What's Sinking Faster Than Our Economy?

The answer, alas, is our nation's democratic process.

In the wake of the wave of collapses and bailouts that has hit the U.S. economy in the last few weeks, the ties of both presidential candidates to lobbyists and to the companies that have so suddenly and brutally risen to the forefront of American politics have come under increasingly intense scrutiny.

The truth is that while the degree of each candidate's involvement with each collapsed company varies, and each campaign accuses the other of being more and more egregiously enmeshed in the corrupt dealings of Washington, very little attention is being given to the fact that as long as the election system is built to confer an advantage on he (or she) who raises and spends the most money, it is naive to expect politicians to live ethically squeaky-clean lives and to refuse all money thrown at them by special interests (of all kinds, not just of the corporate kind).

---

In the United States, elections in general, and presidential elections in particular, have become an extremely demoralizing process for people who have any use for intellect. The media focus their reporting on all things controversial, rather than on substance. This practice has become so pervasive that campaign appearances have been transformed into a hit-parade of sound-byte material, because candidates know that they need to make statements 5 to 15 seconds long that will be repeated by media outlets over and over and over again. Sarcastic comments are rewarded way beyond substantive remarks for their ability to instantaneously focus the attention of viewers, readers, and listeners. Discussion of one's proposals are often left intentionally fuzzy, so as not to provide an opponent's campaign with the ability to twist one's message.

More troubling than anything else, the ability to outspend one's opponent has become an essential element for any campaign, because it increases the number of ads that a campaign can run. A candidate's message is reinforced not because of its inherent value, but by mere repetition. Political ads are more often than not designed to spread misinformation, doubt, and--in the most egregious cases--lies about a candidate's opponent(s), not to mention fear. (A famous example is the "pack of wolves" ad that the Bush campaign ran in 2004 against John Kerry.) Ads are particularly detrimental to the democratic process because they allow no immediate rebuttal by the candidate targeted by the ads. They are the very antithesis of democratic discourse because they disproportionately reward a type of politics based on negative attacks.

Opponents of this type of money-driven politics often refer to the need to replace the current election financing system, which relies above all on a candidate's ability to raise inordinate sums of money, with public campaign financing, as if by merely substituting one source of funding for another would give us back a democracy where good ideas are rewarded rather than the basest, most reptilian instincts of the voting public.

Don't get me wrong: I support public campaign financing, if for no other reason that it would allow people with good ideas but low fund-raising ability to enter into the electoral arena, and we are in dire need of fresh ideas and perspectives. Nonetheless, we should consider taking some other measures, even quite drastic ones, if we really want to elevate our political discourse above the level of a mere race between people.

Banning Political Ads
I am firmly convinced that the first step in bringing the campaign process back to some sort of balance would be a total ban on political ads, for a number of reasons.

First of all, they debase the electoral process, which should be regarded as the most sacred institution of a democracy, to the level of a commercial product. Arguably, that is what elections have become. The stakes are so high that supporters of one candidate or another have a vested interest in "selling" their candidate to the public. However, the deleterious effect on the democratic process of effectively reducing a candidate to a marketable product can hardly be underestimated.

Also, it is harder to convey positive messages in the time usually allocated for an ad (30 seconds), and it is even harder to make them memorable, which is why so many ads take the opposite approach and are used to attack an opponent (with only the possibility of a deferred rebuttal). As we are told time and time again to justify the disgusting negative campaign almost all politicians run, negative ads work.

Lastly, a particularly disquieting aspect of TV ads is the fact that images can convey quasi-subliminal messages that can appeal to voters' worst prejudices and instincts, not to their reason or to higher ideals. Just to take the latest example, without seeking to criminalize Sen. McCain, one of his latest campaign ads juxtaposes images of Sen. Obama with a former Fannie Mae executive, Frank Raines, to establish a connection between the presidential candidate and the collapse of Fannie Mae. Nothing wrong with that, right? In fact, it seems that the ad is designed not only to establish a connection between Sen. Obama and the Fannie Mae collapse, but also (some say mainly) to play on some voters' racial bias and fears.

Banning Opinion Polls
Next, I believe polls should be banned as well. Not all uses of polls, or all types of polls, mind you. For example, campaigns should be allowed to run their own polls to gather data about how their candidate and his or her opponents are doing. Exit polls should be allowed, particularly for their value in identifying problems with the way elections have been conducted (they are often used by international organizations in new or particularly frail democracies to monitor election results.) These concessions having been granted, polls should neither be treated as news items nor, with rare exceptions, they should be afforded the status of a science. They are neither news nor science. Too often their power of manipulation exceeds all other positive considerations.

From a news-worthiness standpoint, they only manifest purpose they serve is to excite the public into viewing the election as a race, a quasi-sporting event, or an entertainment phenomenon.

From a scientific point of view, polls are anything but scientific. Suffice it to say that on any given day different polls can put a different candidate in the lead, often with widely varying margins. Different news organizations are affiliated with different polling outfits. Why? In a best case scenario, to provide an exclusive service to its readers/viewers/listeners. In an Orwellian word, to serve their special interest and to manipulate public opinion in expecting a certain result on election day.

Polls are rather an art than science. Their accuracy depends on a number of factors, including the size and the demographic of the polling sample, the polling methodology, what questions the polls is seeking to answer, and how such questions are phrased. All these elements are components of pollster bias. In this sense, polls have a high potential for subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation.

Again, I am not saying that polls have no place in society. But using them as news items does not serve the public's interest, and--in the worst-case scenario--has the potential to intentionally mislead the public. Therefore, any organization that wants to run a poll should be free to do so, as long as poll results are kept under lock and key until after the election.

TV And Radio Rules
Networks and cable channels are licensed organizations. These public licensees are authorized to broadcast by we, the people (through the FCC), in consideration for "public interest, convenience, or necessity." In exchange, they should be obligated to provide a certain number of free airtime hours to candidates and political parties during the electoral season. That is the price they have to pay for the privilege of being awarded a license by the American public. The price of politics would plummet and the balance of politics would shift back to a system that rewards ideas, instead of financial might.

Limiting The Influence Of Special Interest And 527 Committees
Special interests (like 527 committees such as the Swiftboat Veterans, the AARP, etc, the AFL-CIO) who desire to purchase airtime to promote a certain point of view can only do so in the context of a program where the campaign or other special interest group that is being attacked has access to equal time for rebutting the accusations (and/or proposals) of the 527 committee that has initiated the request for airtime.

Naturally, special interests will throw all of their financial and organizational weight against such a change. They will defend the idea, which I hold to be baseless as it relates to the political process, that money equals free speech (the implication being that since the right to free speech is practically limitless, so is the amount of money that an entity should be able to invest in spreading its message). Though money does buy free speech, it is not the same as free speech. If it were we'd have a plutocracy, not a democracy. (That in fact we might already be a plutocracy is a topic for another post.)

Taking The Best From The Rest
Other countries, even ones where the political scene is no less polarized than in the United States, have established different rules for how elections must be conducted, aimed at safeguarding civil discourse and at protecting the integrity of the electoral process.

Here are a few examples of how different countries handle the electoral process.

In Italy, a tenet of the electoral law is "par-condicio". Among the most interesting aspects of par-condicio" are the following:

• Poll results cannot be divulged to the public in the 15 days preceding election day.
  
• Equal treatment, in terms of time and spaces, must be guaranteed to all political parties.
  
• Time for political information and messaging must be provided by public licensees (tv and radio stations) free of charge.
  
• Political ads on radio and TV are only allowed during some dedicated broadcasts.
  

