In the Dark

Christmas 2011

2011-12-24T06:13:00.000-08:00

This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it.' cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. 'Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end.'
'Have they no refuge or resource?' cried Scrooge.
'Are there no prisons?' said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. 'Are there no workhouses?'"

- A Christmas Carol, Stave 3: The Second of the Three Spirits

This Christmas, as always, my fervent wish is that we use our wealth and our might to lift people out of poverty, to share the blessings that God has given us with the billions in the world who, through no fault of their own, have been left behind. But my most fervent wish is that we take back control of our media from the hands of multinational corporations, and bring real journalism back to America. Otherwise, we will remain ignorant of the crushing poverty and pain that others suffer, and we'll continue to live IN THE DARK.

Merry Christmas.

A Few More Thoughts on Capitalism and Catholic Social Justice

2011-12-15T08:19:00.000-08:00

If you were kind enough to make it all the way through my last posting you'll undoubtedly realize that my argument (as logical, well-formed, and supported by documentation as it was) did not go over well with Thomas J. MacNamara who spoke on behalf of laissez-faire Capitalism. I remarked in my post that the sort of adherence to a "pure" economic system (any economic system) without reference to how well it might be serving actual human needs is really little more than slavery to ideology.

And I wonder to myself, "How can Christians surrender themselves to ideology?"

I was reminded of the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31-46:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he
will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for
me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

The Son of Man does not ask us on the last day, "How balanced were your books? How closely did you adhere to the rules of Capitalism? How great a profit did you make for your stockholders? How efficiently did you run your business or the economy as a whole? How productive were your workers?" Indeed, he does not ask, "Are you gay? Are you a Socialist? Are you a Democrat?"

No, instead the question he asks -- and the standard he holds us to -- is quite simple: What did you do for the least among us, for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the ill?

And I wonder how a Christian Capitalist answers this question. But I believe I already know.

Occupy Wall Street: Social Justice versus Capitalism

2011-12-13T12:26:00.000-08:00

Several weeks ago, on November 16, 2011 (the day after NYC cops in riot gear evicted a peaceful protest in Zuccotti Park), I took part in a panel at Molloy College in Rockville Centre, NY, on Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movement. The panel was sponsored by Molloy's Center for Social and Ethical Concerns (CSEC) and hosted by Molloy's VP for Advancement Ed Thompson. I was joined on the panel by Dr. Michael Russo, Professor of Philosophy and Director of CSEC, and Thomas J. MacNamara, adjunct Instructor in Molloy's Business program and Partner-in-Charge of the Litigation Practice Group at Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP.

I'm going to try to describe as objectively as possible the evening's discussion.

The evening began with a video by Mike Russo (AKA "Udo Capelli"), "Why We Protest: Voices from Occupy Wall Street." Michael then gave a little background on the video, the protesters, and his experiences at Zuccotti Park. (running time: 30:47)

I followed Mike Russo's video and talk with a presentation I called "The Inevitability of the Occupy Movement in a Global Context." I put forward what I believed to be a rational argument directed at a fairly conservative Catholic audience. I quoted from four Papal Encyclicals (Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, John XXIII's Mater et Magistra, Paul VI's Populorum Progressio, and John Paul II's Solicitudo Rei Socialis), all of which called some dimension of Capitalism into question and urged that self interest -- while a legitimate human drive -- not overpower and destroy the idea of "the common good." Listening to the quotes I selected, one could easily imagine I was reading Marx to an audience of Catholics. But this was part of my point: I wanted this Catholic, Christian audience to hear what the Church teaches about economics and social justice.

I also proposed that, since Christians have been warned by the Church for a century about the dangers of economic injustice but have largely ignored the warnings, there is a certain inevitability to the Occupy movement. One of the scholars whose work I referenced to support my proposition was Jacques Ellul. I've been struck by the fact that we are in a situation at the moment that runs counter to Ellul's description of the several necessary prerequisite social factors for effective propaganda, most notably a broadly shared average level of education and a broadly shared average level of income. In the last thirty years -- with supply-side economics at work and growing emphasis on the privatization of everything, including schools -- we've seen our national educational performance falter and a chasm grow between the country's richest and poorest, with the middle class the most threatened of all. And so the homgenizing effects of mass propaganda will, naturally, decrease under these circumstances making dissent and protest all the more inevitable. A logical argument, it seems to me: income inequality is not just unjust, it is dangerous to the stability of a society. (running time: 22:54)

Finally, Wall Street had its say in Thomas J. MacNamara's presentation, "Capitalism as the Solution, Not the Problem." Here's where I must actually try to be objective. Let's start with the title. Capitalism as solution? Sure. No problem. But the problem we're facing right now is not a problem with Capitalism? Wow. That's a tough one for me and suggests that only a true believer can rationalize such a statement.

I'll let you listen to Thom's argument (part of me is itching to call it a diatribe) and come to your own conclusions, but there are a small number of points I want to make: 1] no economic system is perfect. When we pretend that one system is perfect and cannot be regulated or treated with flexibility or is immune to change, we're not dealing with an economic theory anymore. We're dealing with an ideology. And ideology is the death of critical reason. Ideology is philosophy on artificial life support. Ideology -- any ideology -- is the dessicated corpse of reason embalmed with the fluid of self-justification. 2] There is no "invisible hand." Even when Adam Smith was talking about the so-called "invisible hand of the market" he wasn't anthropomorphizing markets; he was referring to the hand of God that guides the enlightened participants in a market who deal with one another not only out of self interest, but of "fellow feeling." 3] Ayn Rand was not a philosopher, nor is "objectivism" a "philosophy." Let's get this straight: philosophers don't answer questions, they ask them. And when someone proposes the one, true answer (whether we're talking about Communism or Capitalism or Objectivism or any of the other -isms floating around out there) he or she is not philosophizing, he or she is pushing an ideology. 4] Parts of Thom's argument sound as though they came directly from Frank Luntz's plenary presentation to the Republican Governors Association (even though that presentation came a couple of weeks after the panel at Molloy). It's all Washington's fault. Don't take money from "hard working taxpayers." They're "job creators" who believe in "economic freedom." Blah, blah, blah. 5] A fairer distribution of income will not make us Cuba.

I'm done being objective now. Watch for yourself. I report, you decide. Fair and balanced. Et cetera. (running time: 26:37)

It's Official...

2011-12-02T11:48:00.000-08:00

...the Republican Party is dead.

Donald Trump is moderating a Republican debate in Iowa on December 27. The twice-bankrupt real estate developer, birther, and reality television star with the docile badger on his head will moderate "The Newsmax Ion Television 2012 Presidential Debate," which I'm sure was deliberately misnamed to sound far more important than history will prove it to be (it is, to be accurate, a Republican Presidential primary debate).

Pity the poor Republican. This primary season has already had the atmosphere of a circus; in lieu of ideas or palatable policies, candidates have tried to "come off" as various things, to project various images. There's Newt the intellectual (!), Newt the historian (!), Michelle the historian (!!), Rick P. the tough-talkin' Texan, Rick the only-real-Republican, Ron the hard-headed realist, and most entertaining of all, Herman the Herminator. (Just how many clowns can you fit in that little car?) The most memorable catch-phrases of the primary season thus far have included:

Apples and Oranges (Cain)

Nein, nein, nein!!! (Cain)

Now, I don't have the facts to back this up... (Cain)

Ummmm...ummm...uh... (Perry)

Obama put us in Lybia. Now he's going to put us in Africa. (Bachmann)

Let him die! (Paul)

Hey, remember me? (Santorum)

Why am I even here? (Huntsman)

Perhaps after December 27, we'll have one more phrase to remember, courtesy of the Donald: You're Fired!!!

On This Date in 1511...

2011-11-21T10:07:00.000-08:00

In 1494, shortly after Columbus "discovered" the new world, Pope Alexander VI divided up the new discoved lands between Spain and Portugal. The Church itself had a vested interest in the new lands; they were converting by the sword and extending their influence beyond Rome and Europe.

On November 21, 1511, Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican Friar from Spain, attempting to free the Indians from the slavery to which the Spanish -- both military and clerical -- had reduced them, preached an incendiary sermon which incurred the wrath of many Spanish Catholics -- incendiary in the sense that his soul was on fire, ignited by truth. For his efforts he became an object of Spanish persecution.

I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. In order to make your sins known
to you I have mounted this pulpit, I who am the voice of Christ crying in the
wilderness of this island; and therefore it behooves you to listen to me, not
with indifference but with all your heart and senses; for this voice will be the
strangest, the harshest and hardest, the most terrifying that you ever heard or
expected to hear…This voice declares that you are in mortal sin, and live and
die therein by reason of the cruelty and tyranny that you practice on these
innocent people. Tell me, by what right or justice do you hold these Indians in
such cruel and horrible slavery? By what right do you wage such detestable wars
on these people who lived mildly and peacefully in their own lands, where you
have consumed infinite numbers of them with unheard of murders and desolations?
Why do you so greatly oppress and fatigue them, not giving them enough to eat or
caring for them when they fall ill from excessive labors, so that they die or
rather are slain by you, so that you may extract and acquire gold every day? And
what care do you take that they receive religious instruction and come to know
their God and creator, or that they be baptized, hear mass, or observe holidays
and Sundays? Are they not men? Do they not have rational souls? Are you not
bound to love them as you love yourselves? How can you lie in such profound and
lethargic slumber? Be sure that in your present state you can no more be saved
than the Moors or Turks who do not have and do not want the faith of Jesus
Christ.

His sermon provoked great resentment among the Spanish Conquistadors, much as the anti-war, anti-corporate rhetoric of the Christian "left" and the Occupy Movement incites resentment among the modern, global Conquistador class. Montesinos was accused of preaching heresy by a church hierarchy tainted by Spanish gold. Yes, the church and the elite of society, who controlled the wealth and profited from the exploitation of the weak, called Montesino's sermon, which called for justice based on the inherent equality of the immortal soul, "heretical." The more things change, the more they stay the same.

However, after hearing Montesinos preach, a Spanish priest by the name of Bartolomeo de Las Casas had a conversion experience. He saw the truth in Montesinos's words. In 1514, he became a Dominican Friar, freed his Indian slaves, and began a quest to ban slavery and bring justice to the Americas. He condemned the use of torture and coercion in the evangelization of the people of the new world. Las Casas helped to draft laws which banned slavery. Until the end of his life, Las Casas continued to speak out but he had few supporters. I'm not surprised. Do not expect people to rally around you when you are speaking the truth about their -- and your -- common human imperfections. No one wants to hear they're doing the wrong thing. No one wants to think that God is NOT on their side.

Montesinos and Las Casas were prophets, as Martin Luther King, Jr. was a prophet, and Oscar Romero was a prophet. And prophets don't live long. To paraphrase Leo Rosten, conservatives make heroes out of prophets only after they've martyred them. Today is the anniversary of a simple man's simple message of justice. Montesinos was a prophet belonging to a preaching order with a history of fighting heresies.Today's heresies include inequality, injustice, exploitation and the ascendancy of an omnipotent self-interest over the common good.

Wanna fight?

Cantor: Occupy Movement is a "Mob"

2011-10-08T09:00:00.001-07:00

Thursday at the "Values Voters Summit" in Washington, House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) said he was becoming "increasingly concerned" about the "mobs" who were occupying Wall Street and other cities across the country.

The mainstream media narrative of the occupy movement is that it is leaderless (as though that's a bad thing) and without defined goals. Right-wing bloggers consider the movement to be populated by "socialists, communists, and delinquents."

I thought I'd go downtown (Chicago) on Friday and see how dangerous this "mob" of communists is. It turns out, I think, that Eric Cantor is right to be concerned -- but not for the reasons he insinuates.

A Wish on the Feast Day of St. Dominic

2011-08-08T10:00:00.000-07:00

In 1494, shortly after Columbus "discovered" the new world, Pope Alexander VI divided up the new discoved lands between Spain and Portugal. The Church itself had a vested interest in the new lands; they were converting by the sword and extending their influence beyond Rome and Europe. Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican Friar from Spain, attempted to free the Indians from the slavery to which the Spanish -- both military and clerical -- had reduced them. He preached an incendiary sermon which incurred the wrath of many Spanish Catholics -- incendiary in the sense that his soul was on fire, ignited by truth. For his efforts he became an object of Spanish persecution.

St. Dominic de Guzman

I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. In order to make your sins known to you I have mounted this pulpit, I who am the voice of Christ crying in the wilderness of this island; and therefore it behooves you to listen to me, not with indifference but with all your heart and senses; for this voice will be the strangest, the harshest and hardest, the most terrifying that you ever heard or expected to hear…This voice declares that you are in mortal sin, and live and die therein by reason of the cruelty and tyranny that you practice on these innocent people. Tell me, by what right or justice do you hold these Indians in such cruel and horrible slavery? By what right do you wage such detestable wars on these people who lived mildly and peacefully in their own lands, where you have consumed infinite numbers of them with unheard of murders and desolations? Why do you so greatly oppress and fatigue them, not giving them enough to eat or caring for them when they fall ill from excessive labors, so that they die or rather are slain by you, so that you may extract and acquire gold every day? And what care do you take that they receive religious instruction and come to know their God and creator, or that they be baptized, hear mass, or observe holidays and Sundays? Are they not men? Do they not have rational souls? Are you not bound to love them as you love yourselves? How can you lie in such profound and lethargic slumber? Be sure that in your present state you can no more be saved than the Moors or Turks who do not have and do not want the faith of Jesus Christ.

