The Other America of Sarah Palin

While watching the October 2 2008 Vice Presidential Debate, I found myself thinking about Michael Harrington and his landmark book "The Other America." For Mr. Harrington, 1960's America was in danger of dividing in two: a nation of rich, and a nation of poor. Nearly fifty years later, America is dividing again, but along different lines: one nation is concerned about the future, while the other is proud to be a flock of morons. Welcome to Sarah Palin's America.

Michael Harrington. In some ways, it's just as well he is dead, because if he had lived to see what's happening now, it'd have killed him.

The one moment that told you everything you needed to know about this "debate" was when Senator Joe Biden briefly took Governor Palin to task for wholly ignoring moderator and interlocutor Gwen Ifill's question. Governor Palin then responded to Ms. Ifill's next question by saying that she was not going to answer questions in a way that Senator Biden or even the moderator may want, 'because she didn't have to.' And Sarah was right. For anyone troubled in anyway by the banal, nonsensical, and pretty much wholly unresponsive nature of her answers—frankly, the Governor couldn't care less. She wasn't talking to you.

For Governor Palin's America, 'it doesn't matter if human activity causes climate change—we just need to fight it.' That's also the America where Governor Palin can spend an entire debate talking about 1) drilling for oil to make America 'energy independent,' 2) increasing government regulation to punish 'predatory lenders' who created the current crisis on Wall Street, and 3) getting government 'out of the way' so private industry can grow—regardless of what question she is asked, or noticing any contradiction between points two and three, or how nonsensical point one is.

'Say it ain't so, Joe. There you go again, looking backwards,' Governor Palin said, apropos of nothing. But that's Sarah Palin: She looks FORWARD, not BACK. Why? Because looking forward means never having to say you're sorry. Sadly, it also means you won't be responsible for anything either.

'Shoeless' Joe Jackson. Not even Mr. Jackson could say THAT wasn't so.

When the New York Times points out the inconsistencies and (frankly) the lies from the McCain-Palin Campaign, the Forward Looking McCain apparachniki can simply dismiss any criticism by claiming that the Times is 'in the tank' for Senator Obama. Anyone who actually READS the Times may be outraged—but who cares? The people in Governor Palin's America (having never read the paper) know the Times is part of the Unrepresentative Liberal Eastern Elitist Media Establishment ie in the tank for Obama.

What really matters is Governor Palin's sharp ability to read a teleprompter (making her Charlie McCarthy to the teleprompter's Edgar Bergan), coupled with a willingness to promise her people they not only can have it all, they DESERVE to have it all. If Sarah Palin talks in meaningless and vacuous platitudes that lack the depth and substance of an average soda pop commercial—so much the better.

Sarah Palin (left) with teleprompter.

So what if I explode with rage to the point of a brain aneurysm. Who cares? I see Governor Palin as the least qualified vice presidential candidate in the history, who prides herself in leaping at the chance to be Number Two without giving the matter any consideration ie 'blinking.' I'm not going to like her, regardless of what she says. But the Other America, they see someone who is just like them: charming, unaffected, not contaminated by the corruption of Washington. Someone who is 'real.' So what if she can't tell Ms. Courric the name of any newspaper or magazine she reads, or explain why Alaska's geographic location gives her 'foreign policy experience'? Lots of people have trouble answering questions off the cuff, as Ms. Palin's defenders will defend. And the fact that Governor Palin refuses to face any real press interviews, that doesn't make her unqualified to be President. Look at the horrible attacks from the press on her poor pregnant daughter! What matters is that Governor Palin is going to bring some of that good ol' fashioned Wasilla Main Street common sense to Washington—whatever that means.

Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass,' insisted that he could make any word mean what he wanted the word to mean, because it was 'a question of who was master—that's all.' Humpty may have been the master of all things linguistic, but it took the Grand Old Party to master history. For example, Senator McCain says that the next President is not going to have to worry about how we got into Iraq; the President is going to have to worry about how we're going to get out, while preserving peace with honour (to coin a phrase). John McCain doesn't bother dismissing the past as yesterday's news. Why should he, when making up his own reality—just by Looking Forward--is so much easier?

Which America do you belong to? Here's a hint: if you think the debacle that is the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can come to any kind of resolution wholly independent of how they started, then you're one of the flock of morons. Sorry.

Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, trying to decide who's master--that's all.

Never looking backward also allows Sarah Palin, a conservative Republican, denounce Washington 'partisan bickering' with a clear conscience. The fact her political party used Ms. Paula Jones in a wholly frivolous civil lawsuit as a political attack on the sitting President, and later impeached the President for the first time in the history of our nation (over nothing) is irrelevant. (Quick: what were the charges for President Clinton's impeachment? If you guessed it was because of his relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky, you're wrong). For Governor Palin, though, it's like it never happened.

What else never happened? Within days of President Bush officially taking office, the air waves were filled on how the outgoing Clinton team had sabotaged the White House, extensively damaging the wiring and physical structure of the building. The stories of misconduct were so severe, an outraged Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga) demanded an investigation, with criminal indictments of the miscreants—until an embarrassed Congressman Barr discovered none of the stories were true.

Congressman Bob Barr, one of the first to introduce the expression "D'OH!" to political parlance.

Or there's the fiasco of Bill Frist's Senate, with the unprecedented exclusion of Democrats. For example, the GOP majority scheduled hearings, refusing to tell Democrats the times and location. That was the same GOP Congress notorious for its unwillingness to deal with any issues of substance, and yet brought the government to a halt over the Terri Schavio fiasco.

Then there's the party of Senator Orin Hatch (Hypocrite--UT), who spent the entire Clinton administration trying to prevent the appointment of any federal judges. During the Bush II administration, Senator Hatch became furious if a Senator raised an objection to some of the unqualified partisan hacks President Bush nominated to the federal bench. And guess which political party destroyed the Department of Justice, to the point that Ms. Monica Goodling (armed with a grant of immunity) testified how it was her job to break the law ensuring 'non-political' hirees were political enough. The entire upper echelon of the Department of Justice, from Alberto Gonzales on down, has resigned in disgrace, all for illegal partisan political activity. So much for McCain-Palin being the "party of change."

Senator Orin Hatch. "Remember kids-- Don't do as I say OR do!"

Come on now: how can you be the 'Party of change,' when you've held the Presidency twenty of the last twenty-eight years, and at least one (if not both) branches of Congress eighteen out of the last twenty years? Here's a hint: saying "Say it ain't so Joe and there you go again looking backwards," that's not going to cut it.

You say toe-may-to, I say ta-mat-o as the song goes: isn't one person's 'inexperience' really just another person's 'breath of fresh air.' In the end, isn't this just all a difference of opinion? Can't we all just get along? In a word: no.

Of course, I am Chicken Little, kvetching about how the sky is falling. But don't tell me that the Democrats in general and Bill Clinton is particular have 'done the same thing.' No one, at least not since President Andrew Jackson, has bled the nation the way George W. Bush's party has in the name of partisanship. What we're seeing now is qualitatively different, and not just in the halls of government.

Mr. Harrington's concern about the division of American society has come true with a vengeance. Mr. Bill Bishop has carefully documented in his book, 'The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans is Tearing Us Apart" (Houghton Mifflin 2008), how our mobile society has replicated our political divisions as geographic divisions. Neighborhoods, formerly divided by race and class, are now further subdivided by background, education, political inclination, and social outlook: self described liberals live with liberals; conservatives with conservatives. And never the twain need meet.

The division of America has led to America's electoral college system embracing the philosophy of Mr. Al Davis, owner of the Oakland Raiders American football club: Just win, baby.

Mr. Al Davis. "Just win Florida, Virgina, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri . . . Oh, you know what I mean, baby!"

