for her and many of her relationships, however, and I am so glad for them.

I am sad she is gone, and I will miss her.

The exponential problem of paranoia

Anglican sent me an email sent to him by a right wing friend. In that email, the person admitted that some of the email might be extreme, but that was what people on the right were feeling about Obama. The actual substance of the email was frighteningly paranoid and rambling. It had me thinking of the nature of this kind of thinking, and it is something that both sides have to watch, but it seems to be embraced on the far right.

It goes something like this. You analyze something real and come to that part where you have to make a judgement about something that is, perhaps questionable. At this point, you choose to accept the most extreme position, which in that particular issue, is probably rather benign. But that becomes the base line for your next decision, and so on, and so on.

So you look at Obama and believe that he might not be Muslim, but that his association with Wright makes him a radical or even non-Christian. Moving forward from that point, you now assume him to be non-Christian and therefore a liar. Since he is a liar, you don't believe any of the things he says that are reasonable (which are most, frankly). And since he is not a christian, and a liar, you believe those who say he is some kind of radical Marxist. And as a Marxist, then you approach healthcare and the economy with the assumption, not that he is trying to make things better, but that he is trying to make things worse as a part of his plan to force the country into Marxism. You take partial bits of evidence, and read them in the most extreme way: this email said that Obama had already "taken over two major industries." I think Ford would be surprised to hear that they are now part of a nationalized industry, as would those banks who are out from under TARP. But facts, at this point, are meaningless.

By that time, Obama has become a monster and is a threat. I think that is pretty much the path I have seen from the far right and Christian right. To be fair, that same process occurred on the left under Bush. I will say that in my defense, I hesitated at each of those steps to assume the most radical option. Part of that was my own lack of clarity. Was Bush stupid or malevolent? Hard to believe he was involved in some plot to allow 9-11 to happen if he is so incompetent that he can't quite even enact any of his policies. I would also argue that my final disgust with the man came with the evidence of torture and wiretapping--things that were documented and factual.

Anyway. Thoughts?

I really hate Grover Norquist

Taxing Matters | The American Prospect.

And here is a related random, and unanswerable question. How much of our economy has government investment at its base? How many of our consumer goods go back to some government subsidized research?