His sermon provoked great resentment among the Spanish Conquistadors, much as the anti-war, anti-corporate rhetoric of the Christian "left" incites resentment among the modern, global Conquistador class. Montesinos was accused of preaching heresy by a church hierarchy tainted by Spanish gold. Yes, the church and the elite of society, who controlled the wealth and profited from the exploitation of the weak, called Montesino's sermon, which called for justice based on the inherent equality of the immortal soul, "heretical."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
However, after hearing Montesinos preach, a Spanish priest by the name of Bartolomeo de Las Casas had a conversion experience. He saw the truth in Montesinos's words. In 1514, he became a Dominican Friar, freed his Indian slaves, and began a quest to ban slavery and bring justice to the Americas. He condemned the use of torture and coercion in the evangelization of the people of the new world. Las Casas helped to draft laws which banned slavery. Until the end of his life, Las Casas continued to speak out but he had few supporters.
I'm not surprised. Do not expect people to rally around you when you are speaking the truth about their -- and your -- common human imperfections. No one wants to hear they're doing the wrong thing. No one wants to think that God is NOT on their side. Montesinos and Las Casas were prophets, as Martin Luther King, Jr. was a prophet, and Oscar Romero was a prophet. And prophets don't live long. To paraphrase Leo Rosten, conservatives make heroes out of prophets only after they've martyred them.
Today is the feastday of Dominic de Guzman, the founder of this preaching order with a history of fighting heresies.Today's heresies include inequality, injustice, exploitation and the ascendancy of an omnipotent self-interest over the common good.
Wanna fight?

Survey: Plurality of Americans Believe Capitalism at Odds with Christian Values

2011-04-21T13:15:00.000-07:00

A new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Religious News Service indicates that most Americans see a moral dimension to our economy and the economic crisis which plagues our country.

Nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58%) see the Federal budget as a moral document that reflects our national priorities. A full 60% believe that this recession is something other than a "natural" downturn, and 30% blame greedy businesses making risky market speculations, while another 52% blame government failure to regulate business activity.

66% of Americans think it is fair to ask wealthier Americans and corporations to bear a greater tax burden than the poor and middle class and 62% believe that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small minority is a serious problem. 44% believe that Capitalism is fundamentally at odds with Christian values.

The findings seem to hold true across political and demographic lines, except for the Tea Party, a majority of whom seem to believe that capitalism (like America) was ordained by God. To them I offer the following:

Exodus 22:25-27 "If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious.”

Psalm 15:1-5 “O LORD, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart. He does not slander with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor takes up a reproach against his friend; In whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But who honors those who fear the LORD; He swears to his own hurt and does not change; He does not put out his money at interest, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.”

Deuteronomy 15:7-8 “If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.”

Deuteronomy 15:10-11 "You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings. For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'”

Deuteronomy 24:14 “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns.”
Leviticus 25:35-38: “'Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you. You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.’”

Matthew 19:21-24 “Jesus said to [the wealthy young man], ‘If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus said to His disciples, ‘Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’”

Mark 10:21-25 “Looking at [the wealthy young man], Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!’ The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’”

TIPS FOR PEACEFUL TOTALITARIAN RULE

2011-03-23T11:13:00.000-07:00

Despite all the media crowing about “democracy” breaking out in the middle east, it is unlikely that democracies will arise there. While we still use the word to describe the nations of the technologically developed west, democracy is, for the most part, dead; a remnant of the Enlightenment that flourished between the 18th and 20th centuries.

What developing nations seek today is not democracy – for they see no evidence of its usefulness anywhere in the world – but stability. It is stability that is necessary to create the fertile ground for investment, technological development, and global trade. It is to this end that I offer ten tips to achieve this stability, and peace:

1] Celebrate materialism and eliminate idealism. Happiness comes from the consumption of material goods. Utilize the vast resources of mass media to reinforce this message on a minute-by-minute basis. Transcendent ideas – whether “God,” or “liberty,” or “sovereignty,” or “truth” – can never be allowed to subvert the primacy of money and material goods.

2] Extol the virtues of a “free-marketplace of ideas.” Flood your media networks with entertainment, diversions, amusements, and trivia. Remind the people repeatedly that they have an absolute right to choose whatever “information” suits them.

3] Make truth subjective. There can be no absolutes. Truth arbitrarily limits human behavior to the moral. Moral absolutes have no place in a pluralistic society. Everyone should have the right to his or her own opinion, no matter how preposterous, or self-serving, or manipulative it is.

4] Redefine “objectivity” in journalism to mean “neutrality.” Journalism must be “fair” and “balanced,” not truthful. Neutrality implies openness to all points of view, even those that are objectively false. Objectivity implies openly acknowledging truth and falsehood among arguments. This is dangerous.

5] Make the people understand that education is about a skilled workforce, not about an informed electorate. The Enlightenment is over. History ended with the fall of Communism. It’s all about jobs now. Focus on skills, not critical thinking. Focus on technology, not ethics.

6] Encourage reductionism in public discourse. Nuance demands careful, critical thought (see number five). Seeing gray areas in a situation only invites ethical analysis. Presenting problems as “us vs. them” or “good vs. evil,” and referring to “enemies” is more effective in engendering and supporting group cohesion. Use stereotypes at every opportunity. Any problem that can’t be explained in a 20 second sound bite should be left to “experts” to solve.

7] Nurture “individualism,” but discourage individuality. People should labor under the illusion that they are true individuals rather than mere constituents of a mass. The isolation of mass society encourages group identity and consensus building. Constant connection to the group via mass-mediated diversions ensures no real, meaningful critical thought will ever occur.

8] Make a fetish of personal responsibility; ignore social responsibility. Emphasize constantly the notion that people are responsible for their own actions; ignore any possibility that they may be responsible to one another. As long as one’s behaviors are consistent with those of one’s group, no good can come of dwelling on the consequences of those actions for others outside the group.

9] Don’t persecute dissidents – ignore them. Americans still know the name Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and can identify him as a dissident of the former Soviet Union. The same is true of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo who enjoys a prominent place in the US media. But Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn or Daniel Berrigan? Who are they? American media simply ignore them. Prison is unnecessary when no one knows you exist.

10] Keep ‘em smiling. ☺

Happy 80th Birthday, Neil Postman

2011-03-08T16:01:00.001-08:00

“Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.” -- Neil Postman (The Disappearance of Childhood, 1982)

A note from Lance Strate:

Friends, today is the 80th anniversary of Neil Postman's birth, and by way of honoring his memory, I want to ask you, and especially those of you who have blogs and websites and/or are on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and the like, to help in an effort to correct an injustice that exists online.

Neil's most memorable quote is, “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.” But if you Google that quote, you'll find that more often than not, it is attributed to someone else, specifically John W. Whitehead (the rightwing lawyer who represented Paula Jones against Bill Clinton).

Naturally, this is upsetting for many of us, and it is pretty much impossible to get websites to change their listings, but we can drive themdown in the Google rankings by posting in searchable sites that Neil Postman wrote “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.”

So, we have a begun a campaign on this day to spread the word, and set the online record straight, at least as much as possible.

Glad to help, Lance. And anyone reading this who'd like to set the record straight, feel free to post this great quote from one of America's great thinkers of the last century.

The Cheddar Revolution: How Many People Attended the Rally in Chicago?

2011-02-27T09:55:00.000-08:00

The Chicago Tribune reports that “several hundred protesters” showed up to support Wisconsin workers yesterday. ABC7Chicago said “hundreds” showed up in solidarity with public employees. The local CBS affiliate said the crowd numbered in the “hundreds.” The Huffington Post boldly proclaimed “more than a thousand people” were there. Even the Democratic Socialists (who knew?) put the crowd at a mere 2,000.

Was I wrong in my estimate? Sure. I’m no expert in this stuff. Was I that wrong? I don’t think so. So I did some thinking and some poking around to try to figure out where I got the idea that several thousand protesters – not several hundred – filled the plaza at Chicago’s Thompson Center yesterday.

I figured I needed to find out the area of that plaza before I could figure out how many people could fit into it. So I got the latitude and longitude coordinates of the roughly triangular plaza of the Thompson Center using Google Earth. I then calculated the area of the plaza at the Thompson Center using the Google Maps Area Calculator Tool. The highlighted area (click on the map to see it full size) where the rally took place constitutes 33,940.38 feet². Let’s be conservative (so to speak) and round it off to 30,000 square feet.

According to the Poynter Institute, working to improve American journalism since the 1970s, crowd estimates are difficult, but not impossible:

A loose crowd, one where each person is an arm’s length from the body of his or her nearest neighbors, needs 10 square feet per person. A more tightly packed crowd fills 4.5 square feet per person. A truly scary mob of mosh-pit density would get about 2.5 square feet per person.
The trick, then, is to accurately measure the square feet in the total area occupied by the crowd and divide it by the appropriate figure, depending on assessment of crowd density.

So by this rule of thumb, in 30,000 square feet of space a loose crowd would consist of about 3,000 people. A more tightly-packed crowd would contain more than 6,000 people, and a truly dense crowd, jam-packed into 30,000 square feet, could easily be close to 12,000 people.
Now this was a pretty tightly-packed crowd at yesterday’s rally, but it wasn’t 12,000 people. But I think my initial estimate of between 5,000 and 6,000 people is pretty close.

So why are the local media reporting that “several hundred people” showed up?

The Cheddar Revolution

2011-02-26T16:13:00.000-08:00

A Rally in Support of Wisconsin's Public Workers from Dr Fallon on Vimeo.

Chicago went all Cairo today on Wisconsin Governor Scott ("I've got a baseball bat in my office") Walker as thousands of residents of the Windy City showed up at the State of Illinois Building (The Thompson Center) to protest Walker's cheesy, sleazy attempt to take away collective bargaining rights from state workers (translation: to break unions).

I'm not really very good at such things and I claim no true expertise, but I have had a little experience looking at crowds and figuring out how big they are, and I can tell you this: this was a BIG crowd.

The video gives only a flavor of the rally; I was too far from the podium to either see or hear the speakers very well (although I was glad to see my Senator, Dick Durbin, showing solidarity with the crowd) so don't look for speeches. But I spoke to several people to ask them why they were there. None of them were paid by wealthy ideologues to attend. They wanted to be there. Take a look and a listen.

My (Imaginary) Conversation with Marshall McLuhan

2010-10-03T14:34:00.000-07:00

I had heard of Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media as a freshman in high school in 1968, but didn’t read it until four years later when I got to college. It was only the second book I had read about the power of media to shape societies (oddly enough for an eighteen-year-old, my baptism into the field of media studies was provided by Harold Innis’s The Bias of Communication, but I had to read that one several times before I really, truly even began to comprehend it), and it so captured my attention and fired my curiosity that I was compelled to spend the rest of my life studying the interactions of technology and culture. So I was thrilled and proud when my first book, Printing, Literacy and Education in Eighteenth Century Ireland: Why the Irish Speak English, won the Media Ecology Association’s Marshall McLuhan Award for Outstanding Book in the Field of Media Ecology in 2007.

Yet, since almost the very beginning I’ve been bothered by McLuhan. I was looking for answers and McLuhan kept posing me riddles. Alternately dazzlingly clear and maddeningly cryptic, so much of what he had to say left many people feeling uncomfortable and skeptical; others, wildly enthusiastic and hopeful. For me – and many others who were moved to dedicate their lives to understanding media – McLuhan’s words were intriguing and enticing, inviting questions and urging deeper consideration. They made my head hurt, but they showed me for the first time that questions are, after all, far more important than answers.

I have, I believe, come to terms with McLuhan in the intervening thirty-eight years. Or I have almost come to terms with him. I’m at the very least minimally comfortable with his method; the “probe,” oracular aphorisms, heuristic in nature, not particularly suited to empiric measurement, a kind of “intellectual Rorschach test” that everyone can read something into and get something out of.

What I am not comfortable with is a single phrase: “A moral point of view is a poor substitute for understanding in technical matters.” So I decided to sit and talk with him about it.
What follows is a (totally imaginary) conversation I had recently with the “the oracle of the electric age.” Many of McLuhan’s responses are direct quotes from his works, many more are close paraphrases altered only for the sake of the literary integrity (such as there may or may not be) of this essay. I have, by necessity, invented some of McLuhan’s responses to my questions posed here, but only then on the basis of what I honestly believe might have been his actual response. Needless to say, this essay very possibly says more about me and my understanding of McLuhan than it does about McLuhan himself. But I’d be willing to argue that point:

Peter K. Fallon: “A moral point of view is a poor substitute for understanding in technical matters.” Why? It seems to me that understanding technical matters absent a moral point of view is not “understanding” at all.

Marshall McLuhan: Well, first of all let me just mention that I don’t always agree with everything I say. The point is not to say something and stand by it; the point is to push the limits of human perceptions and assumptions and see what we can find beyond them. If you don’t like that idea, let’s try something else.