By way of illustration: on the Monday following the Friday where the US Congress pledged a $700 billion USD line of credit to prop up a failing Wall Street, the American stock market at one point plunges 800 points, then rallies, but still the Dow Jones Industrial Average closes under the 10,000 point mark—for the first time in over four years. Senator McCain and Sarah Palin respond by insisting Senator Obama has too many 'character issues' to be President. Why? Because Moron America can understand 'character' easier than the collapse of the economy. After all, 'good character' doesn't cost anything, as opposed to the $700 billion USD bailout that may not even be enough.

The stakes, both nationally and internationally, are simply too high to dick around pandering to the shallow and stupid (to coin another phrase).

Here's what I mean. President Ronald Reagan entered the Presidency a federal debt that was already so large that just thinking about it made conservative economists bleed freely from every orifice. Eight years later, President Reagan left a debt greater than that of all his predecessors combined. But Reagan's record didn't last long. President George H.W. Bush in four years left a federal debt greater than all of HIS predecessors combined. Under President Clinton, the debt briefly leveled off, with the occasional balancing of the budget. Now, President George W. Bush has shattered all previous debt records, coupled with an 'off budget' $560 billion USD (and counting) Iraq war, a worsening war in Afghanistan, and now a $700 billion USD bail out to Wall Street.

Any political candidate who says the words 'tax cut' (unless it's preceded by 'forget about any'), that candidate is dangerously irresponsible. The bigger the promise of less taxes, the greater the level of dishonesty.

And that's still not the worst. Because of man-made climate change, the planet is facing the sixth global extinction, with 50% percent of the life forms on earth extinct by the end of the 21sr century. Chanting 'Drill, Baby Drill!'—that's not helping Governor Palin's America does have within its grasp the ability to turn our planet as barren and uninhabitable as Mars.

Last Presidential candidate of DoDo Party. "Drill Baby Drill!" was their campaign slogan.

Senator Biden, Gwen Ifill, and the America's willfully ignorant will not hold Governor Palin accountable. They won't even make her answer the questions. It's high time the Other Other America, the America that is not Sarah Palin's, starts not only demanding answers, but the right answers. As President Bush so eloquently warned us: "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me again, won't get fooled again."

Ida Lupino. She has nothing to do with this article, but I was feeling depressed.

A Million Little Pieces (Give or take 999,978 or so) . . .

And now for something completely different.

Instead of the usual semi-hysterical rant (more often than not about Governor Sarah Palin), I want to list a few of the highlights of my thirtieth high school reunion—highlights of course being a relative term. Really relative.

I should also note that unlike Mr. James Frey’s novelization of his memoirs, what follows is completely made up, not based on any actual events whatsoever, and is clearly the product of a deluded & deranged mind with much too much time on its hands. Additionally, the names have been changed, not so much to protect the innocent as to keep the innocent from giving me the ass kicking I so richly deserve.

Reunions always are stressful events, but for me I had more than the usual worries about being fatter, older and balder than my peers (for those of you too impatient to wade through this purple prose, and want to skip ahead, let me save you the trouble: YES--I was above average in the old, bald, and fat trifecta. Thanks for asking). But my additional worry involved what exactly would be the best way to explain that I’ve spent the last three years or so turning into the Crazy Cat Lady from ‘The Simpsons.' I briefly toyed with the idea of bragging how I still dressed better than she does and only have two cats. Still, I gave the matter my usual careful thought ie none at all, opting instead to just worry about it like a (cough cough) crazy person. In the end, I went with the usual straight (no chaser) shot, telling the truth how I’ve spent the last few years struggling with chronic depression, and left it at that. Which worked fine, given the high level of graciousness my classmates are justifiably known for.

Eventually, I felt comfortable enough to pull out my camera and had some pictures taken—now that I review them, it turns out no where near enough. But no worries. As they say where I come from: never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

In a flash of inspiration, I whispered to one woman that I was going to tell everyone in Oregon that we slept together in high school—which amused me so much, I said it to everyone. Heck…if a joke’s funny the first time, it’s gotta be good the next fifty.

If you are pictured below, and are unhappy about the bare-faced lies I have written about you, just write and I will remove all evidence: kicking of ass will not be necessary. Again, let me stress that everything that follows is a complete unmitigated and barefaced lie—not even Oprah would believe it.

Christina. We shared a homeroom for three years. I’m sure we were in other classes, but I can’t recall. She was one of the flashes on the tennis team, and for some reason I have no memory of her wearing anything other than a tennis dress—which says a lot more about my memory than her wardrobe. When I told her that I was going to tell everyone in Oregon we slept together in high school, she laughed and said “Nobody’s going to believe that!” I KNOW nobody’s going to believe that—but do you have to remind me?

Julia. When I told her my plan for this picture, she said that she would have—if only I asked her. Fortunately, that was merely a wild hallucination on my part, or I’d really be upset.

Christie. She said “Wow. You’re even creepier and more disgusting than you were thirty years ago.” Christie always knew her onions.

Karen. I first met Karen in fourth grade, back in the heyday of the Apollo Space program. I remember her as one of the academic stars of a class otherwise outstanding for mediocrity. For example, bringing home a piece of paper with a dozen or so math problems, and bringing it back to school the next day was even then beyond my level of competence (no need to ask if any of said problems were actually solved). There was no doubt in my mind that Karen was destined to be a leading lioness in the Space Program—just like those people in ‘I Dream of Jeanie.’ At the reunion, Karen explained that she was in fact not a rocket scientist (like those people in ‘Jeanie’), and then went off on some tangent about wondering how someone could still be bitter about elementary school homework assignments, almost forty years after the fact. Fortunately, I had stopped paying attention.

Michelle and Karen. For reasons that escape me, I always associate the two of them together. True, they were (and still are) tall, thin, bright, attractive, and very personable—but they are still very different people. I can’t be sure, but I think they thought me telling people in Oregon that I had slept with both of them was a good idea, because that would help me feel better about myself, both in high school and now. Jerks.

Shari. By now, my ears were really buzzing from the Hard Rock Café’s choice of loud musical acutremot, so I can’t be sure exactly what Shari said. I want to say it was something along the lines of ‘You wish.’ Well….DUH!

Pat the Cat (no one has ever called her ‘Pat the Cat’ in her life) and Teresa. Their shotgun repartee to my little joke (by now, damn little) were so pointed and risqué, I blushed redder than a tomato another season passed. My mother always warned me that if I tried to play with the big kids, I’d only wind up hurt.

Randy & Bert. Two of my older friends, and I don’t just mean ‘long standing.’ It was years before Randy realized that ‘WWJD?’ did not stand for ‘Who Would Jesus Do?’ And remember in ‘Some Like It Hot’ when Marilyn Monroe said she was from a musical family: her father was a ‘conductor’ for the Baltimore & Ohio? Well, Bert is some kind of an engineer—but I couldn’t swear that he isn’t similarly employed by the B&O Railroad.

Susan. We worked together on the debate team. When I told her my plan for our picture, she said something like ‘Well, we were partners remember….’ I got so flustered, I almost forgot to hold in my stomach.

Martina and her charming husband whose name unfortunately escapes me. Martina is a German national, and currently lives in Berlin. For reasons too complicated to go into (in other words: I don’t remember), Martina and I were on the verge of a huge fight about Werner Heisenberg, Konrad Adenauer, and why Germany does not have an atomic bomb. I do remember that at one point, her husband coughed softly, which I guess is German for ‘Honey, please humour the nuts,’ because they suddenly remembered they needed to go somewhere else right away.