In Denmark, "the guidelines of the "Danish Radio and Television" (a national public service station) ensure all registered political parties equal access to pre-election programmes on radio and television. The parties in question (no matter how small) are given equal time free of charge to present their manifestos, etc. to the public. Advertisements by political parties on national and regional Danish radio and television channels are not permitted." (See http://www.folketinget.dk/BAGGRUND/00000048/00232623.htm)

You can check out some interesting facts about how a number of other countries handle access to political information and messaging via this link.

Conclusions
There are several things that a civilized country can do to protect the electoral process.

Because ads and polls have been used so widely and, arguably, so successfully, even when their use is antithetical to the public interest, we have come to accept them as an integral part of the electoral process, a necessary evil. They are not. Their detrimental influence is recognized in other countries, and for that reason they have been banned or subjected to strict rules limiting their availability to the public.

Equal treatment of all political subject is an essential safeguard for the integrity of the democractic process. This principle should be valid not only during general elections, but also during primaries (to prevent, for example, the situation that occurred during the Democratic and Republican debates where certain candidates had the lion share of airtime, while others were largely ignored or had to answer different, even trivial, questions.) To prevent the number of candidates from ballooning in the early stages of the primaries, parties could set up certain entry mechanisms (for example, candidates would have to collect a certain number of signatures in support of their candidacy to be allowed to enter the primary process.)

Access to airtime, both on radio and tv, should be free for political parties. It would be the civic dute of broadcasters to reserve a certain amount of air time for political broadcasts in exchange for the privilege of being allowed to broadcast with public licenses.

Within newscasts, candidates and their surrogates should receive the same amount of coverage. This should be a condition for a station to be able to maintain its publicly awarded license. Outside newscasts, all candidates would receive a certain amount of time for their messaging, to be used in blocks of a set duration. So, for example, each candidate would be allowed a daily slot of five minutes during prime time for every day leading up to the election. The five minute slot may be increased as election day approaches, and may increase, for example, to half an hour on the Sunday before the election, with Monday being a day of national "meditation" (no airtime for any candidate). No other political messages would be allowed until the last polling stations in the nation have closed.

A combination of these or other safeguards may succeed in giving our democratic process a new beginning, one that would move us away from the corrupt and demoralizing status quo and that might restore our hopes for the future of our democracy.

Krugman: McCain On Banking And Health

You can cry or you can laugh, but here is another example of what a McCain presidency would do to our lives. Paul Krugman dug up this gem (and, for the benefit of readers afflicted with ADHD, it is short.)

Where Does Tom Toles Get The Inspiration For His Cartoons?

Just kidding! But...

On Monday, September 11, I published a post called Lies: The Bridge To The White House.

Then, on September 15, I saw this cartoon by Tom Toles on the Washington Post website.

Land Of The Free?

Sure, as in Free Speech Zone. But what if you step out of the free speech zone?



As Democracy Now's Amy Goodman knows, you get arrested, even with your press credentials in plain sight.

NOTE: While both incidents discussed here happened at the RNC in the Twin Cities, the same type of treatment was reserved for demonstrators (I prefer that word to the loaded "protesters") at the DNC in Denver.

A Cartoon Worth A Thousand Words

Tom Toles, in today's Washington Post.

Redistributing Wealth? Give Me A (Tax) Break!

I just heard another shameless talking head (Eric Cantor, R-Virginia) say that Obama wants to raise taxes on Americans and redistribute wealth, and I cannot take it any more.

---

For the umpteenth time: Obama's plan will cut taxes for everyone but the wealthiest 5% of Americans. 95% of Americans would see larger cuts under President Obama than under President McSame (or McShameless, if you prefer, given the type of campaign he and his surrogates have been running--false attack, after false ad, after false attack, endlessly).

And by the way, if you really want to talk about wealth redistribution, the biggest talking point of Republican scaremongers this year, ask yourself this:

Do you think that the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and AIG execs, who ran their companies into the ground and sailed away with their golden parachutes, are returning any of the money they stole? Guess who just bailed their bankrupt companies, or paid for lost tax revenues for their mismanagement? WE DID! Gullible, senseless, ignorant American taxpayers!

We believe everything talking heads tell us, so I guess most of us deserve it. But what is it you don't fricking understand?

When Republicans tell you that Democrats want *socialized* medicine for you, trying to scare your pants off with visions of brown shirts marching from the Washington Monument to Lincoln's Memorial, while *bureaucrats* decide what doctor you are allowed to see, they are working to deny you of one of the most basic human rights, recognized by all civil societies: access to healthcare. Their prescription? More free-market, the same free-market that brought you skyrocketing insurance costs, 100 million un- or under-insured folks, high deductibles, non-payment of benefits you thought you had and never knew you didn't, until you needed them, and I could go on, and on.

And yet, when Fannie Mae goes under, we rescue it with tax money that we can hardly spare because we have squandered more than half a trillion dollars on a war we did not need to fight in Iraq, and because the cost of everything we buy every day has gone up, and the value of our one home (not ten houses, like McCain's) has dropped 15-20%, and our pay stagnates (if we are lucky enough to have kept our job), and we cannot afford to see a doctor because our Republican representatives (and too many Democrats) are swimming in pools of gold inside the pockets of their health insurance contributors. We had to do it, though, we are told, because the consequences for Americans would be much more catastrophic if we hadn't. And we are so stupid, or duped, or both, that we don't even pay attention any more to the fact that the McCain campaign is full of surrogates who have enabled this economy to get to this crashing point, who have already taken the money and run. They have not run away, their heads lowered in shame. They have run to the open arms of the White House and the Republican party, who day after day enlists and/or creates crooks from and for the private sector.

No one dares speak the truth: we live in a fallen nation, where crooks pocket the profits and socialize the risk, while we elect the people that make it all possible!

This corrupt system relies on the enablers and the complicity of the conservative media establishment. People like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Dennis Miller on a national level, and "Gunny" Bob, Mike Rosen, Jon Caldara, Caplis, Oliver, here in Colorado, feed us a daily dose of demonstrably false crap, and we are to too lazy or too dumb not to believe them. These hacks, these word mercenaries, spoon-feed us the ridiculously false reasons why we must not vote for Obama in November: Obama's a Muslim, he will raise your taxes, he is all smoke-and-mirrors (this one is particularly insulting, from the party that brought you the war in Iraq), he wants to teach sex to kindergartners, and--did I mention--he wants to raise your taxes. These are people whose credibility should be in the shitter, after eight years of covering up for the natural and artificial disasters that Bush and Republican allowed to happen or contributed to, with their distaste for efficient government and a job well done. They should be hanging their heads in shame. Instead, they are on TV every day with their big lying smiles, or on the radio, spewing their hateful lies, with total impunity. Not just impunity: every for years, we reward them?!?

If we elect another Republican president to the White House in November, we will have truly deserved the crumbs that will trickle down from the top 5% of earners, and the downpour of shit, and disasters, and sickness, and spin that we will choke under.

But I should say you, not we, because the world is my oyster, and if McCain is elected, I will move to a place where people do not bend forward, with their pants down, every four years, ready to be willingly f***ed when a political party tells them "vote for us, or gays will be allowed to marry!"

Changing The Subject...

...though not entirely. ;-)

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Fox's Idea Of Fair And Balanced

Check out this graph, draw your conclusions.


The graph is taken from an informative study by Media Matters, which you can read in its entirety here. It also sheds not a little light on the liberal media myth and has a number of other interesting graphs.

Finally!

Pardon my French (Spanish, rather), but the Obama campaign finally found the cojones to address McCain's sleazy tactics.