PKF: Well, it seems to me that you’re abdicating moral responsibility for questioning the role of media in social change. It seems to me that you’re presenting as a given certain, almost pre-determined, consequences of technology and positing that this vague concept of “understanding” is all human beings can do in the face of rapid and radical technological change.

MM: Does that bother you?

PKF: Yes, it bothers me. It bothers me something awful. I have spent years defending you – from many who I don’t believe really understand what you’re saying – against the charges of “technological determinism,” yet in far too many cases you sound as though you’re saying that the best we can hope for is to understand the changes that technology brings us, not manage them.

MM: What does it matter if some call me a “technological determinist” or a “guru” or, for that matter, a “Charlatan”? There is absolutely no determinism in my work, because I urge a willingness to contemplate what is happening. I need no defense, Peter, from such charges. My job, as I see it, is to alert people to the changes going on around them. That in itself is a moral imperative, and no abdication of responsibility. Everybody experiences far more than he understands. Yet it is experience, rather than understanding, that influences behavior. I’ve just tried to bring more understanding into the picture. The electronic age has presented us with a dilemma: we are awash in electronic and digital information, and the swirl of this maelstrom of information tosses us about like corks on a stormy sea. But if we keep our cool during our “descent into the maelstrom,” and study the process as it happens, like Poe’s sailor we can save ourselves.

PKF: Yes. That’s another thing. It’s always bothered me that the “old sailor” – who was, of course, not old at all but aged prematurely by his ordeal – did not or could not save his brothers. One brother is flung outright from the boat, another goes mad at the sight of the enormous whirlpool and dies in its vortex. But the “old sailor” “keeps his cool” as you say and studies the patterns of the maelstrom. He notices – in a way that presages Einstein and relativity – that in the midst of the maelstrom’s power, with its force propelling the boat in circles within its cone, he appears to be sitting still, and the opposite side of the whirlpool remains stationary in relation to him.

MM: Moving along within the maelstrom, at its speed, in its direction, there is a certain curious peace, and the sailor has time to study its patterns and make inferences about its behavior.

PKF: Yes, and he saves himself with the knowledge he gains within the chaos. But his brothers die.

MM: Well, yes. But, Peter, it’s only a story. No one actually died in its telling by Edgar Poe.

PKF: But it’s a story that describes your views on understanding media, that you have stated serves as a metaphor for your approach to studying media and their effects. And so we’re back to my original difficulty: the idea of understanding anything absent a moral point of view. Why didn’t he try to save his brothers?

MM: Because he would have died, it’s as simple as that. Why is what you call “a moral point of view” so important to you, Peter? Is a “moral point of view,” by its nature, any better or worse than an immoral point of view, or an amoral point of view, or a secular point of view, or a humanist point of view? Point of view, whatever its orientation, is imaginary. It is part and parcel of the typographic mindset, the cordoning off of the individual from the group, the artificial separation of one from the other. We don’t live in that world anymore, but in a world of electric simultaneity that brings people together in a tribal village that is a rich and creative mix, where there is actually more room for creative diversity than within the homogenized mass urban society of Western man. In such a world a point of view – any point of view – reveals itself to be a dangerous luxury, an intellectual self-indulgence, especially when substituted for insight and understanding.

PKF: A world of chaos and – to use Harry Frankfurt’s term – bullshit, if you ask me. A world with no point of view and no real knowledge. “Understanding media” today means the opposite of what you probably intended – or perhaps not…? “Understanding media” means knowing how to work them, knowing how to use them. Literacy has given way to “media literacy” and “information literacy” and “visual literacy” and point of view has given way to pointlessness and objectivity has given way to a truly egoistic subjectivity…I see no “rich and creative mix” – although people tell me I’m constantly surrounded by it – any more than I see understanding. And I don’t see understanding any more than I see a moral point of view. We’re left with nothing except a sort of psychic “I got mine, fuck you” environment that empowers us (if that is at all the appropriate word) to focus on ourselves to the detriment of the rest of the world. It seems to me that in a world like this, a point of view – if it is a positive point of view – is a Godsend. But what is worse, any point of view – even an entirely stupid one – strikes many who have none of their own, and are entirely unable to identify one, as a Godsend.

MM: Peter, you may be over-reacting. This age we live in of infinite connections and the liberation of consciousness from the body – the age of “discarnate man” – is barely half a century old. Innumerable confusions and a feeling of despair such as those you appear to feel invariably emerge in periods of great technological and cultural transition. Your assumptions about alphabetic man, if you’ll allow me to say to you critically, may have outlived their uselessness. It was alphabetic man himself who was disposed to desacralize his mode of being, not we. In this electronic age we see ourselves being translated more and more into the form of information, moving toward the technological extension of consciousness, a seamless web of experience. This is not the individualist, trivial (in all senses of the word) consciousness of alphabetic man, but a consciousness that begins in the senses, is rooted in perception, and is derailed by concepts or ideas.

PKF: I know you’re referring now, however obliquely, to your Christian faith, and specifically to your adopted faith of Catholicism.

MM: As you say.

PKF: And here again I have a hard time coming to terms with your ideas, which to my ears sound so sanguine. I know that your work was profoundly influenced by that of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

MM: I am not in the slightest influenced by Fr. Teilhard’s works, even though we may share areas of common interest.

PKF: As you say. But Teilhard famously anticipated many of your ideas and even your tone. And I am a great admirer of Teilhard’s work, as I am of yours…

MM: (~~feigns satisfaction with an irrelevant opinion~~)

PKF: …and I hope – no, I pray – that Teilhard is correct about many of his ideas, but I fear he is wrong. Because in the final analysis I do in fact see a determinism in your work, but it is not a technological determinism. It is a determinism of faith and salvation. Teilhard’s “noosphere” is merely an anticipation of your “global central nervous system.” And Teilhard’s conception of the “Omega point” – the parousia – sounds very much like your idea that “Psychic communal integration, made possible at last by the electronic media, could create the universality of consciousness foreseen by Dante when he predicted that men would continue as no more than broken fragments until they were unified into an inclusive consciousness. In a Christian sense, this is merely a new interpretation of the mystical body of Christ; and Christ, after all, is the ultimate extension of man.” You appear to have adopted an eschatological approach to your pursuit of understanding media – very, very similar to Teilhard’s – that you don’t ever explicitly identify.

MM: Is that so?

PKF: Well, I certainly believe it is so. It seems to me that you’ve put your faith entirely in acceptance of Christ – medium and message – without ever considering the human agency involved in salvation. As a Catholic, and in the knowledge of your devout Catholicism, I’m confounded by what sounds to me like the Protestant principle of sola gratia – salvation by God’s grace alone – ignoring the quintessential Catholic principle of salvation by grace and good works. Your “evangelism” – it seems to me – is more of the Lutheran or Reformation variety than of a fully- (and rightly-) formed Catholic one.

Understanding media alone will not bring about a better world (the Kingdom of God?), but ought to be the foundation of good works that may bring it about: constructing an environment of truly free-flowing and uninhibited information, to be sure, but also reaffirming and supporting the structures of thought that allow us to identify error and falsehood, and empowering us to label bullshit as bullshit, as Harry Frankfurt suggests. The global village, with its “rich and creative mix” full of “creative diversity” can be the perfect venue to put bullshit on an equal footing with truth. I see nothing in this situation that is either constructive or Catholic.

MM: That is your point of view.

PKF: (~~sigh~~) Yes, it is. I’ll stand by it.

MM: In my defense, I’ll say only this: The revealed and divinely constituted fact of religion has nothing to do with human opinion or human adherence. In Jesus Christ, there is no separation or distance between the medium and the message; it is the one case where we can say that the medium and the message are fully one and the same. To know Christ – to truly know him – is to accept Him. And there is no greater moral action – no greater “good work” – than understanding media.

At any rate, that's how I imagine the conversation going...

What Neil Postman Thinks About the Internet... (my imaginary conversation)

2010-09-25T08:39:00.000-07:00

Some of us Facebook types have been having a discussion on the "Neil Postman Appreciation Group" brought up by Bob Berkman: What would Neil Postman say about Facebook, and "scholarly" social networking sites like Academia.edu. Well, I started thinking about it and realized he's already answered the question, several times over. In the last ten years or so of his life, Neil spent a lot of time asking the questions he outlined in "Building a Bridge..." So, in judging the value of Facebook -- or of digital social networking in general -- we might ask "what is the problem for which Facebook is the solution?"

Imagining the discussion that followed when I began to argue in favor of social networking, I believe it would go something like this:

Peter: Facebook keeps me in contact with people I don't see on a daily basis.
Neil: What, have you forgotten how to write? Peter, I remember you telling me in 1986 about how you wrote letters every week to your cousins in Ireland, about how you were a dedicated -- and habitual -- letter writer. What happened to you?
PKF: Writing all those letters took a lot of time and a lot of energy. With Facebook all I have to do is send someone a private message and they get it instantly.
NP: Does it take any less time or energy to sit and think and write a beautifully-crafted letter -- or "message" -- on Facebook than it did when you were writing and sending letters through the mail?
PKF: Well, actually, I don't really tend to write as much on Facebook as I used to in a letter. It's usually just a couple of lines.
NP: Why is that, Peter?
PKF: Well, for one thing I tend to "bump into" (in a disembodied sort of way) one or another of my cousins rather frequently online, and we exchange pleasantries almost on a daily basis. Not as much time passes between our moments of contact, and I don't feel as though I have to provide a comprehensive chronicle of recent events. Besides, that's what my "wall" is for.
NP: Uh-huh. And do you share everything on your wall? Do you share the same sorts of details of your life on your very public profile page that you once did, in letters, with your cousins?
PKF: Ummm...no.
NP: And so would you say that your interactions with your cousins have changed?
PKF: Yeah, I suppose so. They're far more frequent, but not nearly as deep. But isn't that my fault? You're not suggesting that Facebook has done this to me.
NP: No, Peter, but this is also my point: You have done this. But you have done this with Facebook. Facebook giveth, and Facebook taketh away. You have adopted Facebook as a convenience but told yourself that it is (as you consider all new technologies to be) a necessity. This was a choice involving no coercion or compromise of your intelligence or agency. You have accepted, unquestioningly, your culture's assumptions that, in all matters, but especially those of information, more is better than less and faster is better than slower. And you have accepted this knowing full well (as I taught you) that speed, quantity, and convenience are values in their own right and must compete with other values which you might (because you once did) hold in higher esteem. So you did this, Peter, and you continue to do this, beyond all logic. What's wrong with you?
PKF: I don't think you understand the enormity of the change our culture is going through at this moment, Neil...
NP: (~~wry grin~~)
PKF:...I mean, this digital thing is not all bad. It gives us "small people" -- as BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg calls us -- the power to communicate widely with a potentially global audience. In this sense, it is every bit as revolutionary as Gutenberg's printing press. There has been an enormous proliferation of voices in the last ten years resulting in new ideas and new perspectives that otherwise might never have surfaced in a culture of top-down networks and mass communication.
NP: Sure, Peter, I can see that. But to what end?
PKF: Huh? Isn't the opening up of channels of communication to enfranchise the information-disenfranchised an end in itself?
NP: I'm not so sure. Do you ever read Jacques Ellul?
PKF: (~~petulantly~~) Yes...
NP: And perhaps a bit of Thoreau?
PKF: Yes...
NP: Well, then you ought to know that our whole approach, as a species, to the relationship between means and ends has changed. Our technologies, Thoreau said, are nothing more than im--
PKF:...improved means to an unimproved end, yes...I know...
NP: Ahem...Yes...and Ellul reminds us that the values of a technological society present us with a certain...imperative...with which we seem only too happy to conform, namely: to do, to act, to respond, to achieve, to produce, without much regard for what it is, exactly, we are doing, acting on, responding to, achieving, or producing. Technology, as I taught you (and you should have learned by now), answers the human question "how." Ethics answers the human question "why" and it is this question that seems more and more to go missing in our culture. Is giving a voice to those who have none a good in and of itself? Perhaps, and perhaps not. Our culture certainly tells us it is. The values of postmodern, highly technologically-developed "democracies" certainly support this point of view.
But isn't it at all instructive to ask, in the first place, whether those who heretofore have had no voice have anything, finally, to say?
PKF: But isn't this how knowledge increases and spreads, Neil? By opening up channels of information to allow more diverse points of view?
NP: This is how INFORMATION spreads, Peter, not necessarily knowledge. Knowledge is another story. To paraphrase Henri Poincare, knowledge is made up of facts, as a house is made of bricks. But knowledge is no more merely a pile of facts than a house is merely a pile of bricks. There is an epistemology at work here, Peter, and a curriculum. And there is a method. Critical thought, based on propositional language, is foundational to the construction of bodies of knowledge. The ability to discern -- and reject -- useless, irrelevant, and trivial information does not necessarily come easily to the human being. It takes years of hard work and practice to develop the literate mind and the rigors of critical thought. And without these all we have are piles of facts -- and in the digital world, truly prodigious piles of facts. Nicholas Carr asked the wrong question, and in doing so created a strawman argument that proponents of the digital epistemologies have gleefully attacked and destroyed: will Google make us stupid? He misses the point: human beings evolved stupid. We're stupid to begin with. Literacy and critical, propositional thought is the therapeutic intervention we invented to cure our stupidity. Digital technologies, to the extent that they provide us with a shortcut to "information" (again, without regard to the quality of the information) that bypasses these thought processes, don't make us stupid, but counteract the therapies that we ourselves invented to ameliorate our stupidity. Epistemology, curriculum, and method cannot be separated without consequence.
So what digital technologies have done, perhaps, in empowering the information-disenfranchised (as you call them) is not to have spread knowledge, but to have spread stupidity.
PKF: But many of my friends and colleagues insist that these digital technologies support propositional thought, that people are reading more as a result of the internet, and kindle, and iPads, and all the other various venues and applications. Can you deny that?
NP: I can neither confirm nor deny that, and I'll confess to you that I hope -- and pray -- that it is true. But I'll also confess to you that I have my doubts and remain skeptical about such suggestions based on my observations of human behavior, especially where technology is involved.
PKF: Why?
NP: Peter, are you aware of what the two most widely used applications of the internet are?
PKF: Ummm...yes, as a matter of fact.
NP: Well? What are you waiting for?
PKF: E-mail and pornography.
NP: Yes. Virtually 100% of internet users have one or more active e-mail accounts. Nearly 70% of internet users download and view pornography. Now, don't think I'm a prude, Peter (many people believe I am, you know), I'm not condemning people for engaging in an expressive form that is as old as the species. It just serves as an illustration of my point. Given a medium (one that is, in a sense, the accretion of all previous media) that allows for engagement with both propositionally-structured information and presentationally-structured information, people will choose titillation, excitement, and amusement everytime. Reading is difficult work and unnatural; sensory experience is not. I'm reminded of Christine Nystrom's article -- you remember Christine, don't you?
PKF: Of course I do. She was my dissertation chair.
NP: (~~annoyed~~) Oh, yes. That's right, she was. Well, anyhow, I'm reminded of something she once wrote called "literacy as deviance." Her point was that human beings invented writing and eventually print only because we were, at those points, insufficiently technologically advanced to invent television. All of human technological development, she suggested, is aimed at constructing tools that more and more accurately mimic human sensory experience. Hence, our infatuation with "virtual reality" (as though actual reality were not real enough), and her observation that alphabetic writing was merely a detour on this path.At any rate, whether you call it an iPad, or an e-book, or a schmindle, what you're really talking about is a computer hooked to the internet. Come to think of it, what kind of environment are we living in when you can make phone calls on a book? But I digress. As long as we're talking about computers with multiple applications, only one of those being to access text, we're very likely, I believe, to find that people will use them to look at pictures or movies, or listen to music just as frequently -- if not more -- as to read text.There are, of course, the other issues of what we're reading (to go back to our earlier discussion of information) and how we're reading (if you wanted to discuss Sven Birkerts's ideas of the deeply interior experience of "deep reading"), but I think you get my point. I am skeptical about the ability of digital technologies to support the epistemology, curriculum, and method of print culture. Extremely skeptical.
PKF: Listen, Neil, my friend Robert Berkman wanted me to ask you a question...
NP: How long have you known Bob Berkman?
PKF: Well, we've actually never met, but ---
NP: So why do you call him your friend? Look at how new technologies change our language!
PKF: Well, he's a Facebook friend...I know it's not the same thing, Neil, but, look, he's a nice guy, he's smart and asks good questions, suggests good answers -- and his profile picture always has a smile!
NP: Just get on with it, Peter. I don't have all day. I'm playing Bridge later with McLuhan, Innis, and Ong...
PKF: Well, Bob thought you might be more amenable to giving your approval to sites like Academia.edu...
NP: What's that? That's a new one to me...
PKF: It's a website for scholars. You have your own page -- a profile page that links to personal information, research interests and activities, etc. Other scholars can "follow" your work, and you can upload your research and get comments from other scholars.
NP: Why in the world would you want to do that?
PKF: Well, again Neil, it's this idea of opening up channels of communication, getting reactions from diverse perspectives, generating synergy...
NP: Synergy, schminergy, Peter. You're talking gobbledy-gook here...Peter, let me ask you a question.
PKF: By all means.
NP: You've written a book now, correct?
PKF: Ummm...actually, my second book just came out. It's called "The Meta --
NP: Yes, yes, whatever. My point is, did you write this book by yourself, or did you organize a committee to write it for you?
PKF: I wrote it myself, Neil, but there were a lot of things I was writing about that were, quite honestly, beyond the boundaries of my expertise and personal and academic experiences. I found it both useful and necessary to have the manuscript read, at various stages, by philosophers and theologians to make sure I was miving in the right direction.
NP: And did you find these philosophers and theologians on Academia.edu?
PKF: No.
NP: Why not?
PKF: Well, I don't know most people on that website ---
NP: You don't know Bob Berkman but you call him your friend...
PKF: But that's Facebook, and that's different. What we're talking about now is--
NP: Facebook with another name. You didn't put your work up on Academia.edu for comments, and you wouldn't have accepted comments or criticisms that were offered on Academia.edu because you don't know who is leaving them. Oh, you may see their names there, but that doesn't mean you "know" them. Instead, you found your readers where?
PKF: Oh, these were people I knew personally and respected. These were people who others know and respect too.
NP: Another question, Peter, beyond the specific issue of specialized response. You didn't write chapters of this book and post them to get others' responses?
PKF: No.
NP: If you had, would you have modified or changed your manuscript in any way?
PKF: No.
NP: Why not?
PKF: Oh, simple: this was my book based on my ideas. I've had this experience before in conversations about this book, and about the perspective from which I wrote it. People can't touch my data, but they hate my conclusions. We get into arguments about "the meaning of it all," and, at the end of the day, people are just resistant to points of view that stray too far from their comfort zones. I thought about posting excerpts on Academia.edu, and in fact did post excerpts on Goodreads.com -- which is more interested in literary merit than scholarship -- but decided to avoid Academia.edu. I thought there's be too much pressure to conform to more mainstream points of view.
NP: You can tell Bob Berkman that I agree. My books, for better or worse, have all been mine.

(Anyway, that's how I imagine the conversation going...)

Memorial Day 2010

2010-05-30T07:11:00.000-07:00

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius
of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. ~Ernest Hemingway

War is the price others pay for our sins. War is state-sanctioned insanity. War is the clearest, most vivid evidence we have of human imperfection. Imperfection? No, stupidity.

All wars, like all people, are equal -- that is to say that inherent in every war there is a common element, a thing that binds all wars together: evil. But all wars, like all people, do not necessarily possess to the same degree exactly the same elements, and we can make (and historically have made) arguments for the justifiability of war. These arguments have frequently been rationalizations rather than justifications for wars, and have just as frequently been delusions -- tragic examples of self-deception. These rationalizations form the basis of mass-mediated propaganda campaigns: the vilification of some "enemy," the vital interests at stake, the preservation of liberty.

I'm not saying that war is never necessary or that it is always concocted, conspiratorially, in some dark room by powerful, cynical, evil men. The (US) civil war, while not "necessary" (in the sense that we white, European colonial settlers might have rejected slavery long before we gained our independence from Britain) was certainly inevitable, a long-delayed ritual sacrifice to cleanse our souls of the blight of brutal, murderous, forced human servitude. The second world war -- or, at the very least, US involvement in that war -- became necessary not when we were attacked on December 7, 1941, but when we learned of the existence of factories of death, mechanized mass murder in death camps across Nazi-occupied Europe.

But so many wars in human history -- and most US wars since WWII -- have been unnecessary, unjustified, and rationalized not by need, but by strategic interest: expansion of territory (or market), control of resources, consolidation of power bases (let's not ever forget that Saddam Hussein was our valued ally until the moment he became our mortal enemy).

In fact, the very idea of "need" has been changed by our post-WWII history. What do we "need" anymore? What stories do we tell ourselves about our "needs"? What do we really, truly need? Well, in order to stay alive we need oxygen, water, food, shelter. On a somewhat higher level of abstraction we need company, conversation, love. We need some organizing principle of association through which we interact and carry out the economic and political activities implied in the lower order needs. These needs have been with us since the beginnings of human history, and in the past when we've gone to war (justly or unjustly), it's always been rationalized by a threat to one or more of them. "They are threatening our territory." "They have put unjust tariffs on our goods."

Today, it is "our freedom" or "our way of life" that we are told is being threatened when we are pushed toward war. Well, I certainly don't want to lose my freedom. No, indeed. Freedom is a fairly fundamental human need and a universal human right, and I certainly don't want to lose it. But where and how is our freedom threatened today? Say what you will about the US, we still have the biggest arsenal of conventional and nuclear weapons in the world and could, if we really "needed" to, raise a fairly enormous army. Where is the threat to my freedom in the face of that fact?

In fact, what Americans call "freedom" today is largely license: we give ourselves permission to do whatever we want, whenever we want as long as "nobody gets hurt" -- or, more likely, we remain blissfully unaware of the consequences. In this, our mass media are facilitators and enablers. We're awash in both visual and aural images of "the American way of life" on a daily basis on television, in magazines, in movies, on the radio; at the same time, our media do -- at best -- a mediocre job of reporting to us about our world, and a disgraceful job of reporting to us about ourselves.

And we're happy about it.

Who wants to really focus on the fact that American corporations are the biggest manufacturers and distributors of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states in the world? Who wants to hear about the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the developing world in warfare powered by American weapons? Who can stand seeing images of poverty and hunger and disease in the world when we Americans -- 5% of the worlds population who control nearly a third of its wealth -- are having such a good time?

Jersey Shore? American Idol? Real Housewives of Orange County? Yeah, baby. That's what I'm talking about.

War is hell. It is sometimes necessary. It is sometimes justified.

But if this is what we're going to war over, so that we can use resources for our amusement that others actually need (in the truest sense of the word) to stay alive, then war is merely a prelude to hell. War is the price others pay for our sins.

God bless America and God bless our military. God give us the wisdom to use it rightly.

Who is an embarassment?

2009-04-02T12:44:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Cardinal Francis George thinks it is an "extreme embarrassment" that Notre Dame University invited President Barack Obama to speak at its commencement ceremony. Extreme embarrassment, eh? Wow, strong words. I mean, this is the President of the United States he's talking about. It wasn't so long ago that that kind of talk would cause a person to be branded unpatriotic.

I know Notre Dame is a Catholic university. George, and others, think Obama shouldn't have been asked to speak because his views on abortion and stem cell research are not in line with the views of Catholics. But from looking at Notre Dame's site, there is no requirement that a student be Catholic, or religious at all. I would gather that means there are students of many different religions, and maybe some who don't practice at all. I would also gather that not all students have the same views on abortion or stem cell research, regardless of the fact that they attend a Catholic university. Isn't that pretty much what college is about -- coming into contact with people unlike yourself? And let's face it, not even Notre Dame students are perfect.

It's not as if Obama is going to give a speech about abortion or stem cell research, or try to convince students who have different views than he does to change their views. Obama is about more than just his political views. If anything, the fact that Obama is the first black president should be encouraging to students. And that leads me to something I found on George's Web site.

George wrote a pastoral letter on racism where he talks about people of different races dwelling together. Here is the first black president, and George calls his invitation to speak at Notre Dame an "extreme embarrassment." Now, George wasn't referring to race when he made that comment, but he should have thought a bit more about the obvious consequence of that remark. George says it's an embarrassment and encourages people to write, call and e-mail to convey their displeasure. But by doing so, the end result of that campaign, could be the rescission of the invitation for the first black president to speak. If George is so passionate about ending racism that he would write this long involved pastoral letter, then why not express his concern over the invitation in a different way? Because despite Obama's views on abortion and stem cell research, he is still a success story for minorities, if not for everyone. See what you can do when you work hard. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say Obama is somewhat of a success story when it comes to racism in this country. No, his election didn't eradicate racism, but it meant something. It showed us that if a person is right for the job, he (or she) deserves our vote.

When former President George W. Bush gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame, he too faced protest. He also faced protest when he gave the commencement speech at Yale, his alma mater. So I guess this is just par for the course for presidents. But this notion that Notre Dame's invitation to Obama is an extreme embarrassment to Catholics, well, I think George should be embarrassed for making such a statement, especially when his pastoral letter on racism contains such nuggets as this:

The Gospel compels us to love our neighbor as ourselves, to abandon patterns of seeing those who are racially or culturally different from ourselves as strangers and to recognize them as our brothers and sisters. Even those who have suffered at the hands of others, individually or collectively, must pray to overcome hostility, forgiving those who have offended them and asking forgiveness from those whom they have offended. We must embrace one another as formerly estranged neighbors now seeking reconciliation.

Seems to me the Cardinal doesn't practice what he preaches. Embarrassment, indeed.

The recession hits home

2009-03-23T07:07:00.001-07:00

I've never worked at a company that laid off several people at once. I've never sat at my desk worrying that I might get that call telling me to come down for a chat, i.e. the figurative pink slip. I never experienced those things until last week. My company had let a few people go toward the end of last year, but it wasn't anything major and it was mostly eliminating positions that weren't needed. I was worried, but not too worried. I thought I was safe for at least a few more months, that my company wouldn't let anyone else go until the middle of this year, if at all. I was wrong.