Robin. Robin is someone else I have known for close to forty years now. She was happy to assist in my charade, but was even happier to hear that I had been married and divorced twice. That meant it was reasonably certain that I had actually slept with SOMEBODY at SOMETIME in my life. I wonder why I didn’t try talking to the nice people in my class...

Lynn. Lynn also jumped at the chance to create a fraudulent record of my high school years. And just like Robin—but wholly independent of her—Lynn also congratulated me on my two failed marriages, because that meant I had to have slept with someone, and probably more than once. Har de har har.

Katie. I am really mad that I didn’t get a picture of Katie. Another one of my fellow Long March Veterans from Halecrest Elementry (class of ’72), she was sweet enough to at least pretend to remember that I had taken her to see a movie--a real toothache of a picture called ‘The Fury,’ with Amy Irving and (I’m pretty sure) Kirk Douglas. But Katie always was a class act, as evidence by the fact she didn’t press too deeply about how I was able to remember so much about a quasi-date where nothing memorable happened.

Tracy. When my family moved to San Diego in 1968, Tracy lived across the street. The day we moved in—or the day after, at the latest--he knocked on the door, told my mom he noticed my family had a boy, and wanted to know if I wanted to come out and play. We became tight, best friends; until going to separate schools led to us drifting apart. But he always was good people—except for that time in 1969, when we got into a fight and he sort of beat me up (I tried to get him to fight me, he punched me in the arm and I fell down. Not really one of those Ali-Frazier epics, mind you). While Tracy was gentleman enough not to mention the big fight (if he even remembers it, which I doubt), he did feel compelled to mention that the two of us engaged in monopoly games that lasted for every day for weeks at a time. Randy’s otherwise charming wife Diane commented about how high school kids do weird things, and Mr. Big Mouth couldn’t spit it out fast enough that we were TEN at the time. Tracy now works in Juneau, and he doesn’t know it yet, but in a year or so I’m going to invite myself up to stay with him so I can run the Midnight Sun Marathon. That way, I can add one more state to my list of states I’ve marathoned—plus stick Tracey’s hand in warm water while he’s sleeping. That’ll teach him not to broadcast what nerd-os we were (it’ll mean another sock in the arm, but my falling down talent has lost none of its edge).

Melissa. Sister of above Tracey. I did not make a point of talking to Melissa, and now I regret it. Back in the day, we were the bitterest enemies (at least, that’s how I remember it). I’m not sure why, but she now is very charming—probably because one of us is no longer a complete jerk. Which is probably why I put off talking to her, just on the off chance it’s me who’s no longer the complete jerk.

Susan. Another lost photo opportunity I am furious about. For some reason, Susan—who I remember as a dead ringer for Donna, the saucy redhead on ‘That 70s Show’—apparently lived around the corner from me and was good friends with my parents. I KNOW I have not forgotten that little fact, and will go to my grave insisting I was never aware of it. Maybe I was living in a parallel dimension at the time--I don’t know. More proof of parallel dimensionism: Susan does not remember herself as a dead ringer for Donna, the saucy redhead from ‘That 70s Show.’

David. Not having a picture of David really is stupid, because I actually made him take some of these pictures. David and I were in Boy Scouts together. That was the troop that dubbed me ‘Abby,’ made famous by Abigail Van Buren (if you don’t know who that was, ask your grandmother). Get it? Get it? AB-EN-droth…AB-BY! HA HA HA! I was called ‘Abby’ for so long, that when I changed schools it took some time to get used to answering to ‘Bill.’

Rick. A class act even among class acts. At the reunion, he sought me out and introduced himself to me, and I pretended not to know who he was—just so I could give him a hug and whisper a rough dozen of the nastiest, most despicable, and truly grossest obscenities I know (and I know lots of them) in his ear. I picked Rick as one of my chief nemeses in high school, why I have no idea. For my part, I couldn’t marshal the nemesis of the 1976 Tampa Bay Bucs (ask your grandfather). But Rick always went out of his way to be friendly to me--then and now. Bastard.


****************************************************************

Editorial Note:

This little ditty was initially composed on a laptop PC, that is a computer in only the broadest sense of the term (to give you an idea, the laptop sports a sticker reading 'Built for Windows 95!'--and the manufacturer was bragging at the time). My sister (who up to now has been gracious enough to let me stay with her) has one of those Macs where the whole computer looks like a flat screen television. I almost destroyed her computer trying to stuff a floppy disk in the CD-ROM drive (how was I supposed to know computers don't use floppy disks any more?) She still doesn't know I did that--thank goodness she thinks everything I write is too boring and pointless to matter, or I might be in trouble. So, I had to take my little floppy disk and something called a 'jump drive' (it has Minnie Mouse's picture on the front), and use my niece's laptop to transfer the draft--given that she apparently has the last machine in the greater San Diego metropolitan area that has both a floppy disk drive and a working USB port.

I then took the jump drive to my sister's Mac, and also downloaded the pictures from my digital camera on the Mac hard drive, apparently somewhere near the black hole in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle. For reasons known only to Steve Jobs and his god, copying the photos to this Facebook page involved at least thirty-five steps--per picture. When all the pictures were first copied, I then clicked on the plasma defribulator (or whatever it's called) to transfer the photos I had saved from the internet. Again, based on a master plan developed by Baal and Steve Jobs (I'm pretty sure it was Baal), instead of opening a new window to the world, everything my niece and I had carefully done went the way of all angels.

I made a few reserved and collected remarks about the state of contemporary technology, and my niece wondered if I always swore like a pirate. Essentially, we (my niece and I) had to start over a rough half dozen times--and when we were finally finished, I asked why the photos that had been rotated (and saved--thanks for asking), were now unrotated. My niece (god bless her) asked what program did I want to use to edit the JPEGs, and I said that I did not have an opinion as to what program we should use (I also strongly implied that Mr. Jobs had in fact been conceived prior to his parents uniting in holy wedlock, his maternal parent had strong canine tendencies, and then I went on to draw multiple analogies involving various expressions of sexual intercourse (not always in the best of taste), involving multiple partners and a wide variety of animal species). It was then we discovered that the program to remove the satanic glare from Lynn's eyes was somehow unable to save the photo that way. My own eyes took on a strange light, and (among other things) I proceeded to repeatedly break both the second and third commandments--as well as heavily disrespect the first, fourth, sixth, eighth, and tenth. My niece asked me if I was done (in that snarky way)--so I pounded at the ninth, just for good measure. So Lynne: I'd say I was sorry your eyes are still goofed up--but that would be a lie.

Dumb People Ruin Everything

"Wait wait wait--I'm a little weak on the whole 'good' and 'bad' thing. . . "
--Dr. Venkman, Bill Murray's character in the film 'Ghostbusters.'

On September 28 2008, thirty-three ministers who are part of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization, decided to build a test case to challenge the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) restrictions on churches engaging in political activity. At issue is the 1954 amendment to the tax code at 26 USC sec. 501(c)(3), introduced by then Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson, which does not allow a tax-exempt church to "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." Coordinated by Mr. Erik Stanley, a tax attorney, the ministers endorsed by name a candidate for the up-coming United States Presidential election, and then notified the IRS of their actions. If the IRS chooses to enforce the limitation on political activity by taking away the churches' tax exempt status, then Mr. Stanley will bring the IRS to federal court, asking a judge to strike down that limitation as a violation on the ministers' first amendment right to freedom of speech.

I know I said Bill Murray--but I just like Sigourney Weaver, Okay?

As you can well imagine, everyone is very excited about this, making bold and important sounding statements about my two least favorite legal clichés: 'freedom of speech' and 'separation of church and state.' I really hate that. At another time, for those of you who really care, I will give brief rundown on what 'freedom of speech' and 'separation of church and state' mean, and how they apply in this context (and if you don't care: no worries. Only I care. I know this).