Say Again?

On today's Meet The Press, Tom Brokaw showed the following clip:

(Videotape, April 14, 2008)

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: This will be a respectful campaign. Americans want a respectful campaign.

They're tired of the attacks. They're tired of the impugning people's character and integrity. They want a respectful campaign, and, and I, and I'm am of the firm belief that they'll get it, and they can get it if the American people demand it and reject a lot of this negative stuff that goes on.

(End videotape)

Oh, really? I wish Sen. McCain would explain this ad, then:

(Videotape of political ad)

Narrator: Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education, wrong for your family.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I'm John McCain, and I approved this message.

(End videotape)

Of course, the ad is only one of many smearing ads that the McCain/Palin campaigh has aired this week, and ads are only one of the tactics that the campaign has employed to spread lies about Sen. Obama and about McCain and Palin's accomplishments, which are often exaggerated and/or have been debunked, completely or in part.

NOTE: I chose to use the transcript instead of the clip from Meet The Press (which is available) because tne video tape was played in the context of an interview with the odious, snide, and lying Mayor Giuliani, who went on to spread more of the same lies that the most media outlets chastised this week.

Wow!

It's not often that I entitle one of my posts with an interjection expression wonderment and surprise, but then again I do not find an analysis of American politics that leaves me mouth agape for its accuracy and perceptiveness. Of course, it had to come from a Brit. Read here.

Not So Fast, Krauthammer!

Charles Krauthammer, of the Washington Post and Fox News came (predictably, some conservative had to) to Sarah Palin's rescue on her inability to answer Charles Gibson's question on the Bush Doctrine. In Palin's defense, he says:

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

So, is Sarah Palin's indecision and apparent cluelessness to be condoned, and is Charles Gibson to be condemned for posing the question? Not so fast!

---

First of all, the meaning of Bush doctrine today may be different, but to say it is "utterly different" is at least a stretch. It still includes the concept of unilateral, pre-emptive war, which remains a salient aspect of the overall doctrine.

As for Gibson's question, I will not go into whether he meant it as a "gotcha" moment: only Gibson knows it and I cannot assume to know the answer for him.

But I offer you this rebuttal from a blog I found. It says that Palin's request for clarification was technically correct because the Bush doctrine has shifted over time (what a surprise!), but here's the problem:

in common parlance the Bush doctrine clearly refers to the doctrine of preventive war that was used to justify the Iraq War. That much is obvious to anyone who has followed the issue. None of the elements of President's Bush' foreign policy philosophy ever got the same level of attention as that doctrine, which was really seen as a massive shift when it was announced in 2002.

[...]

To think of this in another way, if I were to ask someone, "Do you think that Barry Bonds' record should have an asterisk on it?", I would expect them to know which record I was talking about. If they were to answer, "Which record?", my assumption would be that they didn't know all that much about baseball. I obviously would not be referring to Barry Bonds the all time leader in base on balls or record holder for most league MVPs. No. I'd be talking about his 762 Home runs. Because that is the record that is so controversial. The one that has elicited so much debate and the one that is the main source of controversy. To assume anything else would be technically correct, but also incredibly stupid.

People can make all the excuses they want. But the reality is that if Sarah Palin had been paying attention to the huge foreign policy debate going on in this country over the past few years she would have known exactly what Charlie Gibson was talking about." (The whole post is here.)

I believe that Krauthammer is himself putting a good deal of spin on this issue. First of all, Gov. Palin seemed to have a genuine "deer in the headlight" moment when confronted with Gibson's question. Gibson caught on and gave her enough rope to hang herself, which she certainly did with her indecision and fumbling attempts at an answr. Secondly, if her doubt had been about genuine confusion on which one of the aspects of the Bush doctrine Gibson had intended, she could have said "Charlie, as you know there are many elements to the Bush doctrine. Which one are you specifically referring to?" Instead this is the full exchange between Palin and Gibson:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

As you see from the transcript, Palin equated the Bush doctrine with "his world view." Gibson did subsequently clarify that he meant the doctrine as expressed by the White House in 2002. Even then, the best Palin could muster was a fudgy answer about international terrorism, blunders and the beauty of American elections. Still no word on Bush's policy of unilateral, preventive intervention (some may call it aggression.)

Perhaps Charles Gibson really intended to put Gov. Palin on the spot. Perhaps he did so knowing that the Bush doctrine has evolved. But even then, he gave Palin the chance to recover from her initial impasse and she failed to articulate a pertinent answer.

In spite of Krauthammer's intellectual somersaults, Palin's inability to answer seems indefensible for a VP candidate.

Focus On McCain

Frank Rich of the NY Times hits the nail on the head when he writes:

if Obama wants to win, “he needs to remember he’s running against John McCain for president,” not Palin for vice president. Obama should keep stepping up the blitz on McCain’s flip-flops, confusion, ignorance and blurriness on major issues (from education to an exit date from Iraq), rather than her gaffes and résumé. If he focuses voters on the 2008 McCain, the Palin question will take care of itself.

I agree, with one caveat: McCain's choice of Palin for the VP spot on the ticket speaks volumes about McCain's judgment, the emptiness of the Republican's "Country First" slogan, and the fact that his contention that he would rather lose an election that lose a war is *bs*, since in order to win the election he chose the least qualified of all the people that were in the running. He did so for purely utilitarian and political reasons, and he should have hell to pay for it. And by the way, McCain himself of Obama that it is not the experience that he lacks, but the judgement. Obama chose Joe Biden as a running mate, McCain choose Palin. Is he really sure he wants to make this an election about judgment?

Read the rest of Rich's op-ed here.

Ladies And Gentlemen...

...the next vice-president of the United States!

Obama Camp: Is There Anything The McCain Campaign Isn't Lying About?

Earlier on, I published a post called Border Crossing Lies. This article expands on the subject, pointing out that not only Gov. Palin has never been in Iraq, but the other nation that she mentions as having been to is Ireland. Well, has she been in Ireland? Yes, for a refueling stop.

Ap-Palin-gly Petty Politician

Shrewd, she might be. Principled, not at all. The NY Times has done good research on Palin's spotty past.

Border Crossing Lies

I don't know about you, but when I cross a border to enter a foreign country I know it. Sarah Palin and McCain will say anything they think will get them elected, and they do it every minute of every day. Like here.

Small Town Values, In All Their Glory!

Much has been made of the fact that the Republican party favors small town values (remember Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of NEW YORK, making fun of Obama about cosmopolitanism?), particularly after the pandering, indefensible choice of former Wasilla mayor, and current Gov. Alaska, Sarah Palin. Well, Pharyngula drew my attention to this gem, once again from The Daily Show, about small town values.



By the way, before you accuse Pharyngula of being a snob, read the article PZ Myers posted on Small Town Values.

Voter Homework, Sep 13

Please watch the following videos. It will take about an hour of your time and you will be better informed and it beats watching coverage of lipstick on pigs or going to the mall with the rest of America.

Warning: all the clips are from PBS, so if you are a conservative you might actually hear things you nevere heard before (except for Part 2 of Bill Moyers, which is about hate speech.)

Bill Moyers' Journal - Part Two (25 min 11 sec)

Bill Moyers' Journal - Part One (19 min 32 sec)

Now - Part One (8 min 59 sec)

Now - Part Two (11 min 20 sec)

Update: Just found this great op-ed by the always sharp, always witty Sarah Vowell.

Lying. Again?

FactCheck.org has this analysis of Gov. Palin's statement on the importance of Alaska in the US energy mix. Needless to say, she fu**ed things up again.