I heard rumblings last week that 70 people were going to be let go at the end of the week. I didn't know how much to believe. Was it really 70? Would there be layoffs at all? Would it be that week? But I was scared. Who wouldn't be? I may be young and good at my job, but in this economy that doesn't mean much. Even people my age with my skills are having trouble finding jobs. I barely slept that night, thinking about how I'd pay off the $2,000 in furniture I bought just the weekend before, thinking my job was safe. Here I went out and tried to help the economy by buying something big, and it was going to bite me in the ass, possibly. I should have kept my money under lock and key like I had been, because of my fear of losing my job.

It turned out my company let just over 30 people go, and I wasn't one of them. Not that it makes me feel that much better. People I knew and talked to, who I had worked with for five years, were let go. I was on the verge of tears the whole day, and every time my phone rang, my heart beat faster, until I looked at the display and realized it wasn't my supervisor calling me for that chat. I don't think anyone did anything that day because we were all too consumed with who was being let go. Staff members were calling other staff members to let them know who they had just heard was escorted out. By the end of the day, it was over, but I was no more relieved. Because I realized no one is safe. I always thought if I worked hard, was knowledgeable and received good reviews, I was safe. But I don't believe that anymore. Because in this economic climate, sometimes companies have to let even the good people go. I don't know if there will be more layoffs down the line, and I don't know if it will be me next time. But a day doesn't go by now that I'm not anxious over the possibility, that I'm not looking at my bank accounts to see how much I have available and how I can save more. I'm afraid to buy lunch even one day out of the week because I don't want to waste the money. Not like $7 is going to do much for me. I don't buy anything with my credit card because I don't want the balance, and that furniture that I bought on a 12-month no interest no payment plan will be paid off shortly, just so I don't have that balance hanging over my head. And I won't be buying any other big ticket items this year. I'll be saving my money -- just in case.

I never thought I'd be this scared. I never thought I'd be afraid of getting laid off. I never did, but now I am. And it's not a good feeling.

Schoolyard politics

2009-03-03T09:00:00.001-08:00

So is this how politics works?. Like the schoolyard? There is a bully. The bully says you will do this or else. Everyone else complies.

This weekend, a group of black pastors from Chicago rallied on behalf of Sen. Roland Burris and said that those politicians calling for his resignation need to leave him alone. And if the calls for Burris's resignation don't cease, these pastors will not support those politicians in future elections. Wow, so that's how things get done? I thought people would just laugh it off. You can't expect people to take you seriously when making threats like that. Then I heard on the news today that Gov. Pat Quinn is backing off on calls for Burris's resignation. Wimp.

I'm glad to see Rep. Bobby Rush came out of the woodwork for this little gathering. I was starting to wonder where the support he gave to Burris a month ago had gone. But I guess when the subject is race and how Burris is only being treated this way because he's black, Rush will be present. Of course, his claims are asinine. The Sun-Times column quoted Rush as saying that Sen. Larry Craig, for example, was treated better than Burris has been, even though he pled guilty to a crime. Sadly, Rush needs to read his history, because fellow politicians called for Craig's resignation. Mitt Romney said Craig had disappointed the American people. Craig didn't get a free pass because he's white. Nor did Randy Cunningham. Nor did James Traficant. Or even Gary Condit, who wasn't guilty of anything except bad judgment. These are random names, but just ones I could remember or found while reading other items. There are three congressman who are white and who weren't allowed to just skate by. Four, if you count Craig.

But, you say, these guys were convicted of or under suspicion for more serious crimes than Burris. True. But no one really knows what Burris is guilty of, because the story has changed many times over. If Burris was appointed by a governor who was squeaky clean (to the extent that any politician can be that clean), I don't think his waffling would matter to anyone. But Burris had to know when he accepted the appointment that he would be subject to closer scrutiny because of his connection to Rod Blagojevich. The uproar over Burris's revised testimony should come as no surprise to Burris or the black pastors who support him. The problem never was Burris's race. The problem was that he was appointed by a crooked governor. And then his changing testimony about which one of Blago's aides and friends he spoke to, or whether he did or didn't raise money for Blago, made the situation even worse. Burris wants our trust, but how can we trust someone who says one thing at one time and then says another later? And this is not the media attacking Burris. The media reported the facts that were out there. It's not their fault those facts paint Burris in a bad light. Burris himself is responsible. And I love this quote in the Sun-Times column from Rev. Janette Wilson: "You're all at his home every morning; when he goes to bed. You didn't do this for priests . . . wanted for pedophilia." Ha, that's rich. The Church did a pretty good job of covering up the pedophilia scandals, but when the news came out, there were stories. Many of them. Like the Church, Burris was able to cover up the true story about any connections with Blago. But once the news came out, the media reported it. Wilson also said, in the Tribune article, that they would not allow "you to force our senator to resign." He's not our senator. We didn't vote him into office. If anything, he's Blago's senator and we're just forced to go along. What about the people who don't want Burris to represent them? We have no choice. So why should people like Wilson be able to force their senator down our throats? I want a special election. If Burris wants to run, and Wilson and others want to vote for him, then so be it. But at least the people of Illinois would have a say in who represents them in the Senate.

I know racism is alive and well in this country, but where it doesn't exist, why must others make it an issue? Don't we have enough true racism to deal with? Burris's race is not an issue. This isn't a black vs. white issue. But the black pastors for Burris have now made it one by threatening not to support politicians, many of whom are white, who called for Burris's resignation. This is about what is best for Illinois, and it is not in our state's best interests to be represented by someone who can't keep his story straight. If the black pastors for Burris want him as their senator, they can vote in a special election.

No trust

2009-02-25T07:07:00.000-08:00

So the government lends taxpayers' money to the banks with the idea that they would then lend that money to people to get the economy moving again. I know there were other objectives to lending money to banks , but that was one of them. So what does Northern Trust (a/k/a No Trust, to me) do with some of their money? It spends the money on schmoozing clients for the Northern Trust Open, a golf tournament.

Now, No Trust argued that it didn't spend the bailout money, of which it received $1.5 billion, on the event, which included concerts by Chicago, Earth Wind & Fire and Sheryl Crow as well as hotel rooms at the Ritz Carlton. But my response to that is, how badly could the bank have been hurting if it had other money to spend on the event?

If No Trust is doing so well now that it can throw money away on party time, then maybe it should repay that $1.5 billion tout de suite. No Trust also argued that the schmoozing was part of its marketing program, and a No Trust spokesman said, "It's about client relationships and showing appreciation for clients." Really? I wonder how many of the people No Trust put up in the Ritz and who were in attendance at all those concerts were just regular "clients." I wonder if Joe Average, who has a checking account with No Trust that contains maybe a few thousand and a savings account to match, was a part of these events. Because he's a client too, and many more like him. He might not be a whale, but he put his trust in No Trust just like anyone else. So what No Trust is really saying is these events were for lucrative clients and building those relatoinships. And to that I say, it wasn't just the lucrative clients' money that made up that $1.5 billion No Trust received. It was Joe Average's too. I think it's time for No Trust to pay Joe Average back. All $1.5 billion.

$6.95

2009-02-19T06:57:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to rant for a moment here. This morning I decided it was time to sign up for the half marathon I usually run in the summer. I had waited because the registration cost for the Chicago Marathon was quite high ($125), and I also signed up for the Shamrock Shuffle ($40), which I had to do in January because the race fills up fast. I usually do all my registrations online. It's faster and instantaneous. And usually I'm charged a dollar or two as a registration fee. I don't really understand the fee, since everything is being done online so I imagine there is little manpower required on the race organizer's part, but a dollar or two is not a big deal. Today, however, I'm signing up for what is now the Rock N' Roll Chicago Half Marathon (used to be the Bank of America Chicago Distance Classic Half Marathon) and find out they charge $6.95 as a registration fee. The race itself cost $70, so that's kind of a hefty fee to tack on. Not only that, but if you fill out the registration form by hand and either fax or send it in, you just pay $70. So for the convenience of online registration, you're paying almost 10% more in fees, even though registering online should take less work for all involved.

So of course, what did I do? I canceled my online registration before paying, filled out a hard copy form and faxed it in. In this economy, I'm trying to save all the money I can, and my race fees per year probably cost me about $300. Add in shoes and running clothes, and you have another $200 to $300. I would think Elite Racing, which runs the Rock N'Roll series of marathons and half-marathons, would understand this. Bank of America never charged $6.95 for registration. In fact, last year, I paid $55 with a $4.95 fee. Now, before you say, well that fee's about 10% too, sure it is. But in total, I was only paying $59.95. That's $17 less than this year's registration cost. And the year before (2007), the half marathon again charged $55 with no registration fee.

Now, in all fairness, it is the Active Network, which Elite uses as its registration service, that charges the fee. But Active isn't a small company. They handle a lot of the registrations for various races, including the Chicago Marathon. They don't need a 10% fee. And every year, these races charge more money. I remember my first Chicago Marathon I think I paid $80 or something, maybe less. This year, it's $125. I used to do both triathlons and marathons, but had to stop because the race fees were getting so high I couldn't afford to do both. The Accenture Chicago Triathlon is $165 this year.

I'm not saying the cost isn't warranted to some degree. The race organizers have to pay for supplies and food, medical personnel, police presence and any paid employees (many are volunteers). But why just a couple years ago could the Chicago Marathon get by with $110 registration fee, and this year it's $125? Sadly, I believe the answer is -- because they can. We'll pay it because we want to run. And even if I decide to bow out once the fee gets to say, $150, there will be many other people willing to pay in my place. It's a shame that those of us who love running or doing triathlons have to almost work a second job to afford the races. I'm starting to wonder if I'm better off as a "recreational runner." It would definitely be cheaper. If the Chicago Marathon goes up another $15 next year, I probably will seek out a less expensive marathon, even if I have to travel. Sure, I'd have to spend the money on travel costs, but at least I'd get a little vacation out of it. If I can find a marathon that costs about $60, and they are out there, I'm already $80 ahead.

Well, that's my rant for today. I faxed in my form to Elite Racing, to save the $6.95. I can put it toward the new running shoes I need.

Where's B. Rush?

2009-02-18T08:01:00.000-08:00

Maybe Rep. Bobby Rush is gearing up to make a statement on behalf of his pal, Roland Burris. But I'm surprised it's taking so long. Back when the U.S. Senate was blocking Burris from being seated, Rush was quick to throw out the race card. Burris would have been the only black senator, just as President Obama had been. The U.S. Senate, according to Rush, didn't want a black man around. Never mind that under normal circumstances, it doesn't matter what the other senators want. Senators are elected. If there are no black men or women in the Senate, the voters are to blame, not other senators. Never mind that a black man, a former senator, was elected president, supported by some of the same senators that Rush now claimed didn't want Burris around because of his race.

No, the issue back then, if Rush had bothered to step back for a bit, was about Rod Blagojevich's taint on the whole process. Blago had been arrested. Politicians and voters were skeptical about the appointment, whether Burris gave anything to Blago in return. That was the issue. Not Burris's race.

And now, when information has come out that Burris not only had contact with more Blago associates than he testified to but also tried to organize a fundraiser for Blago, Rush is nowhere to be found. Like I said, maybe Rush's support is forthcoming. Maybe it is meant to be implied. But I don't see Rush giving any press conferences or TV interviews now. No statements that Burris is being attacked because he's black and the U.S. Senate wants him out. I don't see any press releases from the Congressional Black Caucus once again supporting Burris. Has Rush realized his mistake? Has he, with the benefit of hindsight, realized maybe he shouldn't have been so quick to blame the ruckus over Burris on race?

I don't see the support that was there a little over a month ago. But I'm waiting.

Kass, off his rocker again

2009-02-18T06:45:00.000-08:00

John Kass is better at finding people to blame than Roland Burris. In his column today, Kass blames President Obama for the Burris mess. Wow, now there's some well-thought out journalism. The Chicago Tribune shouldn't have even wasted the ink. Because Kass spends about half the article talking about Mayor Daley, Burris playing the race card, Blagojevich and the FBI wiretaps, etc. The only blame he puts on Obama is that Obama should have pushed for a special election for his Senate seat and that Obama wanted Burris seated so that Burris could vote in favor of the stimulus bill. Well, damn, there's a smoking gun if I ever saw one!

First, Obama did push for a special election, but I guess Kass didn't bother to research that. Or maybe Kass's use of the word "demanded" means he thought Obama should have pushed harder on the issue. But let's face it, other Illinois politicians also were asking for a special election, among other things. It was out there already. Obama also called for Blago's resignation. But I guess that wasn't "demanding" enough either. And frankly, on the heels of becoming our new president, Obama had a little more to worry about than just Illinois's troubles. He didn't create this mess, other than getting himself elected as president thereby leaving an empty Senate seat for the selling. Not his fault.