Instead, I want to comment on a curious aspect of censorship: the dangers of Dumb People.

'Censorship' means an authority has restricted some information, because the authority believes communicating that information is dangerous. Narrowing further, censored information poses a threat, either because it is true--or because it is false.

The former, censorship of information that is true, is the less controversial. Rightly or wrongly, our political system has determined that some information cannot be expressed publicly, because knowing that information poses a threat to society. For example, I cannot post technical information about how to best separate the two main isotopes of uranium (uranium 235 and uranium 238) necessary for building an atomic bomb.

Ms. Shirley Eaton. She used to work for Goldfinger, but now she works for the US Department of the Treasury

Censoring incorrect information ('incorrect' for whatever reason a person believes it to be false) poses an interesting question that touches on the foundations of a pluralistic liberal democracy. For example, placement of certain books in libraries, idiotic political advertisements, and opinions expressed by media pundits, all invite raucous comment--especially when whoever's commenting believes the opinion, advertisement, or book is 'wrong' or 'biased.' The offending information must be restricted or banned, so the argument goes, because its propaganda value will convince a significant portion of society to think the false information is in fact true. But if you were to ask the raucous commentators if they felt swayed by the false propaganda, they would assure you that had not. No one (that I am aware of) has ever said 'Please restrict this false information, because if I keep hearing it, I am going to believe it.' No, the people who want to restrict information are not worried about themselves--they are worried about the OTHER people who hear it: the Dumb People.

If everyone was 'smart' (meaning had the same judgment and values as the people advocating the censorship), there would be no need to restrict the information: all right thinking people would recognize the falsity, and dismiss it out of hand. But those who don't know better, they might believe the false information, to the detriment of the Smart People. Dumb People: they ruin it for everybody.

Take, for instance, a book that urges everyone to become gay, have a same-sex marriage, raise gay children, and live a gay life style. There is a portion of American society who would find that book offensive, and not want it placed in public libraries. But not because they are afraid that they might accidentally read the book, and become gay themselves. No--the worry is that Dumb People or impressionable children (i.e. Dumb Kids) will read the book, and become gay. Nevermind the fact that no one has ever chosen their sexual identity based on book learin', the Smart People still need to protect themselves from the Dumb People--you never know.

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Would you buy a used car from this man? How about giving him $700 billion USD, no restrictions and no oversight?

Getting back to the Alliance Defense Fund ministers, if I attended one of their services, I imagine I would be told that God wanted me to vote Republican, because God is tough on national defense, abortion, and earmarks--just like Senator McCain. Or I would hear that God's platform includes national health care, increased funding for education, and a tax cut for middle class families earning less than $250,000 USD a year--just like Senator Obama. Or maybe God had come out for Ron Paul or Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Or God is now on the side of Ralph Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. Following the Divine Endorsement, what would I do?

I'll tell you right now: even if Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, the Gotama Buddha, Vishnu, and Bertrand Russell all gave a homily on how I needed to vote the McCain-Palin ticket--no soap, is all I have to say. On the other hand, even a below-average speaker could probably shame me in voting for either Mr. Nader or Ms. McKinney (if not both). Why? Because I am already favorably disposed towards the Greens, and have a tattoo of Ralph Nader across my chest.

My point is, I am skeptical of the value of endorsements: I think by and large, the people persuaded by hearing that God Is On Our Side, they were leaning that way already. Even the Dumb People.

Mr. Ralph Nader. We're still waiting to see if he will accept his pending endorsement from the Supreme Being

Of course, as President Lincoln famously warned, you can fool all of the people some of the time--to their great detriment. A classic example is what happened during the 2000 South Carolina Republican presidential primary. Just prior to that election, Senator McCain had beaten then Governor George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, and it looked like he would also win in South Carolina. Fearing the momentum would make Senator McCain unbeatable, Governor Bush launched one of the more disgusting campaigns of our time. For example, Bush covered the state with the rumour that Senator McCain fathered a BLACK CHILD out of wedlock with a BLACK PROSTITUTE. Senator McCain does have a dark-skinned daughter: he and his wife adopted an orphan from Bangladesh. Nevertheless, enough Dumb People believed Bush's smear campaign, and Senator McCain lost badly. The McCain campaign never recovered.

Would truth, justice, and democracy have been better served if George Bush had been prevented from lying to the Dumb People? I would say no, and for two reason. First, I cannot imagine any effective way to screen the truthful sleazeball campaigns from the lying sleazeball campaigns. One of the early principles that arose from the US Supreme Court freedom of speech litigation is that the better remedy for 'bad' speech is to encourage more speech, as opposed to restricting the bad speech. For example, instead of some South Carolina Caliph issuing a wholly unenforceable order for Governor Bush to 'stop lying,' the McCain campaign and independent local media should have passed the dual message of Senator McCain's adoption and Governor Bush being a lying pig face sack of goose goo. Did that happen? Obviously, not enough.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Wait--What? Oh, not again!

Still, second (and for me the more important point), is that as a society with a republican form of democracy, we depend on an informed populace. While voters often make mistakes, on balance executive power must have a popular check on its authority. So how do we get informed plebs to make a good plebiscite? By letting them make mistakes. If anyone in South Carolina voted for George W. Bush, because they thought Senator McCain fathered a child with a black prostitute--then that person was a complete moron. However, I believe that morons eventually stop being morons, if their moron-ity is pointed out to them. Education--not unlike manure--happens.

Why do I believe that? Because I'm a gullible, bleeding heart liberal. But then again......On September 29 2008, the US House of Representatives shocked President Bush, the Democratic and Republican Leadership, Senators McCain and Obama--and probably even god--when they voted down the brokered compromise 'rescue plan,' giving Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson $700 billion USD of mad money. Is there a fiscal crisis, demanding immediate action and an outpouring of princely sums? Probably. But I was delighted to hear several representatives saying that the last time President Bush was declaring a national emergency, and he needed immediate piles of money and authority, it was for the Iraq War. Given that the last time this White House was handed a blank check, it turned out not only to NOT be an emergency, but President Bush went on to make a pig's breakfast of the whole situation. So--no soap, President Bush--as they say where I come from. You say you need seven hundred large--I mean EXTRA large? Show us--do some of that 'advise and consent' stuff. Then we can talk. The formerly Dumb People have spoken.

Ms. Vivian Leigh. Repeat after me, Wall Street: "As God is my witness, I'll NEVER be poor a-gain!"

In conclusion, do I disagree with the Johnson Amendment, and think ministers should be able to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, and keep their tax exempt status? Absolutely not. But not because I am worried about ministers unduly influencing the Dumb People. I object, because I am a cheapskate, and do not want to pay money to subsidize their political activity by paying for the infrastructure that provides their water, sewer, police and fire protection, and road maintenance.

You want to write childish things about Presidential candidates that no one cares about, then give up your tax breaks and get a blog like the rest of us losers---I mean zealots.

The Bourgeoisie Always Wins

Following the Presidential debate of Senators Obama and McCain, I am less than stunned than most cognoscenti score the debate as a draw, and the public scoring the bout with the candidate they support prevailing in a split decision. I, on the other hand, score debates differently. Under the 'Bill System,' I pretend that I am reading a blind transcript of the debate, to see if I can tell who's the bleeding heart tax & spend liberal and who's the corporate tool spend & spend conservative. The easy way to do this is listen to what a candidate says, and then imagine if the opponent could have said the same thing.

Moderator Jim Lehrer. His hobby is asking

questions that people ignore.