Why is this so important? Because, when asked what qualifications Gov. Palin brings to the vice-presidency against the challenge of Islamist extremism, which McCain considers the most important issue facing the US, he first fumbled, then replied this (watch the video below):



McCain's answer, of course, is ridiculous. Think about it: if as McCain said knowledge of the energy sector constitutes a sufficient qualification to be selected as vice-president, then any CEO, past of present, of a company in the energy sector would be infinitely more qualified, both as an executive and in terms of specific knowledge, than Gov. Palin. Which means, of course, that whatever McCain says of the reasons that led him to pick Gov. Palin, he picked her for two reasons: she is a religious extremist, and she is a woman. End of story.

On Comment Moderation

In case you are wondering why the comment feature is moderated: I turned the comment moderation feature because, right after I enabled it, spammers used the comment feature to litter the blog with commercial links that had nothing to do with the posts. I assure you that censorship is not the reason, in case you were wondering.

All ideas are welcome, and I am not afraid of opposing viewpoints. Good ideas, and bad ideas are equally welcome. (Well, good ideas are more welcome but I trust that readers can judge for themselves if a comment stands up to scrutiny or if it is poorly reasoned and just a failed attempt at spin.)

Having said that, I reserve the right to censor comments that I find objectionable (but I have extremely permissive standards, so the likelihood I will find a comment objectionable is extremely low.)

Did You Hear The One About McCain And Change?

A POW enters the Republican Convention floor with the lobbyists who work for his campaign and says: "Change-is-coming!"

Really? The only change we have seen from McCain so far is the difference between what he used to say before running for President and what he says now.

Krugman: Blizzard Of Lies

Paul Krugman, economist and NY Times op-ed columnists, says that a McCain administrations would not just be a continuation of Bush's: it has the potential to be worse. Hard to imagine, but here is Krugman sounding the alarm.

Palin, Conservative Ways Disguised as Change

NPR has dug up a tasty quote which further exposes Gov. Palin's duplicity about earmarks.

Gov. Palin: for earmarks when no one's looking, against them when she's hooking. (I approve this message.)

Deconstructing Spin

The Constructive Curmudgeon is a Denver Seminary philosophy professor known for censoring those who point out the spin or logical fallacies in his arguments, and for spreading Republican talking points through his blog.

He wrote an article defending Sarah Palin's performance in her interview with Charles Gibson of ABC World News. Though I hate to draw attention to such a partisan huckster as The Constructive Curmudgeon, I feel it is necessary to deconstruct his defense of Sarah Palin and to draw attention to the spin he practices daily on his blog. Let's proceed.

---

1. "We all saw an edited version of the interview. Given the media bias, you can be certain that we saw the worst of her performance, not the best of it."

Of course we saw an edited interview. Most interviews you see, hear, or read anywhere are edited. That does not deny the fact that some of Sarah Palin's answers were appallingly naive or uninformed. Yet, the Curmudgeon, in pursuit of spin, chooses to make the gratuitous assumption that the worst of Sarah Palin's responses were shown because of media bias.

Accusations of media bias are so common among conservatives that if I had a buck for every time I have heard them complain about liberal media bias I could buy Fox News Channel, and shut it down. Instead of buying the conservative line on liberal media bias hook, line and sinker, go to my post that links to an insightful dissection of the media bias myth by Glenn Greenwald.

And consider this, for an example of media bias: two of the three major newspapers in Colorado, the state where I live, have a definite pro-Republican slant. Of the five major AM stations in Denver, one is liberal (AM-760, which is actually from Boulder), the other ones are as conservative as they come: KOA, with "personalities like Mike Rosen, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Caldara, Sean Rima, and the despicable and insufferable "Gunny" Bob Newman; 630 KHOW-AM; 600 KCOL (Fox News Radio); and 740 KVOR. Were it not for AM-760, a long drive through Colorado has the potential to make a progressive's veins explode, given the amount of spin that these stations combine for, day in, day out.

2. "Charlie Gibson evidenced the media bias with a sour vengeance. He scowled at Gov. Palin the entire time, trying to trap her, pressing her in ways that Obama has never had to experience."

Once again, media bias. See, two bucks already. Charles Gibson did express some disbelief at the fact that Gov. Palin did not know what "the Bush doctrine" was. So he gave her enough rope to hang herself, which she predictably did. Another highlight came when Gov. Palin said, of Russia: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." The question Charles Gibson asked: "What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?"

Dear Curmudgeon, these are not examples of media bias by Charles Gibson (who, by the way, has been criticized for his soft interview with Sen. McCain). These are things you might expect a runner-up in a beauty contest to say, not what you would expect from a vice-presidential nominee for one of the two large parties in America.

3) "She never stuttered (unlike Obama without a teleprompter)..."

What the Curmudgeon alleges to be Obama's stutter without a teleprompter is actually Obama pausing to take the time to give meaningful, well thought answers.

Obviously, when all you do is memorize a few lies and platitudes and repeat them ad nauseam as Gov. Palin has done from Convention day on, you should have no problem with "stuttering." But then, of course, the price you pay is that dear-in-the-headlights (pun, not a typo) that Gov. Palin had when Gibson asked her a question that she did not have a prepared answer for.

4) "She invoked Abraham Lincoln to explain her views of God's will in warfare--a deft move."

A deft move indeed, if by deft you mean misleading.

Actually, this is a perfect example of the spin perpetrated by Gov. Palin, and perpetuated by the likes of the Curmudgeon. Here's how it went down:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.

Okay, now compare that with Palin's quote: "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." How does that have anything to do with Lincoln?

5) The Curmudgeon says that this excellent performance by Palin came "after two weeks of intense, relentless media scrutiny, which didn't spare the private details of her own family. It came after Obama likened her to a pig with lipstick".

First of all, complaining about intense media scrutiny of family life from a supporter of the party that brought you Linda Tripp, Ken Starr, and the Clinton inquisition is ridiculous beyond belief.

Secondly, the Obama "lipstick on a pig incident" was so inane that it was dismissed even by a few Republicans (like Gov. Mike Huckabee, now a Fox News contributor.) And Obama dismissed the accusation on David Letterman's show pointing out, correctly, that had he meant the "lipstick on a pig" mention as an attack, “technically... [Palin] would be the lipstick. The failed policies of John McCain would be the pig, just following the logic of this illogical situation.”

6) "Sarah Palin will never sink to this level."

Oh, sure. She'd much rather lie about the bridge to nowhere, lie about her opponents' proposals or deride Obama's past as a community organizer. It's all in a day's work for people like Gov. Palin and her supporters, Curmudgeon included.

Lies, Damned Lies, And Strategies

By now, if you have paid any attention to the presidential campaign since the conventions, you should know that Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have pursued a unified strategy in winning the White House: lying most of the time, if not all of the time, about their own records and Sen. Obama's.

Yesterday, I posted an article called Lies: The Bridge To The White House.

Today, Alternet expands on the topic with an article entitled McCain and Palin's Top 20 Lies, Myths and Flip-Flops.

Pass it on to your disbelieving, self-proclaimed independent friends. There's still time to turn a few minds.

Charlie Gibson With Gov. Palin

No video yet to post, but I have watched part of Charlie Gibson's interview with Gov. Palin and my first impression is that she doesn't know what she is talking about. (And you know what they say about first impressions: you only get one chance.) Her religious "credentials", combined with her evident ignorance and lack of understanding of foreign affairs, is reason for unrestrained anxiety. She has obviously been miscast into a role that she is unfit for, for mere political gain.