As for passage of the stimulus bill, I doubt Burris's one vote mattered all that much. Yes, the bill passed 60-38, so just barely. But with all the back and forth on the bill, I'm sure without that one vote, the Senate would have come to a resolution on the bill eventually. They couldn't do nothing. Even Republicans could understand that. Looking back, I believed Burris should be seated and the whole mess put behind us. The Senate had more pressing matters to deal with than the business of whether Burris should or should not be seated. They didn't need Illinois's mess in their house. Even though I was skeptical that Burris was appointed without giving Blago something in return, I hadn't seen or read anything saying he had, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

This mess is no one's fault but Blago's and Burris's. It's not on Rep. Jim Durkin for asking the wrong questions. It's not on Obama. It's not on other Illinois politicians. Blago appointed Burris, even though Blago should have left the task up to someone else (whether the people of Illinois by special election, or by resigning). Blago was given that authority by the Illinois Constitution. After Blago's arrest, there wasn't enough time to do anything to prevent what happened, to force Blago to do something other than what he did. Burris accepted the seat, because of his blind ambition. Burris wasn't completely truthful in his affidavits or his testimony. A mess has ensued. But it is a mess of their making, not anyone else's. Although I know how Kass likes to stick it to a Democrat.

Burris in the hot seat again

2009-02-16T08:54:00.000-08:00

Sen. Roland Burris should have known what would happen if he let himself get mixed up with the likes of Rod Blagojevich. Just a little over a month after being sworn in as President Barack Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate, Burris is under suspicion once again.

When first appointed, many people doubted that Burris didn't conduct any behind-the-scenes deals with Blago for the seat. But we gave Burris the benefit of the doubt. And Burris might still be clean. However, the information that recently came out doesn't look good.

Burris sent an affidavit to Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, head of the impeachment committee, to supplement testimony he gave in January before that same committee. During his original testimony, Burris forgot to mention that he had been in contact with other Blago friends, staff and relatives besides Lon Monk. Burris stated in the affidavit and during his press conference that he was asked another question by Rep. Jim Durkin, which is why he never went back to supplement his answer with these other names. It's all Durkin's fault, in other words. If Durkin hadn't confused Burris, Burris would have mentioned John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, John Wyma, et al. during his testimony. Below is that line of questioning. You decide for yourself if Burris had an opportunity to answer the question fully at that time.

REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Did you talk to any members of the Governor's staff or anyone closely related to the Governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including let me throw out some names, John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma, did you talk to anybody who was associated with the Governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the Governor's arrest?
MR. WRIGHT: Give us a moment.
MR. BURRIS: I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I guess the point is I was trying to ask, did you speak to anybody who was on the Governor's staff prior to the Governor's arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is closely related to the Governor?
MR. BURRIS: I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business, and I did bring it up, it must have been in September or maybe it was in July of '08 that, you know, you're close to the Governor, let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat.
REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. Did you speak to any individuals who -- any individuals who were also seeking the appointment of the United States Senate seat, otherwise people we've referred to as Senate candidates one through five?
MR. BURRIS: No, I did not.

I watched Burris's press conference. When asked why he didn't tell the impeachment committee about these other contacts during his testimony, Burris asked his lawyer, Tim Wright, to answer. But then reporters badgered Burris about why he couldn't answer the question, why did he need his lawyer? Burris went on to answer, or try to answer, the question, but again, he just blamed Durkin's line of questioning. But the transcript of his testimony doesn't show that. Durkin didn't ask Burris about Monk, to the exclusion of all others. Burris talked about Monk and no one else. And then Burris waited over a month, until after he had received the transcript of his testimony, to suddenly realize he left something out. A few somethings, or somebodies as the case may be.

Regardless of Durkin's line of questioning, Burris knew why he was at that hearing. He should have made sure, at that hearing, that the committee members knew everything there was to know about his contacts with Blago's friends, staff and family. But I think Burris also knew that admitting to those contacts would only make him look worse. And he was already looking pretty bad.

Some have questioned whether Burris only prepared this affidavit because he found out his conversations, or any one of them, were taped by the FBI. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I am wondering the very same thing. Burris said in his press conference that federal prosecutors had reached out to his lawyers because they wanted to talk to Burris. But Burris claimed no meeting had been arranged and no discussions had been had. And later in the press conference, Wright said that the FBI hadn't contacted them, then said there "may have been some contact," but when asked by reporters for more information, Wright refused to give any more. Did Burris know what was forthcoming?

In the press conference, Burris also makes a distinction between "the appointment" and "the Senate seat," as if the two are different. Burris said he filed an affidavit about "the appointment" before he gave testimony, stating that he didn't talk to anyone about the appointment. Burris accused the Republicans on the impeachment committee of starting this line of questioning about who he talked to period. But Burris's Feb. 5 affidavit stated that he did talk to people about the U.S. Senate seat. How Burris sees a distinction between talking to people about his appointment and talking to people about the seat is beyond me. They are one in the same. His appointment was to the Senate seat, so therefore, any conversations he had with Blago's associates about the open seat was the same as talking to them about an appointment, because how else did Burris intend to get the seat? By osmosis?

And this lapse in judgment brings me to something else I gave Burris the benefit of the doubt on when he was appointed by Blago. I read about his lapse in judgment on the Rolando Cruz case, but I figured it was mistake. No doubt it was a BIG mistake (an innocent man put in jail and Burris fought his appeal even though an employee in his office told him there were inconsistencies in the case). But it was the only mark on his record that I read about. Now, here is another lapse in judgment. Whether the lapse was taking the Senate seat to begin with after being appointed by a crooked governor, or whether it was not providing complete testimony before the impeachment committee, it was a lapse. And I'm not sure Illinois can accept any more lapses.

P.S. At the end of his press conference, Burris then blamed this whole mess on the media. First, Durkin, then the MSM. Who isn't at fault, Senator?

What's really important

2009-02-11T12:53:00.000-08:00

I read this column by John Kass this morning and had a laugh about it. I don't like Kass's columns very much. They are so full of puffery at times, it's difficult to continue reading. But now I see this topic is front and center on the Chicago Tribune's Web site, so I thought I'd write about it.

Why is this important? If E-Verify was such a spectacular program, why was it just put into play now? If the Republicans wanted to make using E-Verify mandatory for all employers, they could have done it anytime since 1997, when the program was first introduced (under a different name). But now the House Democrats put it in a stimulus bill, the Senate takes it out, and it must be all the Democrats' fault. The headline to Kass's column is even "Democrats undercut aid for U.S. workers." Seriously? Again, if this program was so important, why didn't Republicans make it law when they had a majority in Congress? I guess "Republicans undercut aid to U.S. workers" too. And really does Kass even know why the E-Verify provision was taken out? No, he doesn't say. He talked to one Republican senator (Jeff Sessions from Alabama) who said the Democrats stripped it out of the stimulus bill, and that's all the proof he needs. Kass doesn't know if the provision was taken out in hopes of getting more Republican support. I guess, like Kass, we can all speculate. Or could it be because E-Verify still has its problems?

And from my reading, E-Verify does have its problems (or see here or here or here). Maybe Kass should question whether the program's glitches and shortcomings aren't to blame for its disappearance from the bill. Or maybe Kass should just focus on more important issues altogether, like our failing economy and rising unemployment rates. E-Verify makes little difference to people when there aren't jobs to apply for, or when companies can't afford to hire more employees.

I could care less about the reason E-Verify disappeared from the Senate version of the bill. I could care less about some program that is supposed to verify someone's eligibility to work in this country, because by the time an illegal immigrant gets to the point that he or she tries to apply for a job, he or she is already in this country. If Kass is serious about illegal immigration, he should be writing columns about immigration reform. E-Verify is a too-late solution to a much bigger problem. And we have plenty of problems to tackle right now.

Race or reality?

2009-02-05T08:01:00.000-08:00

I read this column by Phil Rosenthal in the Chicago Tribune yesterday, and the events it described bothered me. Quick synopsis -- Warner Saunders, an NBC 5 news anchor, accused Robert Feder, a former Chicago Sun-Times columnist, of bias in his columns against black journalists in Chicago. Saunders didn't accuse Feder in private. He accused him in front of everyone at the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists meeting. Saunders even brought a speech prepared just for the occasion.

Now, I will admit that I never read Feder's columns. I may have read them at some point in the past, but not enough to remember that it was his column I was reading. But I read many of the comments to Rosenthal's column, and commentors who were regular Feder readers stated that Feder wasn't biased. He gave the business to everyone, white or black. I also read the same thing expressed in other blogs (you can find them by typing in "Warner Saunders" and "Robert Feder" in Google, too many to link here).

I started to wonder -- what this really a case of race or was it reality? If a white person criticizes a black person, is it automatically a case of race? What if the criticism is true?

I've watched Saunders on NBC 5, and he is not good. He may have been once, but he at times can't even read the teleprompter accurately. He makes mistakes. He mispronounces words. That is not a race-based criticism. It is the truth. And those criticisms were also expressed in comments and blogs I read. If Feder expressed the same in his columns, does that make him biased? Even if Feder was biased and picked on journalists of color, if he pointed out Saunders' shortcomings, he was on point. I think many NBC 5 news watchers would agree. And if Feder was so biased, why in the past had he praised Saunders (mentioned in Rosenthal's column)?

This being the case, it bothered me that Saunders not only blamed the criticisms on Feder's bias, instead of recognizing his own poor performance, but that he confronted Feder is such a public way. Saunders said,

"I simply wanted to confront him, face to face. I just spoke my truth in front of a person who I felt has been unfair to me and to black journalists in this city. … Very few people who are not in our skin can understand this."

If Saunders wanted to confront him, there were other venues to do it. Call Feder on the phone perhaps. And no, I don't understand it. I don't understand the need to humiliate a fellow journalist in front of other journalists in order to cover up my own mistakes. But not understanding that has nothing to do with race. It's just reality. I won't be watching NBC 5 news in the future. The station can thank Saunders for that.

Oh those downstaters

2009-02-05T06:47:00.000-08:00

Looks like State Sen. Larry Bomke from Springfield has been spending too much time with his head in the cornfields. It was just last week that Rod Blagojevich was voted out of office. Gov. Pat Quinn and the rest of the legislature is now faced with the task of fixing what Blago broke. And what does Bomke's to-do list contain? A proposal to fire Bill Ayers. He wants Ayers fired from his position at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Yes, that is certainly top on Illinoisans' minds right now. I've been wondering when they were going to get to that. Forget our $5 billion budget deficit. Forget that our former governor was arrested and later voted out of office, and Illinois is now a laughingstock. Ayers is definitely the problem, and firing him will put Illinois back on track.

Ayers has taught at UIC for over 20 years, and until the presidential election campaign, when Republicans trotted the Ayers' story out in order to paint President Barack Obama (then, Sen. Obama) as a terrorist sympathizer, someone who pals around with terrorists, no one cared. Parents whose children were being taught by Ayers weren't up in arms over his past bad acts. No one called for his firing because of who he was. I don't think anyone condones what Ayers did so many years ago, but it was so many years ago. Although only Ayers can speak to this, what he has done since then has seemed to be his way of making up for it. I found this letter, written by one of Ayers' colleagues at UIC, and posted on a former Ayers' student's blog. UIC Professor Willian H. Schubert talks about the Bill Ayers he knows.

So given all this, Bomke's proposal is just another waste of time for Illinois. It's not important. It won't make a substantial difference to anyone in Illinois. It won't provide jobs for Illinoisans (except for the person who would take Ayers' place). It won't fix the budget. It won't clean up government. In fact, all it does is make our government look more wasteful. If the legislature wants to oust people from their jobs because of bad acts, whether those acts are considered terrorism or not, maybe they should put in a proposal to remove Cook County Board President Todd Stroger from his post? Or Mayor Richard M. Daley? They have wasted taxpayers' money. They have been involved in scandals (Hired Truck or hiring family). They certainly haven't helped people in Illinois.

I do wonder, why now? Ayers has taught at UIC for years. Bomke has served in the Senate since 1995. Fourteen years, and not a word said until now, after Ayers' story was splashed across the television and newspaper pages during the presidential election campagin. Now, Bomke wants to do something about it. Maybe Bomke should resign. I mean, he has sat back for fourteen years while big bad Bill Ayers (*sarcasm*) was teaching at UIC. Let's put it to a vote. Because we have nothing else to worry about here in Illinois.

59-0

2009-01-29T16:29:00.000-08:00

The Senate voted unanimously to impeach Rod Blagojevich this afternoon. They also voted unanimously to prevent him from holding public office in Illinois in the future. Justice has been done. Blago gave a impromtu press conference outside his house tonight (no security now that he is a private citizen so the press was able to get close). He repeated many of the same things he's been saying over the past couple days, including in his closing arguments. He teared up, but it looked fake. He repeated his claim that "the fix is in" when asked about the unanimous vote. Blago just can't accept that he was wrong. We know it. The senators knew it. And he will have to live with it. I'm just glad he's gone.

Blago's last stand

2009-01-29T12:54:00.000-08:00

I listened to Rod Blagojevich's closing argument today in his impeachment trial. Again, I heard the same spiel about how he wasn't allowed to call witnesses. I expected as much. He tried to explain away his activities as just politics as usual. Just a governor trying to get things done for the people of Illinois. I think he hoped the senators would shake their heads in agreement and say, "Sure, this is politics as usual." But whether it is or not, it shouldn't be. This is not how government in any city or state, or in our nation, should be. Many of us are cynical already about politics. Politicians are liars and crooks. Government doesn't work for the people. Why vote? Why care? Rod Blagojevich is an example of why people feel that way. And it is a shame. It is not a defense.