Honourable Mention for Mentioning of Honours--and Other Empty Gestures

Moderator Jim Lehrer, the forces of random probability and natural selection bless him, tried his hardest, but both candidates, like the oak growing by the river, they shall not be moved. When asked what changes their administrations would make following the $700 billion USD bail out of Wall Street (on top of $500 billion USD in guarantees to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $85 billion USD to AIG, and lots of massaging for the takeovers of Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual. Then there's the $560 billion USD (so far) in the Iraq war--all yet to be paid), both candidates took blood oaths to make sharp reductions in the Department of Unspecified Deadwood. Other than that, Senator Obama waxed eloquently on the importance of health care, education, development of alternative energy sources, and tax relief for families making less than $225,000 USD a year to pay for the high cost of energy (all excellent in points--had the question been about the high cost of energy, tax cuts for families making less than $225,000 USD a year, development of alternative energy sources, education, or even health care. But it wasn't.). Senator McCain made broad sweeping gestures with his pen, bragging on how he would use his veto super power against out of control spending (viewers watching with the sound off may have wondered why Mr. Lehr asked which candidate had the best impression of Zorro).

Senator McCain did offer one specific suggestion: an across the board spending freeze--except for military spending, entitlements, and veterans' benefits. That was the night's comic highpoint. After adding up the above mentioned federal hand outs, interest payments on the existing federal debt, 'entitlements,' and 'military spending,' a McCain administration might be left slashing the budget for Federal Allocation of Paperclips & Misc Paper Fasteners, Other Than Staples--but not much else.

Both candidates' responses were shameful, and frankly dishonest. Each candidate dusted off penny ante examples of how their personal intervention on some specific program saved some large sounding amount of money, that is actually peanuts compared to the budget numbers. Senator McCain dusted off his old saw about the $3 million USD the US Geological Survey allocated to study grizzly bear DNA, and

Ms. Ingrid Bergman. She was not present for the debate. But if she had, she would have been candid about how the Wall Street bail out would limit a Bergman Administration.

how he doesn't know if that's a paternity issue or a criminal issue. Ho ho ho (it's actually a 'paternity' issue, whether the bear should be covered by the endangered species act). That little ditty has been in Senator McCain's bag of tricks so long, he's probably spent more than $3 million just in the telling.

For individual voters and game shows, $3 million USD is lots of money. It's not. Even under the most conservative estimates, the United States spends $15 billion USD a month on the Iraq War. Assuming a thirty day month, $3 million will pay for just over eight and half minutes of the Iraq War. How big is the federal budget? On September 28 2008, the US Congress passed and sent to President Bush a budget of $634 billion USD, to fund the government for four months--through the end of January 2009--and that does not include payments for any of the above bail outs. For Senator McCain to repeatedly highlight a $3 million expense, as if that was the source of our budgetary woes, is ridiculous. If Senator McCain and his busy veto pen thinks nixing $3 million programs will balance the budget--well, he's going to need to find over 5,000 of them, just to pay for one month of a war that's been going on for over five years. On the other hand, if Senator McCain can eliminate a mere 187,000 programs at $3 million per--that would pay for the Iraq War!

In terms of differences between the candidates, Senator McCain insisted he would cut taxes more than Senator Obama, but was not specific regarding renewing President Bush's steep tax cuts for the top two percent of taxpayers. Senator Obama won some credibility by insisting that not EVERYONE could get a tax cut--but more than lost it by insisting that 95% of the population (his figure) COULD get a tax cut. Other than that, the candidates' platitudes on the economy were interchangeable.

Guess Who Supports This Issue--It's Easy and Fun!

A. Offshore Oil Drilling

Rather than repeat Mr. Thomas Friedman's arguments as to why Drill Baby Drill is not just mistaken, but idiotic, I urge you to read his columns at nytimes.com. Nevertheless, both candidates supported offshore oil drilling.

B. Nuclear Power

Senator McCain stressed how he was way more in favor of building nuclear reactors than Senator Obama, but for all of Senator Obama's half-hearted reservations, Senator Obama still supported more reactors. Senator Obama did express concern about where nuclear waste should be stored, mentioned the controversy over the proposed facility in Yucca Mountain Nevada. Senator McCain had no such reservations, but made no mention where waste should be stored.

Senator Barack Obama. He's not a Republican--but he frequently plays one on TV.

There are three problems with nuclear energy, and both candidates are well aware of them. First and foremost, there is no permanent storage facility for nuclear waste. The closest we have is a proposed storage site in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The enabling legislation to complete this facility is affectionately known as the 'Screw Nevada' bill. Residents of the Silver State remain skeptical this nuclear trash can will in fact safely store the most toxic substances on earth for the projected 10,000 years the waste will remain harmful, and that there is no danger in trucking waste from all over the lower 48 to southern Nevada. If Senator McCain is sincere is his strong implication that we need nuclear power now, and we cannot wait for a permanent facility, then he needs to do one of two things. Either he must endorse the Screw Nevada bill, and push for completion of Yucca Mountain; or he must say where else a facility should be built, what needs to be done to complete that facility, and how waste can be safely stored until completion. Senator McCain's unspecified assertion that we are already safely storing waste, or that 'we'll find a way' is disingenuous.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, hardly scores better. He gets no points for mentioning the Yucca Mountain controversy. He only mentioned it as a controversy, without taking a position. In fact, Senator Obama gets negative points by trying to have it both ways: he's solidly *for* nuclear power--but maybe he's *against* nuclear power (kind of), because there is no permanent storage facility.

The second problem with nuclear power is the tremendous start up costs. Nuclear reactors generate electricity the same way coal-fired reactors do. Both boil water, and the resulting steam spins a generator, and out pops electricity. The difference is in how the water is heated: the former uses heat from a nuclear reaction, while the latter burns coal. Regardless of how much water is boiled or electricity generated, no nuclear reactor has generated enough money to pay for the cost of its construction and operation (nevermind storage costs of waste). Neither a McCain nor Obama administration will be in a position to spread economic largess to build enough of these economic rat holes to make a difference in America's energy picture. However, Senator McCain gets a special markdown, for the ever popular and always irresponsible crowing of 'job creation'--as if building nuclear power plants were a New Deal era Works Progress Administration (WPA) project.

Finally, there is the problem of lost opportunity costs. Both candidates paid lip service to the holy grail of 'alternative energy sources' in the same wistful tones Ronald Coleman used to describe Shangri-la in Lost Horizon. But anything more specific than the obligatory invocation of 'wind, solar, geothermal, biodiesel, and other sources' would wait until another day. Looking at where the United States will get the best use out of its energy dollars, investments in those technologies and even mass transit would be far more effective than another nuclear reactor.

On the issue of energy, Senator McCain did win extra points for specifically opposing continued subsidies for ethanol production ('Go for Huckabee, will ya? Well, SCREW YOU Iowa!'). I don't know whether cutting those subsidies is a good idea or not--but it was an point of difference between the two--maybe. Senator Obama did not take a position on ethanol production.

C. 'Clean' Coal

Both candidates love coal, and consider something called 'clean coal' an 'alternative energy.' Because burning coal predates even burning oil, I am curious how burning coal is an 'alternative.' More importantly, coal fired power plants do tremendous environmental damage, as sources of both carbon dioxide and acid rain--regardless of how 'clean' the coal is.

I cannot help but rank the 'clean' in clean coal in the same category as the 'fruit' in Froot Loops.

D. Missile Defense

The judges were divided on this issue, as to whether the candidates were deluding themselves or if they were simply pandering. Ultimately, we decided it did not matter, because either way both candidates were marked down.