If McCain is elected, though I disagree with his political views and plans, I wish him a long and prosperous life.

Update: some video and transcripts have now become available. Judge for yourself, here.

The Straight Talk Express

Straight Talk Express? I am thinking McCain must mean have chosen his motto in contrast with Gay Talk Express. Otherwise, I don't know what to make of all the double-talk. Watch.



The Straight Talk Express: A busload of flip-flops and duplicity.

9/11, Seven Years On

On the anniversary of one of America's blackest days, ask yourself: Are you ready for more wars?

Lies: The Bridge To The White House

Watch out: The McCain/Palin ticket lies about everything in sight.

They lie about Sen. Obama's tax plan, saying it will raise your taxes. True only if you make more than $250,000. Look for the side by side comparison of the effects of Obama v. McCain's plan. Newsweek also has an article about McCain's lies on Obama's record on taxes.

They lie about his health care plan, corporate welfare for oil companies, and foreign trade.

They attack him on education, saying he wanted kindergartners to learn sex-ed before they knew how to read.

And, of course, they lie often and shamelessly about their own record.

Sarah Palin, on the bridge to nowhere:



McCain lied on social security privatization.

McCain lied about oil drilling, too, a favorite of Republican voters.

McCain even lies about his campaign's lies.

McCain/Palin: Pinocchio Change.

Turning The Tables On Conservatives: Democrats Must Redefine Morality

As another presidential election approaches, conservatives are trying once again to "own" morality, by defining it mainly as the fight against homosexual rights, the fight against abortion, and the fight to protect "family values" (whatever that means in a country where very people who herald the importance of family values, the Rudy Giuliani, the Newt Gingriches, and, let's not forget him, the Ted Haggards of the world have cheated on their spouses, failed to pay alimony, engaged in sex acts with prostitutes, etc.).

In the upcoming elections, three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) will bring to voters ballot initiatives aimed at changing state constitutions to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, thus preventing the extension of the institution (and many rights) of marriage to gays and lesbians (and not, as Christocrats like the fortunately unemployed Sen. Santorum of Pennsylvania, to man and sheep/horse/cat, etc.).

The political goal of bringing such initiatives to voters in a presidential election year is obvious: to mobilize religious conservatives, who are expected to vote en-masse for the McCain/Palin ticket.

To date, Democrats have essentially conceded the high ground to Republicans, by failing to forcefully redefine morality as a matter that goes beyond sexual preferences and behavior. Failing to define morality beyond adherence to accepted sexual and social mores is, in fact, a failure to recognize the greater and more deleterious forms of immorality that surround us. So here are some examples of immorality that Democrats would do well to remind voters of before November 4th...

---

It is immoral to let millions of people around the world die for lack of fresh water, food, shelter, medication.

It is immoral to spend one cent on elective wars before people are fed and healed, before children and the unemployed are taken care of and educated, before infrastructure has been fixed or built.

It is immoral to lie, cheat and steal one's way to the top, and to run electoral campaigns filled with falsehoods and animated by the desire to submerge one's political opponent under a sea of lies (as McCain and Palin are doing daily against Obama).

It is immoral to let people die without care, or to advocate free-market health care that forces the less resourceful amongst us to give up their home, their careers, and their children's future in exchange for needed treatment.

It is immoral to reap gargantuan profits at the expense of the neediest.

It is immoral to do everything in one's power to keep the status quo that benefits the chosen few rather than to build a future that protects all of our children and endows them with the greatest potential.

It is immoral to deny those who are not like us, whether it is people of different color, creeds, sexual preference, ethnicity, the chance to be as fulfilled as human beings as we want to be ourselves. It is particularly disgusting when such denial is justified on the basis of one of many competing religious beliefs or fables that claim to be the truth, keeping in mind that no religion allows the possibility that its truth is not beyond refute.

It is immoral to pass gossip for news, to spread falsehood as truth, to fuel innuendos with the intent to smear and destroy (see pigs and lipstick), as Fucks News does (with other networks being close followers).

It is immoral to knowingly lead or mislead others for one's benefit. For example, it is immoral to make such a statement as "Any presidential candidate [meaning Obama] who rises to the top in Chicago politics (the most corrupt political machine in the country) is automatically suspect" or "If a candidate [once again, Obama] is endorsed by The Communist Party USA, one has to ask why" (particularly when a link is given to an article that explains that the endorsement is of the "lesser of two evils" kind, and when, incidentally, a similar endorsement has been given by the same person who promotes the Obama/Communist Party innuendo).

It is immoral to speak of "family values" when the party you represent allows jobs that pay living wages to be shipped to countries where workers are prevented from unionizing, where they are paid a pittance, and where child and prisoner labor exists. When such jobs are lost, they are often not replaced by comparable jobs, which forces one or both parents to work two or more jobs to make ends meet, often with lousy or no benefits, putting enormous stress on marriage and family life.

It is immoral to promote tax plans designed to give the greatest benefit to the top 1-2% of income earners, with a pittance being left for 98% of taxpayers. It is also immoral to speak of the threat of socialism or income redistribution when an opponent presents a plan which raises taxes for income earners who make more than $250,000 a year in order to give some relief to middle- and low-income earners who are being crushed by rising gasoline, heating, grocery, health care costs, and stagnant wages.

It is immoral to seek to exploit fear as an electoral tactic, causing divisions instead of calling people to unite in pursuit of better conditions for all.

These are the examples of immorality that Democrats need to push back at social and religious conservatives, instead of always playing defense on the one or two moral issues that Republicans have become masters at exploiting.

Sen. Obama's Response To Lipstick-Pig Non-Controversy

Watch and ponder. (If you are a conservative who happened to stumble on this blog by accident, watch and pander instead).

Advice For Sen. Obama

Huffington Post has some advice for Sen. Obama in relation to the "lipstick on a pig" controversy.

I have some advice, too. Sen. Obama should abandon the lipstick on a pig metaphor because it is not original (Sen. McCain used it about Sen. Clinton's health care plan), and use the following ones instead.

When talking about the failed Bush/McCain agenda: "You can pour perfume on bullshit, it's still bullshit."
When talking about anything vicepresident Cheney says: "You can put a condom on him, he's still [a] Dick."
When talking about anything president Bush says: "You can put him inside the cover of the Merriam-Webster, it's still Bush."
When talking about Karl Rove: "You can put the word 'blossom' in his moniker, he's still a ...."
When talking about Gov. Palin: "You can put lipstick on her, it's still Karl Rove speaking."
And finally, when talking about Sen. McCain: "You can put fifty lobbyists in key positions of his campaign, he's still a maverick and a reformer." I call this last metaphor "reverse sarcasm" :-)

Excellent Point

From The Huffington Post:

"Money and jobs are flying out of this country as our currency becomes worthless and we're talking about the fact that McCain is a veteran. If someone busted into your house and robbed you would you then forgive them if you found out they were a veteran? Of course not. So why are we forgiving McCain for selling out his country by supporting the Bush agenda?" (Emphasis mine.)

Read the whole article here.

Will Your Vote Count?

American expat Greg Palast (who is good enough for the BBC and The Guardian, but apparently not for American media outlets) has long been a watchdog of Republican vote suppression tactics. Once again, he rings the alarm.

My question is: If such an alarm goes on at a DNC meeting, does it make a sound?

Update: September 11
Lost your house to foreclosure? Lose your vote, too.
Read this article by Eartha Jane Melzer, of the Michigan Messenger?