Blago said he did nothing wrong. He said he wasn't guilty of the criminal charges and would prove it in his criminal trial. Then he went charge by charge over the rest of the Articles of Impeachment (those charges that were not in the criminal complaint) to explain why he wasn't wrong in those instances either. But in each case, all he seemed to do was explain why he was wrong. Blago argued he did nothing wrong by going around the legislature to expand healthcare, to buy flu vaccines with taxpayer money, and to buy prescription drugs from outside the U.S., which was against federal law. But he did, and his explanation proved he did. He said he didn't need to go through the legislature for these things, or through the Joint Committee on Adminstrative Rules, even though state law required he do so. Blago argued that these actions had been done before he was elected for a second term, and he should have been impeached before then. He's right. I know impeachment was talked about even before Blago's arrest. Blago himself mentioned it in his national interviews. I can only guess that some Democratic representatives and senators were not on board with impeachment, even if it was deserved. Maybe even some Republicans were reluctant to get on board, because it would have been an embarrassment to Illinois. Maybe they didn't think it would get this bad. But after Blago's arrest, impeachment could no longer be just a whisper in the halls in Springfield. Blago was already embarrassing Illinois. What more could an impeachment do?

For the most part, Blago said nothing new in his closing argument. Nothing that I can see would change any senators' mind on impeachment, if they were for it. So far, it seems I'm right. I've been listening to the deliberations the past half hour and each senator who has spoken has said he or she is for impeachment. They are embarrassed. They are appalled. They want a new chapter to start for Illinois, one that doesn't include Rod R. Blagojevich. I can only hope tomorrow begins that chapter.

SIDE NOTE: Blago left right after his closing argument in his state plane to fly back to Chicago because he was afraid to stick around to listen to deliberations and the final decision. He was afraid because if he stuck around and was indeed impeached, he would no longer have access to the plane and would have to find another way home. Yep, the Governor, always thinking about himself.

Flying in

2009-01-29T07:15:00.000-08:00

I was quite disturbed to read that Rod Blagojevich was flying in to Springfield to make closing statements today at his impeachment trial. Flying in? Yes, he boarded a small plane at O'Hare this morning to fly to Springfield, and plans to fly back after he gives his statement. And who paid for that small plane? Something tells me it was the taxpayers of Illinois. So it's nice to see that after his whirlwind media tour where he proclaimed he was just trying to do what was best for the citizens of Illinois, he continues to screw us. Is Blago above getting in a car the night before and driving to Springfield? After all, it's only a few hours. No, I suspect the governor thinks he's still too special for that sort of transportation. Hello, he's been on NATIONAL TELEVISION! National TV darlings don't DRIVE to their destinations. They are flown, like celebrities. I suppose that's the problem with Blago, one of them anyway. He seems to think he's better than anyone else, and can get away with almost anything. Almost. His closing statement is at 11 a.m., for anyone interested in watching. The Chicago Tribune has a link to the proceedings online.

We voted for him

2009-01-27T20:18:00.001-08:00

I shook my head in agreement while reading the Chicago Tribune's editorial today titled "Illinois, policing itself." The editorial discussed why Illinois residents are responsible for the mess with Rod Blagojevich, for the most part. We voted for him. Well, not everyone did. I didn't. Actually, 1,750,452 didn't. Blago won re-election in 2006 with less than 50% of the vote (okay, it was 49.8%, but that's still less). But be that as it may, he was still re-elected. So we, the voters, are responsible. Now, I'll admit between Blago and Judy Baar Topinka, there wasn't much of a choice. Topinka wasn't a saint, being tied to former Gov. George Ryan. But in reading one of the comments to the editorial, I was reminded of an issue I have with elections, whether state or federal. The comment by "tired of it" said, in part: "Seriously, what were our options in the last gubernatorial election? An off-putting woman less appealing than a t-rex or Blago--is that a real choice??? I voted green, thank you (BTW, a little more press on the green party might help us stupid citizens understand our options)."

I voted the Green Party as well, but it's true that there wasn't much press on any other party, as is the norm in elections. I had to find my own information about the Green Party candidate, Rich Whitney. We have very few choices in politics. I'm not saying having more parties and candidates in elections would mean less corruption, but at least we'd have options. At least the Democratic and Republican candidates would know they had more than just one other candidate to beat out, and we would have more of a choice if the Democratic or Republican candidates were corrupt losers. And voters wouldn't get a sense that they were "wasting" their votes if they voted for someone other than a Republican or a Democrat.

And this goes for city elections too. How long has Mayor Daley been in office? I think I might have been in diapers when he was first elected. No, that's an exaggeration. I believe I was 14, so a good 20 years. I have two words -- term limits. Daley is re-elected because no viable candidate runs against him. Again, we don't have enough choices, and many voters just choose the usual, even if they know the usual isn't working anymore. But term limits would be nice. I don't have a huge beef with Daley, but I'm starting to get annoyed. The increase in the Cook County portion of the sales tax pissed me off, but I'm close enough to the suburbs that I can avoid the city taxes, at least. Then he decided not to plow the side streets right away when we started getting some serious snowfalls last month. That was his way of saving money. Of course, when my side streets are one huge sheet of ice and people are falling and breaking hips and legs, lawsuits are bound to follow. Don't think the city is going to save money that way. Daley must have realized it too, because a few weeks after he made that announcement, he changed his mind. Perhaps a few of those lawsuits started rolling in. Or perhaps he remembered that Jane Byrne was elected mayor when when the current mayor, Michael Bilandic, couldn't handle the snow. Then today, it's reported that Ron Huberman will be selected as head of the Chicago Public Schools.

For those of you not from Chicago and unfamiliar with Ron Huberman, he has been the head of the Chicago Transit Authority. And what a wonderful job he's done of managing that agency. Train cars that are so dirty the blue fabric on the seats look black and the floor is covered in dirt and garbage. Oh and the smell of piss! Fantastic. Then there are the people who beg for change on the train, or try to sell things. Or the muggings or assaults that happen on or around the train platforms, even though security guards man the stations at night (I once saw a guard sleeping in the booth at the Red Line Sheridan stop -- so glad she was getting paid to nap). The buses are just as bad, and if they show up, you usually get four buses at a time after waiting 30 minutes. And for all this, the CTA just raised fares. It now costs $86 a month to ride the train, up from $75. Yes, for $11 more a month you can ride in filth, elbow to elbow with your fellow Chicagoans, smelling the body odor and bad breath. For all Huberman's great work with the CTA, he now gets the job at CPS. Problem is, not only has he not shown himself to be a good manager but he has no educational background. So a guy who has been a Chicago police officer and been head of two Chicago agencies -- neither of which were education-related -- will now be running one of the most important agencies any city can have. I wonder how long it will be before Chicago students' test scores start going down again? Is this the best Daley could do? I know Huberman is his main man, but that doesn't mean he's qualified.

But when Daley is up for election again, who will run against him? Will that person be "serious" enough for voters? I do hope so. We need more choices. We need more than Daley and Blagojevich. Oh and Todd Stroger, don't even get me started on him. He's the reason our sales tax is the highest in the nation. And he ended up in office because his father, John, was too sick to run, even though his father's name appeared on the primary election ballot. People voted for John Stroger because they always had, not taking into account that John was in a hospital bed at that very moment and might not be able to serve. They didn't realize Todd would take over, but they should have. It's Chicago. It's obvious. I voted for Forrest Claypool, but John Stroger won. And sure enough, Todd Stroger replaced him in the general election. The Republican candidate, sadly, was Tony Peraica, who was too severe for me. So I didn't vote for anyone in that race, which I guess wasn't any better than voting for Todd Stroger. He won the election, and the rest is sad history. Hello, 10.25% sales tax so Toddy can hire his friends and relatives and have a private elevator in the City Hall building.

People can say this is just Chicago politics, but that is not an excuse. That doesn't make it right. And the Tribune's editorial is right on -- we, the voters, are at fault for this. We didn't police ourselves.

My favorite Blagoisms

2009-01-26T13:50:00.000-08:00

In watching the videos of Rod Blagojevich's various media appearances this morning, I realized there were some phrases or statements he made over and over that have really started to annoy me. I thought I would list my favorites here for all to enjoy.

"Give us a chance to challenge the charges. Give me a chance to call in witnesses, like Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff, who said there was nothing inappropriate in his conversations with me. Give me a chance to bring in Valerie Jarrett, a high-ranking member of the Obama administration. Give me a chance to bring in Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., all of whom have talked to the FBI and have said there was nothing inappropriate in their relationships with me."

Blago made this statement in every appearance, in some way, shape or form. What I find so utterly ridiculous about it is that just because Emanuel, Jarrett and Jackson, Jr. might testify that they had no inappropriate conversations with Blago doesn't mean he didn't have such conversations with others, which, according to the portions of the tapes released and contained in the criminal complaint, is exactly the case.

"You can conceivably bring in 15 angels and 20 saints, led by Mother Teresa, to come in and testify to my good character, my integrity and all the rest. It wouldn't matter."

Again, Blago trotted out this statement a couple times in his appearances. What he seems to forget is that the reason why angels, saints, Mother Teresa, God, the Pope, etc., etc. wouldn't matter is because THEY CAUGHT HIM ON TAPE. You can't refute evidence like that. Unless Blago is going to somehow prove it wasn't his voice on those tapes, well, there's not much Mother Teresa could do for him.

"And then, you know, the day unfolded and I had a whole bunch of thoughts; of course, my children and my wife. And then I thought about Mandela, Dr. King, Gandhi, and tried to put some perspective in all of this."

When I first heard this, I thought Blago was trying to compare himself to Nelson Mandela and the rest, which I thought was a big stretch. On The View today, he said that was taken out of context and he wasn't trying to compare himself to those individuals, but think about people who had similar experiences. I don't know if that really changes the original meaning of the quote. It still seems like Blago thinks his experience is similar to individuals who suffered much more than he has, and not for being crooked politicians. His plight is borne solely out of his own desire to make an extra buck as governor of Illinois. It wasn't because of his race or his religion. His "persecution" is of his own making. We don't feel sorry for him for that.

"Well, I trust in the truth. And my only request would be I would hope that they get to hear the whole story. Taking snippets of conversations out of context isn't the whole story."

Another constant theme in Blago's appearances today was that the taped telephone conversations, or at least the portions released to the public and contained in the criminal complaint, were taken out of context. I said it in my previous post, what context would make what we heard seem legal? Because frankly, I can't think of anything else the governor could have said that we didn't hear that would make me think he is innocent.

Blago's comparisons of himself to movie characters, reciting lines of poetry, trotting out gospel song titles to describe his situation.

I think this speaks to Blago's possible mental instability. He thinks his life is some kind of fantasy. He's a movie character, a line of poetry, a gospel song. I want to puke. Governor, you're a crook. End of story.

Blago will be on Larry King Live tonight. I'm interested to see how many times he brings up these same Blagoisms on that show. By now, even the national audience has to be as tired of him as we in Illinois are.

"Come to Illinois. Chock full o' crazy."

2009-01-26T09:45:00.000-08:00

That's a line from a column written by Rex W. Huppke in the Chicago Tribune today. And right now, I have to say Huppke isn't far from the truth. Huppke's column discussed Rod Blagojevich's hiring of Drew Peterson's public relations firm. People may remember that Peterson is the former suburban police sergeant accused of murdering his third wife, whose death was ruled accidental in 2004, and his fourth wife, who has been missing since October 2007.

And I suppose the PR firm's first order of business was to send Blago on a media tour to proclaim his innocence, similar to what Peterson did after he had been accused. Except it didn't work in Peterson's case, and it sure isn't working in Blago's. However, Peterson wasn't on trial at that time and refusing to show up for his defense, claiming that the whole proceeding was unfair. Blago has chosen to appear on The Today Show, The View, Good Morning America and Larry King Live rather than at his own impeachment trial before the Illinois Senate, which began today. Blago went on about how the rules for the trial were unfair because he can't call witnesses, which is false. He said the politicians were trying to punish him for keeping taxes down, creating jobs, extending healthcare benefits and providing free rides to seniors. All completely ridiculous. Blago seems to have forgotten he was CAUGHT ON TAPE. Although, he did address that issue in his interviews, so I guess he hasn't completely forgotten. Blago's defense was that the statements were taken out of context. Somehow I find it very hard to believe that putting those statements in context would make one bit of difference. What else exactly did you say in those phone conversations, Governor, that would make us believe you weren't trying to sell the vacant U.S Senate seat? Was the phrase "just kidding" in there somewhere?