Both candidates supported the $60 plus billion USD program building anti-missile systems in Poland (and even expanding the program at additional cost), to protect against 'rogue states.' Both candidates also gave the impression that such a system would be effective. Senator McCain even boasted that he supported President Reagan's proposed SDI system, 'even before we knew whether it would work.' Well, anti-ballistic missile systems (ABM) do not work for two reasons. First, we cannot hit the proverbial bullet with a bullet. The technology does not exist. Both candidates disgraced themselves by leaving the impression that technology does exist, and can protect against missile attacks. Second, and more importantly, even if and when we are able to hit a bullet with a bullet, those bullets will not disappear. During the 1970s debates over the ABM Treaty (broken by President George W. Bush), one of the most persuasive arguments against ABM Systems (and in favor of the Treaty) was that the people behind the 'missile shield' would die if the ABM missiles missed--but would still die from the resulting explosions if the ABM missiles did hit their targets.

Given the weak economic position we were in prior to this current real estate, banking, and Wall Street collapse, the fact both candidates still endorsed these rat-hole systems is a disservice to the country.

However, both candidates did score ahead of President Bush in their Chicken Little warnings about Rogue States. President Bush prefers to leave the identity of his Rogues unspecified, in that maybe someday, somewhere, someone will suddenly jump out of Zeus's forehead, fully armed with intercontinental ballistic missile systems, ready for battle. In contrast, both Senators Obama and McCain agreed on the boogeyman: not Russia, India, or Pakistan (who actually HAVE both atomic bombs and missiles), but instead pointed to Iran and North Korea. Unfortunately, they both lose points, because while insisting we need to live in fear and trembling of North Korea, both also acknowledged that North Korea could hardly generate electricity and was wholly unable to feed its own people. Senator McCain even mentioned on average, North Koreans were three inches shorter than their Southern counterparts, due to malnutrition. Neither mentioned that during North Korea's bomb 'test,' the yield of the explosion was substantially smaller than what should have resulted from a working atomic bomb, creating doubt that they actually have such a weapon--let alone the ability to place it on a missile.

As for Iran, both candidates joined the Bush White House assumption that Iran was actively building an atomic bomb, and neither mentioned the recent CIA report to the contrary. Neither also mentioned that Iran--like North Korea--is unable to feed its own people, and despite having one of the world's largest oil reserves, they cannot produce enough gasoline for domestic use.

If a Presidential candidate wants me to lie awake at night, shaking with fear, they need more than the spectre of two of the most dysfunctional governments on the planet--one even being one of the poorest.

E. Invading Pakistan to Get Bad Guys

This point is a little more subtle. Senator Obama said several times that we need to find and kill Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the September 11 2001 attacks, as well as leaders of the Taliban and anti-American forces in Afghanistan. If the United States knew where these bad guys were--even if it was inside of Pakistan--we should go kill them. Senator McCain was appalled, and expressed indignation that a US President would ever say anything like that. Moreover, the fact that Senator Obama said something like that out loud was proof of Senator Obama's inexperience and naivety.

Now, you could say that I agree with Senator McCain: I think violating Pakistan's territorial integrality to kill people death-squad style is irresponsible--but you'd be wrong. Senator McCain thinks invading Pakistan (or anyone else, for that matter) to kill people he does not like is a great idea. What Senator McCain is vehemently against is saying so OUT LOUD.

Ostensively, such operations should be kept secret--which leads to the logical question of 'secret from whom?' Certainly not secret from the Pakistanis (or whoever else is invaded). Buildings blowing up all around is a dead give-away. No, the only ones left in the dark are the American people. Senator McCain wants the freedom to blow up and kill all the people he wants, while still preserving Americans self-delusion that we don't blow up and kill people. Senator McCain wants to make sure that Americans still have no idea why 'they' (unspecified) hate us.

Both candidates lose points for naive military adventurism, but Senator McCain gets a severe mark down both for intellectual dishonesty and wanting to keep Americans the dumbest people in the solar system.

F. Georgia: Capital of the Universe!

Both Senators had a spirited pander off, to see who could say the bestest and nicest things about Georgian President Saakashvili (I scored it a tie). Not surprisingly, both strongly condemned Russia and Vladimir Putin; insisted the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia should remain part of Georgia; wanted Georgia, the Ukraine, and pretty much anyone else not named 'Russia' to join NATO; wanted Russia to obey the terms of the truce--if not withdraw from Georgia completely; the United States should send money to rebuild Georgia's infrastructure; and Russia was not going to get away with bullying its neighbors--not on President McCain or President Obama's watch!

At this point, I also declared a tie for the 'Blowing Smoke Up Your Ass' award. What, pray tell, would the United States really do if Russia did something to Georgia that we did not like? Launch an amphibious invasion of the Kamchatka Peninsula? Air strikes on the Crimean winter homes of the Russian elite? Call for a worldwide boycott of stacking dolls?

This is what I wanted to hear about Georgia: The Russian invasion was certainly bad, but to think there is anything the United States can do besides symbolic and meaningless gestures is delusional. Georgia should not be a member of NATO, because Russia would not tolerate that any more than we would tolerate Mexico or Quebec joining the Warsaw Pact.

Ms. Sophia Loren. While not a candidate for Vice President, she knows a lot about Iraq--mainly because Italy is much closer to Iraq then either Arizona or Illinois.

Right now, United States is no position to condemn anyone for invading another nation in violation of the UN Charter, until we get our own house in order about how we violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, the rest of the world will just dismiss us as hypocrites. Nor can the United States glibly insist that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are Georgian territory, and should not be autonomous regions, after the United States's strong support of Kosovo's independence from Serbia.

Like it or not, Russia is still a nuclear power and has missiles that work. The United States will not just push Russia around. Of course, the Georgia invasion had everything to do with pipelines and selling energy to Europe, and virtually nothing to do with the supposed oppression of South Ossetia--but so what? At this point, the Russian people have lost pretty close to everything they had since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and their democracy is in a precarious situation. Any windbag belligerence from the United States will only strengthen the totalitarian, anti-democratic forces, and do nothing to help the Georgian people.

The only effective action the United States can do is to take is take a backseat to the European Union, supporting their efforts to bring Russia to heel, and rebuild our standing in the United Nations, helping to broker a resolution through that body. To do anything else would be pointless grandstanding, in an effort to pander only to American voters.

Next, I'd mention New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's article about his pleasant surprise on seeing a headline about $1 billion USD going to rebuild Georgia's crumbling infrastructure--followed by his biting disappointment that it was Tibilisi and not Atlanta.

And I'd also point out that Mr. Putin was now the Prime Minister, and even if you believe Mr. Putin is still pulling the strings, you will not get anywhere if you don't even acknowledge Mr. Dmitry Medvedev, the current President.

G. We Love You Henry!

There was a meaningless dust up about Henry Kissinger, of all people, but the bottom line was that both candidates cited the old War Criminal favorably, and as an authority for their positions.

While both candidates deserve praise for breaking with President Bush's foolish refusals to meet with people he does not like--like the Iranians--Senator McCain repeatedly tried to invent a difference between the two candidates, by insisting that Senator Obama wanted to have discussions with Iran 'without preconditions.' To do so, Senator McCain went on to say, would be an express endorsement of everything that Iranian President Ahmadinejad ever said--especially all that nasty rhetoric about Israel. That was just childish, and Senator McCain knows better.

Unless there are areas of disagreement to resolve, there is no reason for nations and their representatives to meet. Moreover, simply meeting with the representative of a nation--even the nation's chief executive officer--in no way endorses everything that leader says and believes. For example, did all the nations who engaged in the multi-party talks with North Korea agree that Kim Jong Il is a quasi-divine being? It's doubtful that prior to meeting, there was a 'precondition' that everyone could maintain their own opinion of the Beloved Leader's godhood.

Iranian President Mohmoud Ahmadinejad. He may hate Israel--but rumour has it he loves NASCAR.