Recommended Reading

NY Times Op-Ed On Sex-Ed

Read, particularly if you are a supporter of abstinence-only sex-ed (isn't that an oxymoron?) or if you label yourself pro-life. What the study the op-ed refers to supports is that a large number of teenage abortions could almost certainly prevented if comprehensive sex-ed were provided to teenagers instead.

John McCain Dated A Stripper

Really? Really! (at 1:50 minutes)



I wonder what Focus On The Family has to say about that... (granted, it must have been in the nineteenth century, but still...)

Oh, and he also told his daughter that, should she get pregnant, it was her decision whether she wanted to have an abortion. mmmmh, what's the name for that, oh yes... PRO-CHOICE!

On The Origin And Meaning Of "Christocrat"

I have been chastised on a religious conservative blog (or should I say "Christocratic") for using the neologism "Christocrat". Those who are interested can read this interview with the Rabbi who coined the term.

While some may find it offensive, I believe it captures the essence of the movement it refers to better than any of the alternatives.

Interesting Question, Indeed...

Poll Madness: McCain Takes Lead Even As Democrats Out-Register Republicans?

That's a very good question. I have a bad feeling about this. Considering how the Republican vote suppression machine is in full swing, and the fact that many ballots will be cast on machines with unverifiable counts, I wonder if polls are being skewed to give the impression that the race is closer than it actually is, so that tricked election results that favor the Republican ticket will look plausible after all. Add to this the Palin pick, which had the sole purpose of re-energizing the evangelical base, and a number of ballot initiatives, like the Colorado Personhood Amendment, designed simply to draw reluctant evangelical voters to the polls, and you have the making of something very suspicious.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, if you like, but Republicans are not to be trusted. After all, caging and other voter suppression efforts have already been successfully employed by Republicans in the latest two presidential elections.

I don't know of any country in which an election rules are set by a Secretary of State who is also the chairmain of the sitting president's re-election campaign (Ohio 2004) or one where an incomplete vote count can be certified by a partisan Secretary of State, in a state governed by the candidate's brother (Florida 2000).

What mistifies me is that Democrats seem to be willing accomplices in what could very well be another announced "altered" election.

This just in.

Tonight's CBS Evening News opened with the insufferable (and hardly non-partisan) Katie Couric saying that momentum in the presidential race appears to have shifted to John McCain, based on latest polls. I'm telling you, something's afoul.

Voter Homework, Sep. 9

Must read #1:
What's the Difference Between Palin and Muslim Fundamentalists? Lipstick.

Must read #2:
Ten Ways the McCain/Palin GOP Is Now Stealing the Ohio Vote
(This one really worries me, there has been hardly any talk about Republican voter suppression techniques and the proliferation of unreliable, unverifiable electronic voting machines in the MSM.)

Must read #3:
Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home (Change you can subsidize?)

Must read #4
Palin the "Fiscal Conservative", which contains this excellent observation by Ed Brayton of Dispatches:

Anyone who believes that Republicans really want smaller government is living in a fantasy world. They want more government, they just don't want to pay for it with higher taxes. And make no mistake, this is all quite intentional. It works like this: they drive up spending while cutting taxes, which drives up the debt. Then when the Democrats take office and are forced to raise taxes to pay off the debt they drove up, they scream "See, the Democrats want to raise your taxes!

Must read #5
Mirengoff on the Palin Effect at the RNC, where this Mirengoff fellow makes the following, honest observation about the Palin effect:

We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel -- the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel -- and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.
It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.

Once Again... The Delicate Curmudgeon

The Delicate Curmudgeon has deleted one of my posts from his website on accusation of leveling gratuitous insults. I was simply responding to his allegation that "[c]onception is the beginning of life. There is no controversy over this in the scientific literature." This is false, so I proceeded to explain my point of view on the matter.

Perhaps it was my use of the word Christocrats (which is not my term--I first found it explained in Rabbi James Rudin's The Baptizing of America), or perhaps the intimation that, just like for Obama, defining the moment when life begins is above the Curmudgeon's paygrade. Seems to me it's just another case of censorship aimed at protecting the pristine ears of his many ultraconservative readers. Those of you are interested can click the Read on link to learn more about the dispute.

---

"It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. It is not something dependent on biblical revelation, although the Bible makes this claim as well."

Contrary to the above statement, the problem is that the definition of conception varies greatly and is largely influenced by factors such as religious beliefs, which is why the American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists prefers to define pregnancy, instead of conception.

If you take the definition of pregnancy that I quoted previously* (being that conception is insufficient in defining pregnancy, since neither ovulation nor fertilization alone constitute sufficient condition for a pregnancy), then implantation is taken to be the necessary condition for the beginning of pregnancy. In this sense, not only is the question "does life begin at conception" above Obama's pay grade, but also above Dr. Groothuis's.

Incidentally, if this definition of pregnancy is accepted, then it is impossible to understand the opposition of the religious right to such contraceptives as abortifacients, if taken before the time implantation is known occurs (at least eight days after fertilization).

From a logical and a practical point of view, it makes much more sense to use the ACOG definition. But it is quite obvious that many religious conservatives are not satisfied with a scientific discussion of pregnancy, sex-ed, etc, as their true intent is to stifle a woman's free expression of her sexuality and to constrict it to an anachronistic, but Biblical, version of sexuality.

George Orwell understood very well that authoritarian regimes, such as the one that many Christocrats advocate, seek to control and circumscribe sexuality, which one might argue is the ultimate boundary of self-expression.

---

*"When Is a Woman Pregnant?

To be sure, not every act of intercourse results in a pregnancy. First, ovulation (i.e., the monthly release of a woman's egg) must occur. Then, the egg must be fertilized. Fertilization describes the process by which a single sperm gradually penetrates the layers of an egg to form a new cell ("zygote"). This usually occurs in the fallopian tubes and can take up to 24 hours. There is only a short window during which an egg can be fertilized. If fertilization does not occur during that time, the egg dissolves and then hormonal changes trigger menstruation; however, if fertilization does occur, the zygote divides and differentiates into a "preembryo" while being carried down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Implantation of the preembryo in the uterine lining begins about five days after fertilization. Implantation can be completed as early as eight days or as late as 18 days after fertilization, but usually takes about 14 days. Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete."

Source: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

---

(If the Delicate Curmudgeon has not deleted my other posts on the subject, you can find them here.)

McCain As Change Agent, According to Tom Toles

Tom Toles, editorial cartoonist for the Washington Post, published this masterful satire of McCain, the change agent, in the Sep. 5th issue.
(originally posted by the Washington Post here.)

Quote Collection on Patriotism

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." (Mark Twain)

"During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism." (Howard Thurman)

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it." (G.B. Shaw)

"Patriotism is an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles." (George Jean Nathan)

"Unfortunately, religion, like patriotism, is easy to misuse for political purposes."(Kjell Magne Bondevik)

"Each nation feels superior to other nations. That breeds patriotism - and wars." (Dale Carnegie)

"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive." (Henry Steele Commager)

"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else." (Clarence Darrow)

"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!" (Albert Einstein)

Now compare those quotes with this one, from none other than Ann Coulter, right wingnut goddess:

"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy."

But no quote gives a better summation of how Bush, Rudy, John McSame and the Republican party have used patriotism since 9/11:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." (Samuel Johnson)

'nuff said.

Absolute Must Read

Glenn Greenwald, of Salon.com, has a wonderfully insightful dissection of MSNBC's decision to demote Keith Olbermann (and Chris Matthews) from his role as co-anchor of MSNBC's political broadcasts.

It is truly one of the best articles I have read at crumbling the myth of "the liberal media."

P.S. My all-time favorite bumper sticker reads "The media are as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them."

The Reformed Maverick

As usual, The Daily Show does it best. Watch.

Frank Rich On McCain

Frank Rich's op-ed in Saturday's NY Times tells it like it is on McCain (and unmasks several incorrect/misleading/deceitful claims by McCain and his campaign in the process.) Don't forget to follow the links in Rich's op-ed, too.

The Beam In Your Own Eye

When you go around calling political opponents elitists (thus showing a) that you don't have a good grasp of the English language or, b) that you Rove-ingly redefine the true meaning of words in pursuit of your political aims), you had better make sure your wife's outfit on the convention stage does not cost more than the average suburban house with a yard and a three car garage, as the priceless commentator Ed Brayton points out at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. (Particularly if you yourself own seven or more homes, and don't even know it.)

What Won't McCain Do To Get Elected?

In his public appearances, Sen. McCain is quick to remind us that he supported the surge in Iraq when it was unpopular to do so, because he he would rather lose an election than his country lose a war. But everyone's principles have limits. Which is probably why John McBush, in a gigantic flip-flop, has decided to hire one of the guys instrumental in destroying his 2000 presidential bid. Makes you wonder about his integrity and his maverickness, doesn't it?

You can read the full story here. (Thanks to the always fabulous Dispatches from the Culture Wars for pointing out this story.)

Interesting Take On Bristol Palin's Pregnancy

This excerpt from an article regarding Bristol Palin's pregnancy strikes me as right on.

But the hypocrisy of so-called Conservatives in touting this circumstance as proof of family values, of conservative values, really roils me. The AP recently reported that John McCain not only has opposed federal spending on teen-prevention programs, he has also voted to oppose education and federal spending on contraceptives. Palin's own record shows the same at the state level. The idea that once a teenager, deprived of an education which teaches contraception, finds herself pregnant, is then expected to allow the embryo to come to term, to then either give it away or marry the father regardless of who, what or how he is doesn't rank among my values. To celebrate such practices as values to which we all should aspire, strikes me as worse than Palin's corruption charges and her petition to sue the government in order to keep polar bears off of the endangered species list.

You can read the whole article by Karen Dolan on Alternet.

Voter's Homework

Digging through the archives of Bill Moyers's broadcasts, I found this enlightening 2004 interview with Thomas Franks, author of the book What's The Matter With Kansas?

Comedy Central Wisdom

It's funny, you can watch CNN, MSNBC, Faux News and network news all day and all night, but you will never find better analysis of the McCain-Palin/RNC bullshit than on Comedy Central.



And when you are done, watch this....

Four War Years!

Elect McCain! Four war years! I am sorry, slip of the tongue. Understandable, given his casual attitude towards war with other countries. Remember this little incident? Hope you're on the bandwagon... If not, as McCain says, "get a life!" In fact, if you support McCain, why don't you go enlist as soon as you log off and wait to be shipped to a foreign country for four more years of fun?

Despicable Duplicity

Welcome to the School of Double Standards. And you want to elect the ticket this bunch of snake oilmen support?

That's The Ticket!

As usual, Stephen Colbert's right on the money. This time, it's about he hits the nail on the head regarding the Republican presidential ticket.



(The segment you need to watch starts at about 3:02, but it's not like the preceding part is not funny...)

Beyond The Palin

Looks like the background of McCain's politically calculated choice for VP is not as squeaky clean as one would hope for the supposedly über-moral, vice-maverick in chief. (And if anyone insists on calling McCain a "maverick" I cannot promise that I will not bury them under a mountain of epithets.)

From The Toronto Star

Thankfully, our neighbors to the North have a better grasp of the English language than we do, so much so that they take the time to explain the meaning of words and adjectives for our benefit in their newspapers. This just in about the true meaning of 'elite'.

The Real McCain

Think McCain's "one of us"? Maverick? Regular white guy? Think (not think again, as you obviously have not been thinking at all).

Watch.



Of course, many voters believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim, not an American citizen, hates America, is nazi and a communist, and wants to kill little babies so he can eat them, so I guess the chasm between McCain's election image and his real image is not their concern.

Also, according to Bush's definition of torture, McCain was not tortured as a POW. You can't have it both ways.

The KKK Factor

KKK: it does not just stand for the white supremacist faction that would dread an Obama presidency and is comprised of a larger number of people than you can imagine. It also stands for this: you elect another Republican, for the third consecutive term of a Republican Friedmanite in the White House, and you're out! As in down and out!

Here is a shocking fact, though not completely shocking, given the total cluelessness of the average American voter: a large number of whites is seriously thinking of voting for McCain come November, simply because Obama is black.

Most likely, many of these idiots do not necessarily share McCain's vision for the future of America, whatever that may be (probably a vision of tanks crawling all over the Middle East, fueled by the $10 a gallon oil that will be filling Republican coffers 'til the cows come home). Quite the contrary: many are probably middle to low class Americans who would greatly benefit from a president who thinks that the richest 1.5% in a nation should bear a larger share of the fiscal burden than the rest, who would benefit from easier and cheaper access to healthcare, renewable energy, education, housing, and so on. These people are probably crushed under the weight of their humongous mortgages and credit card debt, and yet they believe, because of the great job done by the ruthless and disgustingly vile neo-con propaganda apparatus and because of their own ignorant and self-defeating bias, that John McCain is more like them than Barack Obama.

So let me take a moment to these dangerous, ignorant voters who are thinking of cutting off their noses to spite their white faces:

Unless you were born to a four star admiral, or are the nephew of a US Army Brigadier, have a net worth of tens of millions of dollars and have remarried to the daughter of one of the largest beer distributors in the USA (a woman with a net worth of over $100 million), I have news for you: as little as you have in common with Barack Obama, including the color of the skin that you attribute so much importance to, you have even less in common with Sen. John McCain.

Sen. McCain is well aware of this fact, and his campaign of attacks against Sen. Obama is proof of it. None of the ads I have seen in my home state of Colorado give any specifics of what a McCain presidency would do for you, America's losers with delusions of grandeur. Rather, the ads are designed to scare you into thinking that President Obama would raise taxes on you and lead the country into an economic disaster. Never mind the fact that Sen. Obama would raise income taxes only on households making more than $250k a year, a category that comprises less approximately 1.5% of all taxpayers in the U.S. And never mind the fact that for the dictionary definition of economic disaster you need to look no further back than the current administration, which McCain has aided and abetted for the last eight years, in spite of his much hyped and little deserved reputation as a maverick.

In closing, you ignorant racist, I want to remind you of this: your vote will make many lives worse, including your own. And guess what: your white skin will not prevent your transformation into what you have worked so stubbornly to become: a slave to the people you helped put in charge, and a willing one at that.

The Misleading Curmudgeon

Dr. Groothuis, PhD, of The Constructive Curmudgeon and Denver Seminary, is a frequent guest of the Gino Geraci radio show, a Christocratic pulpit. Dr. Groothuis gleefully makes the most of all his appearances to attack liberal politics and politicians, and to peddle misinformation.

During his latest appearance, on Friday afternoon, he perpetuated a falsehood that I had already called him upon to correct on his blog. He again stated, incorrectly and with no regard for the truth or facts, that the last time he checked U.S. abortion laws were the most liberal on the planet (notice his leading use of the adjective liberal).

Perhaps Dr. Groothuis missed my correction of his March 08 post, which I also reprinted on my blog, in which case I hope that this post will serve as another reminder that he needs to update his knowledge. Or perhaps he is aware of my correction and has chosen to disregard it, in which case I guess he must think that god would endorse the protracted misinformation of one's readers and listeners (misinformation at best, wilful deceit at worst) if it is carried out in the service of the almighty, particularly when it may help to excite mindless Christians against a Democrat in an election. Call it a Hail Mary, if you like (or a Heil Cheney, if my suspicions on the professor are correct).