More importantly, Senator McCain knows that meeting with President Ahmadinejad does not mean accepting Iran's views on Israel. If Senator McCain is sincete in his refusal to speak with any nation, absent a prior agreement that Israel can and will exist as a Jewish religious state, best of luck with the Muslim world. Does anyone think Iran's views of Israel are not shared by Saudi Arabia? How many of the Afghan Mujideen 'freedom fighters' supported Israel's right to exist? (Hint: It rhymes with 'zero'). Will a President McCain refuse to meet with Iraq Prime Minister Al-Maliki--or a representative of that government--until Iraq agrees that Israel has the right to exist?

That point of the debate was Senator McCain at his most dishonest.

H. Who Loves Ya, Veterans! Oh, and We're Sending More of You to Afghanistan

Both Senators openly pandered to veterans, trying to outdo each other in praise for their great job, successes on the ground, and their soulful sacrifices. I give Senator McCain the edge in effusiveness of pandering, almost getting misty in his insistence that veterans 'knew' a President McCain would 'take care of them.' However, I felt neither candidate did enough to separate themselves from the disgrace of President Bush's VA healthcare.

And in the 'Sucks to be You!' news, both candidates are sending lots more of Americans to Afghanistan.

I. There's No Home like Homeland Security

Sadly, both candidates endorsed the wrong-headed premise that we are fighting a global war on terror, and love the job that the Department of Father--WHOOPS! Homeland Security is doing. At a later date, I will explain my objections to the War on Terror model. Senator McCain made a quick 'both ways' play, at separate times crediting the federal government for Homeland Security and cursing the federal government for expanding by more than 40% during the Bush administration (I hate when that happens).

J. Torture is Bad

With all the strum und drang I'm bringing to my review, there was a singular high point. On his own initiative, Senator McCain said that we must stop torturing people. There were none of President Bush's disgraceful dodges about how 'we don't torture,' and 'torture is whatever the law says it is--and we don't do it.' Without breaking his arm while patting himself on the back or making a song about it, Senator McCain acknowledged we have engaged in torture, and that torture is wrong. Even Senator Obama took a moment to thank Senator McCain for Senator McCain's longstanding and vocal opposition on this basic violation of human rights.

You Say I-rack, I say IR-rack; You say Afghan, I say Afghani. I-rack! IR-rack! Afghan! Afghani! Let's Call the Whole Thing Even....

To the extent there was a material difference between the two Senators, it was over our twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After the dust settled, I had to give the edge to Senator Obama for two reasons. First, Senator Obama was more candid (ie honest) than Senator McCain, and more importantly, Senator McCain took a position that was largely indefensible.

I was pleasantly surprised that Senator Obama stuck to his guns with his strong insistence that the Iraq War was a mistake from the beginning, and the United States should never have invaded in March 2003: Iraq had no WMDs or nuclear program, Iraq had no connection with the September 11 attacks or with al Qaida, and Iraq was not supporting terrorist movements. While that certainly is all true, that position invites the question: 'Does that mean my child died in Iraq, pretty much for nothing?' Yes it does.

Senator John McCain, explaining how he coulda been a contenda.

I would have preferred Senator Obama draw an express admission of the above three points from Senator McCain, because a significant percentage of the Republican base STILL believes those assertions are true. Republicans even today are pimping on that misinformation, most recently during Governor Palin's good bye speech to her son's Iraq deployment. Senator McCain tried to dodge the issue, popping the trusty blue smoke of 'regardless of how we got in Iraq, the next President will have to consolidate our recent gains.' Senator McCain then stripped open his shirt, and carved the word SURGE! across his chest. Wow! The Senator hardly had the words to express his personal outrage that Senator Obama had the temerity to OPPOSE the surge when it was first proposed. Senator Obama, according to the GOP Nominee, does not understand the difference between a 'strategy' and a 'tactic.'

While both candidates were happy to proclaim the surge a success (McCain more so than Obama), and pledged undying love for General Petraeus (again, McCain more than Obama), I was very disappointed with Senator McCain's assertions. The basis for my view is from Mr. Steve Coll's article on General Petraeus, 'The General's Dilemma,' in the September 8 2008 edition of the New Yorker magazine.

As I wrote in my Un-Valentine to Bob Woodward ('All the President's Stooges'), what is identified as the 'surge' is actually two separate entities. First, there is the large influx of American troops. But second, there is also the complete change of strategy, from a heavy firepower and incarceration of massive numbers of Iraqi 'suspects,' to a counterinsurgency strategy. Under General Petraeus's direction, the US forces stopped "fighting" and became peacekeepers. Instead of large bases, Americans maintained a presence in Iraqi neighborhoods. That part of the surge strategy has been successful: many Iraqi neighborhoods have been pacified.

What Senator McCain did not mention, was the reason why the surge strategy was so controversial, and initially opposed by almost everyone. The problem the United States was having with Iraq was that the Maliki government was refusing address real problems. Years had passed, and yet there was no legislation on allocation of oil revenues (allowing easy misallocation of money based on ethnic grouping or corruption), no movement on opening the political process to the Sunni minority, and no efforts to deal with the tensions between the Kurds' and the Shiites' desire for regional autonomy--and the rest of the nation's desire to address endemic corruption facilitated by this 'autonomy.' The question was, how to get the Iraqi Parliament to step up? The clear majority (The Iraq Study Group, majorities in Congress, Ms. Condeleeza Rice and the State Department, the Pentagon, etc. etc.) took the position that if the Shiite government had not done it by now, they weren't going to do it as long as the United States was there, holding its hand. Therefore, the numbers of American troops needed to be reduced. Just in case the message is too subtle: Start governing Maliki government--or you're going to die.

A typical disorganized meeting of the Iraqi Parliament. No wait--I forgot: this is a bowl of Froot Loops. My bad.

The minority view (President Bush, General Petraeus, and yes: John McCain) was that the Maliki government could not govern, because the country was out of control. What was needed was more American troops to reduce the level of violence, and THEN the Parliament would rise to the occasion, making like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

Right now, what General Petraeus is taking great pains to do is 1) NOT proclaim the surge a success, and 2) NOT appear to be taking sides in a partisan dispute. While important gains have been made in terms of reducing violence, those gains will be disappear, unless the Shiite government does what it has what it has consistently refused to do since Paul Bremer's Coalition of Provisional Authority (CPA) 'handed over' the keys to the kingdom. So far--it's not looking good.

General David Petraeus. He wants you to know he only GRINS like Howdy Doody. But there's no strings on him--Just like Pinocchio!

I am disappointed in both Senator McCain and General Petraeus, the former for using and abusing the latter's authority, and the latter for allowing Senator McCain to continue doing so.

The candidates also differed on where the next President needed to focus. Senator Obama (correctly) pointed to Afghanistan, because that's where al Qaida (with the Taliban) has their leadership and structural apparatus. Senator McCain, name dropper par excellence that he is, announced he, General Petraeus, and Osama bin Laden all agreed on one point: Iraq was the lodestone in America's war on terror. It's not.

My final point on the Iraq-Afghanistan issue, is another note of disappointment at Senator McCain. General Petraeus's promotion to Commander, US Central Command, will have him calling the shots in both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Senator McCain said (implying he got the straight dope from his close personal friend General Dave hisself) that General Petraeus will be using the same 'surge' tactics that were so successful in Iraq in Afghanistan--so in no time, Afghanistan will be all better. That was shameful. Senator McCain knows that the counterinsurgency tactics that General Petraeus implemented in Iraq are primarily geared for urban areas. Afghanistan presents a far different environment than Iraq: the terrain is more rugged, and there are far fewer urban centers. If (and it is a big if) the United States is going to succeed in Afghanistan, it will be with a different strategy. If you are interested in more information, I strongly suggest reading Mr. Michael Scheuer's 'Imperial Hubris' about the difficulties of war in Afghanistan.