Dr. Groothuis: Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Deception.

Could Someone, Please?

My head's spinning.

Can someone please explain to me how President Bush and his alter-hawk and would-be successor John McBush be lecturing Russia about its aggression of Georgia?

How can these two, or anyone else, preach from their crumbling pulpit after their unwarranted, lie-based aggression of Iraq, and their stance against Iran? How can they lecture anyone about the value of diplomacy, their disappointment in Putin, and their condemnation of this aggression? Simply put, I think you have to be shameless hypocrites to do what they are doing.

Is John McBush really what we want after eight years of distortions, preachiness, and squandering of resources and goodwill? Can we be so duped as to elect the "worthy" successor to the man that dragged the reputation of the United States around the world in the gutter, and left its economy in shambles?

Ten Campaign Idiocies... And Counting

Interesting list of campaign misinformation, lies, and partisan misrepresentations (my favorites are 5, 6, and 10).

Can Christian Superstition Hurt McCain? (Keep Your Fingers Crossed)

Sometimes Christian superstition has a sweet side.

Foreign Policy Wonk or Donk?

Much has been made of McCain's experience, his understanding of history and foreign policy, and--conversely--of Barack Obama's inexperience. Except, of course, McCain keeps making egregious errors on foreign policy, the latest two this week: he mentioned the border between Iraq and Afghanistan (also known as, as Jon Stewart cuttingly remarked, "Iran") and then he compounded that error with another one about the history of "the surge" in Iraq. (And by the way, the insufferable Katie Couric censored the blunder.)

You can put these errors down to campaign fatigue, to old age, or to plain old ignorance. Whichever you prefer, beware of those out there who will tell you, without a hint of shame, that Obama is the wrong man because he lacks experience. As Obama said, if you want Washington experience, you deserve four more years of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and you would do well to vote for John McCon. Seemingly, though, most people have had enough of that kind of experience.

James Dobson's An Evangelical Fraud (2)

James Dobson is an Evangelical charlatan (there are many around, in case you haven't noticed) who will lie in the name of Jesus to advance his Christocratic agenda in the service of ideas that Jesus himself would abhorred and of people he would have kicked out of the temple. Jim Wallis knows it (read previous post), I know it, you know it, and guess who else does?

James Dobson's An Evangelical Fraud (1)

James Dobson is an Evangelical charlatan (there are many around, in case you haven't noticed) who will lie in the name of Jesus to advance his Christocratic agenda in the service of ideas that Jesus himself would abhorred and of people Jesus would have kicked out of the temple. And Jim Wallis knows it, though he won't quite spell it out.
Now Dobson, the Ph.D. from hell, is attacking Sen. Obama, saying he distorts Jesus's message in the name of politics. So Jim Wallis, bless his heart, wrote at length about who's distorting whose words in an article for Sojourners that I am reprinting below the fold because you need to read it--particularly if you teach your students at Denver Seminary and the readers of your blog that Obama is the devil and that the United States will never recover if he is elected (you know who you are).

---

Dobson and Obama: Who is 'Deliberately Distorting'?, by Rev. Jim Wallis.

James Dobson, of Focus on the Family Action, and his senior vice president of government and public policy, Tom Minnery, used their "Focus on the Family" radio show Tuesday to criticize Barack Obama's understanding of Christian faith. In the show, they describe Obama as "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

The clear purpose of the show was to attack Barack Obama. On the show, Dobson says of himself, "I'm not a reverend. I'm not a minister. I'm not a theologian. I'm not an evangelist. I'm a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development." Child psychologists don't insert themselves into partisan politics in the regular way that James Dobson does and has over many years as one of the premier leaders of the Religious Right. He has spoken about how often he talked to Republican leaders -- Karl Rove, administration strategists, and even President Bush himself. This year he tried to influence the outcome of the Republican primary by saying he would never vote for John McCain or the Republicans if they nominated him, then reversed himself and said he would vote after all but didn't say for whom. But why should America care about how a child psychologist votes?

James Dobson is insinuating himself into this presidential campaign, and his attacks against his fellow Christian, Barack Obama, should be seriously scrutinized. And because the basis for his attack on Obama is the speech the Illinois senator gave at our Sojourners/Call to Renewal event in 2006 (for the record, we also had Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback speak that year), I have decided to respond to Dobson's attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech. I was there for the speech; Dobson was not.

I haven't endorsed a candidate, but I do defend them when they are attacked in disingenuous ways, and this is one of those cases. You can read Obama's two-year-old speech, [audio link] which was widely publicized at the time, and you can see that Dobson either didn't understand it or is deliberately distorting it. There are two major problems with Dobson's attack on Obama.

First, Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political campaign. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

Second, and perhaps most important, is the role of religion in politics. Dobson alleges that Obama is saying:

I [Dobson] can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue. And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. ... What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.

Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama strongly defended the right and necessity of people of faith in bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and he was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.

Obama said that religion is and always has been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but he also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands -- so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good -- for all of us, not just for the religious.

Instead of saying that Christians must accept "the lowest common denominator of morality," as Dobson accused Obama of suggesting, or that people of faith shouldn't advocate for the things their convictions suggest, Obama was saying the exact opposite -- that Christians should offer their best moral compass to the nation but then engage in the kind of democratic dialogue that religious pluralism demands. Martin Luther King Jr. perhaps did this best, with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.

One more note. I personally disagree with how both the Democrats and Republicans have treated the moral issue of abortion and am hopeful that the movement toward a serious commitment for dramatic abortion reduction will re-shape both parties' language and positions. But that is the only "bloody notion" that Dobson mentions. What about the horrible bloody war in Iraq that Dobson apparently supports, or the 30,000 children who die each day globally of poverty and disease that Dobson never mentions, or the genocides in Darfur and other places? In making abortion the single life issue in politics and elections, leaders from the Religious Right like Dobson have violated the "consistent ethic of life" that we find, for example, in Catholic social teaching.

Dobson has also fought unsuccessfully to keep the issue of the environment and climate change, which many also now regard as a "life issue," off the evangelical agenda. Older Religious Right leaders are now being passed by a new generation of young evangelicals who believe that poverty, "creation care" of the environment, human trafficking, human rights, pandemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and the fundamental issues of war and peace are also "religious" and "moral" issues and now a part of a much wider and deeper agenda. That new evangelical agenda is a deep threat to Dobson and the power wielded by the Religious Right for so long. It puts many evangelical votes in play this election year, especially among a new generation who are no longer captive to the Religious Right. Perhaps that is the real reason for Dobson's attack on Barack Obama.

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Tim Russert's Dead, Long Live Fox News!

I hope you did not get caught in the whirlpool of platitudes and servile eulogies spent in memory of Tim Russert, the great appeaser and serf to the powerful.

I know it is bad form to say bad things about the bad, but you can only really say good things about them if they did something worth praising, right? So, If you think Russert was an example for U.S. journalists to follow, read this. (Jon Swift, thankfully, is back from hiatus.)

If you want to know what aggressive interviewers do in the service of truth and their listeners, all you have to do is tune in to BBC World Service, and listen to interviewers embarrass their guests for their lies.

Obama on Religion and Society From 2006

Busy, busy, busy, but this is too important not to post. From an Obama 2006 speech, thoughts on religion and society. Via Pharyngula, a veritable mine of important information.