. . . And the Winner is:

What do we know about Senators McCain and Obama that we did not know before the debates? For me, I was shocked that with a little trimming here and there, Senator Obama could pass for a moderate Republican. Outside of that revelation, a President Obama generally appears more likely to spend money on the 'butter' side of the guns v. butter continuum than a President McCain, but a President McCain would probably spend more overall than a President Obama, because a President McCain wouldn't hesitate to re-gild the gilded lilies at the Pentagon. Of course, a President Obama would not exactly be one to tell the Pentagon 'no.'

Senator Obama has a slight edge in telling the truth (very slight), but both candidates still promise the sun, the moon, the stars AND LOWER TAXES at the drop of a hat.

On the other hand, at this debate Civil Discourse was a clear winner. Even the few times when the candidates interrupted each other, or mumbled 'That's not true!,' there weren't any of the bald-faced lies or blinding personality attacks made popular by George W. Bush.

Losers, though, have to include the American people. The Presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush have driven the United States economy beyond bankruptcy. For us to pay our bills, the next four years will really hurt. Heck, it's going to hurt even if we DON'T pay our bills. What we need is a candidate who will take off the rose coloured glasses, and stop telling us we CAN have everything--we deserve everything!

Still, the big winner was the Military-Industrial Complex. They always win. What else could you expect in a contest between two people able to each raise over $100 million USD in private funds? But that's another rant.

Ms. Elizabeth Taylor. She is standing in for the United States Military-Industrial Complex.

Oscar Arias in Iraq

Peace is not something you reach or don't reach. Peace is a process. It's an outlook, a way to live. You can never say that peace is lost, or that hopes for peace are lost. Peace is always waiting for us. Dialogue is the only way to resolve problems. Sooner or later, even Nicaraguans recognize that.
---Oscar Arias, 1987 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, quoted in Blood of Brothers, by Stephen Kinzer


President Oscar Arias, showing off how SOME hot chics go for the skinny nerd-type



During the 1980s, Nicaragua was torn by a vicious war. The Contra armies were not strong enough to overthrow the Sandinista government, but were too strong to be destroyed. President Ronald Reagan and his administration were both completely obsessed with and wholly ignorant of the people, history, culture, and current happenings in Nicaragua. William Casey, Reagan's CIA director, in his Congressional testimony could not even pronounce "Nicaragua,' calling it 'Nicawawa.' Oliver North, is his televised testimony to Congress, predicted that if the Sandinista government was not overthrown, 'you will see democracy perish in the rest of Central America, a flood of refugees crossing the American borders, and potentially the construction of a Berlin-type wall across the Rio Grande to keep people out...' Which is especially ironic, given that the Sandista government was not overthrown, none of Mr. North's parade of horribles came to pass, and yet we are still building a 'Berlin-type wall' along the US-Mexican border.

Despite millions of legal funding from Congress, and untold millions more of illegal funding for the Contra armies--from Saudia Arabia, cocaine trafficking, arms sales and shipments to Iran, US military 'manuevers' in Hondouras for the sole purpose of constructing air fields and supply bases for the Contras, etc--the combination of pressure from Lawrence Walsh's Iran-Contra Investigation and Congress's 1988 refusal to extend more US aid finally sapped the Nicaraguan Democratic Front (FDN)'s ability to fight. The cut off of aid to the Contras finally allowed Costa Rican President Oscar Arias's peace process, with the nominal heads of state of Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua to move forward. While the goal of the process would be the removal of the Sandanista Commandantes from power, the Reagan and Bush administrations did all they could to prevent the agreement from suceeding. Nevertheless, the Sandanistas adhered to the agreement, signing a peace treaty with the FDN on March 23, 1988, ending the war. Contrary to American delusions, on February 25 1990 Nicaragua staged its first fair and free elections in history, and Violeta Chamorro became President.

And President George HW Bush stopped caring about Nicaragua, not even engaging in a pretense of rebuilding what America had destroyed, and completed the cover up of the Iran-Contra Scandal by pardoning any and all who were involved.

While reasonable minds can differ as to whether the Nicaraguans have recognized that dialogue is the only way to resolve problems, and that (in the words of Mr. Arias) peace is an outlook, a way to live--no one can say Americans have recognized that simple truth.

Why do Americans refuse to learn? During a debate of the 1980 GOP candidates for President, the rough dozen hopefuls were asked what was their biggest regret. For the most part, the candidates all mouthed the usual platitudes about not looking back. However, Illinois Congressman John Anderson paused briefly, and said that the one vote he regretted the most was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the Johnson Administration to escalate the Vietnam War. President Johnson had claimed--falsely--that on August 4, 1964, two US destroyers had been under attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats.

While Rep. Anderson learned something (so he said), what were the lessons America learned from the Vietnam War? That peace is a process, waiting for us? Not exactly. Forty years later, another White House insisted another backward, undeveloped nation on the other side of the planet posed a serious threat, telling the American people a documented 935 lies about how we needed to act, so the smoking gun would not be in the form of a mushroom cloud.




General David Petraeus, watching the clock, waiting to see if the gains from the 'surge' will stay in place--at least until he transistions authority over to General Odierno


And still, after five years of war, seemingly everyone not named General Petraeus are falling all over themselves, rejoicing in the success of the 'Surge,' despite the fact that 'success' in Iraq remains illusionary. Life in Iraq may better today than it was a year ago, but for both Americans and Iraqis, we are still worse off than before the March 2003 American invasion. There are more American troops in Iraq today, than were estimated by General Shinseki as necessary in post war Iraq--a number that Paul Wolfowitz called 'far off the mark.' Currently, there are sixty-one American bases and approximately 250 smaller outposts and facilities throughout Iraq. To give you an idea of scale, Victory Base Complex, which is the headquarters for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, is home to over 50,000 people--and that's just one base.

For Iraqis, life remains grim. In a nation with an estimated population of 28,221,180 (CIA estimate, July 2008), the best estimate death toll is 1,220,580 Iraqis. To that number, there are an estimated two million refugees who have fled Iraq, and another three million who are 'displaced' inside the country. As a percentage of the population, a staggering 22% of Iraqis have either been killed or driven from their homes. Using an American population base of 303,824,640 (CIA estimate, July 2008), 22% Americans would mean roughly 66.8 million Americans killed or displaced. That's equal to the entire populations of California, Texas, and half of New York: the three most populous American states.

By any objective measure, the qualitity of life for Iraqis is still worse than it was prior to the invasion. Iraqi streets are still more dangerous than they were under Sadam Hussein: at least 500 Iraqi civilians a month are dying violent deaths. Production of potable water, electricty, and oil are still below the pre-invasion levels of an Iraq crippled from ten years of sanctions. The Maliki government is still profound Shiite partisans, refusing to take even basic steps to reunite the country. The goals of allocation of oil revenues and reintegration of Sunnis into the government remain largely ignored, despite the 'breathing space' created by American troops.

Grace Kelly, who has nothing to do with this note--but she is way better looking than Oliver North, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Casey combined, even on their best days

In fact, the situation in Iraq is arguably worse today, after the surge: the gains in pacification of Iraqi streets have been at the expense of the central government. When America turned over 'Iraqi control' of neighborhoods, the turnover was to local Sunni forces. For all practical purposes, those troops are autonomous of the Maliki government. If the Shiite dominated Parliament continues refusing to build an Iraq for all its peoples, the Sunni minority will be in an even stronger position to reignite the civil war.

Oscar Arias, I am sure, would still say that peace in Iraq is still waiting for us, and that hope for peace is not lost. I want to share his confidence.