Blago doesn't realize that it is not the rest of the nation whose sympathy he must win. People in California or New York or Florida don't have any interest in what is happening Illinois. The only thing Blago is providing the nation with is a good laugh. No one feels sorry for him. No one feels the impeachment trial is unfair, except for Blago himself. Most comments I've read on articles or blog posts are calling for Blago's swift removal from office. What Blago needed to do was show up at that "unfair" trial in the Illinois Senate and attempt to defend himself. Use whatever witnesses and previous testimony and/or statements he was allowed. Do whatever he had to do to make the voters of Illinois, those he is so proud of stating twice elected him as governor, believe they didn't make the wrong choice. I still think it would be a lose-lose situation for Blago, no matter what he did, because again, he was caught on tape. But at least I'd have a bit more respect for the man, as much respect as you can have for a corrupt politician. This media tour of his was the last straw. If you'd like to see his appearance on Good Morning America, it follows (in two parts). Quite funny, if it wasn't so sad from an Illinois resident's perspective.

Needs mental help

2009-01-23T07:10:00.000-08:00

I am now convinced Rod Blagojevich needs mental help. Even before a former Blagojevich aide said Blago needed a psychiatric evaluation, I thought he was off. First, who proclaims he doesn't care if his phones are tapped, and then goes on to talk about illegal activities? Second, who proclaims his innocence after his illegal activities have been caught on tape? Third, who goes jogging around the neighborhood when he's in the kind of trouble Blago is, like it's just any other day? Does the phrase "keep a low profile" mean anything? How about running on the treadmill indoors? And last, well, last was today's article in the Chicago Tribune.

Blago said his impeachment is a way for the Illinois government to raise taxes. Huh? Yep, he said the government wants to get him out of the way because Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn has made a deal with Democratic leaders to raise taxes once Blago is gone. I suppose Blago hasn't realized that we have the highest sales tax of any city in the nation (Chicago does), and that was under HIS watch. Sure, the county was responsible for that hike, but Blago didn't do anything to stop it. Frankly, Blago's "extracurricular" activities have done far more damage to Illinois and its residents than any tax hike ever could. He has embarrassed our state. He thumbed his nose at the public after his arrest and appointed Roland Burris as senator instead of resigning and letting someone who wasn't under investigation handle the task. Then Blago sat back while Burris fought for his seat, which I guess kept Blago off the front page for a little while. That may very well have been his plan. But the mess it caused for Illinois, for Burris and even for the U.S. Senate could have been prevented had Blago just stepped aside.

And still, even now, even after the House voted 114-1 (the new House voted 117-1, with the lone "no" vote cast by Blago's sister-in-law, Deb Mell, surprise) for impeachment and a trial starting in the Senate, Blago still thinks he's a viable governor. He thinks the impeachment trial is a sham, that the government is thwarting the will of the people by trying to oust him, since he was elected. Sir, you might be governor in name, but many of us can't stand you. If we were allowed to vote on Blago's impeachment, I surely would vote a resounding "yes." I can only hope that the trial goes as quickly as possible and the Senate comes to the same conclusion as the House. Rod Blagojevich is bad for Illinois. Maybe a good candidate for a mental health study, but wrong for our state.

Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States of America

2009-01-20T11:13:00.000-08:00

Barack Hussein Obama, the unlikeliest candidate, the unlikeliest nominee, in the history of American politics, is the 44th President of the United States of America.

Is this the greatest nation in the history of the world, or what?

Despite all the hoo-hah about Rick Warren giving the invocation (I know there are a lot of atheists out there -- see, for instance, Carol Anne from Seattle in the comments section here), I think he did a beautiful, solemn and very reverent job. But then, I'm a Christian (even if a very different sort of Christian than Rick Warren).

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

There is no one in the entire world like Aretha Franklin, and I confess that her extraordinary rendition (pun intended) of "My Country 'Tis of Thee" left me in tears, sobbing like a baby (was this as cathartic an experience for you as it was for me?). At my age -- can you imagine?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama's (first) inaugural address to the nation was, I must say, in my most humble opinion, not his best speech. But it was an important one nonetheless.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I am very gratified that President Obama (don't you love the sound of that?) echoed themes that IN THE DARK has championed for the last four years. For example, the primacy of the Constitution and of human rights over mere "security":

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.
Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.
Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Against the ignorant claim that America is a "Christian nation":

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.
We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.
And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

And recognition of our complicity in creating and supporting policies that cause others to suffer poverty and exploitation:

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.
And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

The bottom line: this was an historic day; perhaps the most important day, and certainly one of the most important days, in American history. To think that I lived to see a day that I never truly believed I would see, and yet always -- in my heart -- believed I would see, is to me nothing short of miraculous, and is another sign of God's gratuitous love for us, Her undeserving creation.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. And I have never been prouder to call myself "American."

"Oh, Let Us Turn Our Thoughts Today to Martin Luther King..."

2009-01-19T12:52:00.000-08:00

What a day.

It is the celebration of the 80th birthday of the greatest American of my lifetime. It is the celebration of his life, of his accomplishments, but especially of his dream...

Tomorrow his dream finds a degree of fulfillment. There is much still to be done in America, much change that is needed, far too many people for whom the word "hope" is still only a campaign slogan. But we have begun.

Happy Birthday, Dr. King. Congratulations, America.

Glad to see him go

2009-01-15T08:39:00.000-08:00

I've been quiet lately, not writing much on this blog. I was tired from writing so much before the election, but then the holidays arrived as well as illnesses. It's -7 degrees right now in Chicago, and we've had snow at least once almost every week. It's hard to escape a cold in that kind of weather. And there has been so much news -- Blagojevich, Burris, City of Chicago snow removal and on. I just haven't had the energy to write. But today I read a few articles about Bush's farewell speech tonight and felt the urge to type something out.

Steve Chapman had a good column in the Chicago Tribune today. He talked about Bush's failures, ones Bush himself seems reluctant to acknowledge. Two items stuck out:

The budget

Bush represented the alleged party of small government, yet under him, federal outlays exploded. During his presidency, spending was up by 70 percent, more than double the increase under Bill Clinton. When Bush arrived, the government was running surpluses. Since then—not counting the horrendously expensive financial bailout—the national debt has nearly doubled. You can't blame Congress for all this: Bush was the first president in 176 years to go an entire term without vetoing a single piece of legislation.

Party of small government. We've heard that about the Republicans. And I've heard complaints from people I know who consider themselves Republicans that Obama and the Democrats will spend, spend, spend. But what has Bush done in these 8 years? Republicans turn a blind eye to that. We went from surpluses under Clinton to an outrageous deficit under Bush. Much of that was defense spending, but spending all the same. I suppose spending is okay when it is for the small government party's pet projects. It's fine to spend, spend, spend as long as it isn't on silly things like health care or creating jobs or keeping people in their homes.

Executive power

Conservatives are supposed to believe in strict limits on government power, but Bush pushed incessantly to expand the prerogatives of the president. He asserted the right to ignore laws banning torture and restricting wiretapping. The Supreme Court found that his imprisonment of captives at Guantanamo Bay violated the Constitution by denying them the right to challenge their detention in court.

Again, this is the party that believes in strict limits on government power, and then went ahead and exerted government power. Republicans are only the party of small government and strict limits when being small and limiting themselves doesn't interfere with their own agenda. Make the argument that he was protecting America with his abuses, but be careful. If it is acceptable for a president to turn a blind eye to prisoners tortured in Guantanamo Bay in order to protect America, then why is should it not be acceptable for any leader of any country to do the same to Americans? Stick them in some prison and torture them for the supposed purpose of protecting their country. How can we as a country denounce abuses of power by leaders in other countries when our own leader has overstepped his bounds?

In another article on The Swamp, a commenter wondered if anyone would even watch Bush's farewell speech, since he is paid so little attention now. I realized that since Obama's election, no one really has paid much attention to Bush. Oh, it was funny when he had shoes thrown at him or when he was snubbed at the G20 summit, but many people's thoughts were, "When is his last day?" His 34 percent approval rating is evidence -- an approval rating that has gone up with his impending departure. Bush can say that at least he isn't as unpopular as Nixon, but that's not really saying much. I would feel sorry for Bush, for these turn of events that have caused him to be the target of flying shoes or left to be the unpopular leader in the cafeteria at lunchtime, if Bush hadn't brought this on himself and even now refuses to admit to his mistakes. Instead calling many of those mistakes "disappointments" in his last press conference.

The Time article stated that, "In the end, though, there's a difference between self-pity and self-reflection, and it's not clear that Bush has made the distinction." Therein lies the problem. It's hard to self-reflect and understand where you went wrong when you refuse to admit you were wrong. The Time article also stated that, "The difference between Bush's mistakes and his disappointments may just be that he hasn't yet taken ownership of the latter." Maybe once Bush takes ownership of the latter, he will finally understand why Americans, and the rest of the world, are so glad to see him go.

A Prayer for President Barack Obama

2009-01-03T08:12:00.000-08:00

This month marks what would have been the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 80th birthday (January 15).

Five days later, Americans will inaugurate a President who, without the influence of Dr. King's life on American society, it would have been inconceivable to imagine: an African-American. I must say in fairness to the subject that, without the colossal failure of unregulated laissez faire capitalism, I'm not sure Americans would have elected Obama; on the whole, we haven't matured quite enough to see beyond self-interest. In the absence of catastrophe, even the smarter candidate might have lost to a candidate like McCain.

This is a video prayer I put together. It is neither a celebration of the Obama Presidency (because it hasn't happened yet), nor an anthem of triumphalism. It is not meant to be, in and of itself, a political statement -- although I am aware that to some Americans any prayer for hope and change is distinctly political, especially in a world of mass-produced hopelessness and mediated stasis.

I sincerely hope for the best for the United States of America, and am buoyed by Americans' openness to change that I saw during the campaign. This is a prayer that we get the America -- the best America -- that we deserve, the America inherent in MLK's deam and Barack Obama's promise of change.

God knows we need it.

The Bush Legacy -- a Reality Check

2008-12-30T08:23:00.000-08:00

The "legacy" of the Bush presidency is one of failure -- failed policies, failed worldview, failure to uphold the Constitution, failure to respect the will of the people -- utter failure.

This legacy includes:

On the plus side, perhaps we'll see, as a result of Bush's disastrous presidency, an attenuation of

This is just scratching the surface. We're only up to May of 2005. More to follow as the Bush presidency dwindles.

Shoe Karma

2008-12-16T10:38:00.000-08:00

Righties -- like Howie -- still maintain, beyond all reason, that our disastrous foray into "nation building" in Iraq was the right thing to do.

Not surprisingly, Iraqis don't necessarily agree with Howie and his ilk.

On the heels (sorry) of yesterday's shoe-throwing incident, Iraqis -- and Arabs throughout the middle east -- have come out in support of Muntader al-Zaidi, the 29-year-old journalist with a major-league throwing arm who came this close to beaning soon-to-be-former President George W. Bush at a press conference in Baghdad.

From the New York Times:

In Saudi Arabia, a newspaper reported that a man had offered $10 million to buy just one of what has almost certainly become the world’s most famous pair of black dress shoes.
A daughter of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, reportedly awarded the shoe thrower, Muntader al-Zaidi, a 29-year-old journalist, a medal of courage.
In the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, people calling for an immediate American withdrawal removed their footwear and placed the shoes and sandals at the end of long poles, waving them high in the air. And in the southern Iraqi city of Najaf, people threw their shoes at a passing American convoy.
In street-corner conversations, on television and in Internet chat rooms, the subject of shoes was inescapable throughout much of the Middle East on Monday, as was the defiant act that inspired the interest: a huge and spontaneous eruption of anger at
President Bush on Sunday in his final visit here.

Shoe Karma. Not exactly greeting the liberators with showers of candy and flowers, is it? Did anybody really believe that would happen?

As the Buddha said, "What goes around, comes around."

Iraq to Bush: Thanks for Everything!

2008-12-15T08:08:00.000-08:00

Sometimes when I'm discouraged I get the creepy sort of feeling that nothing I believe in is real; that "goodness" is an illusion, that evil goes unanswered in the world, that there's no real distinction between the two in the first place and that everything is, after all, relative.

Then, just for laughs, Karma shows its face.

I'm not supporting or encouraging or abetting shoe-throwers in any way. Hey, he could have given the president a black eye! Um, another black eye.

No, shoe throwing is violent and I don't support violence. But on this "valedictory" trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, that George W. Bush should be reminded that a lot of people hate him, rather than love him, for what he has done in the last eight years is bitterly ironic, and redolent of cosmic justice.

Sometimes I think that the only justice the Bush administration will be subjected to is cosmic justice. Perhaps that's enough.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich arrested

2008-12-09T09:55:00.000-08:00

The Chicago Sun-Times article about the allegations is pretty detailed. After reading it, I'm a little sick to my stomach thinking this guy was running my state. Bits of information have been swirling around for a long time about Blagojevich and corruption, but the FBI has him on tape. I was willing to presume him innocent until proven guilty, but you don't get much guiltier than this.

The two allegations that are getting the most play are that Blagojevich was "selling" President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat and that Blagojevich tried to force the Tribune Co. to fire certain editorial board members in exchange for state assistance. Of course, now Obama knew all about the sale of the Senate seat and was in on it. But if you read the article, it's clear that Blagojevich was in his own fantasy land. He actually thought Obama might appoint him to a cabinet position. Laughable. It wasn't Obama putting his Senate seat on the market. It was Blagojevich. That needs to be made clear. While Obama has been putting together his cabinet and deciding how he's going to move forward once he takes office in January, Blagojevich was scheming on how to make the most of this vacant seat. Just like he seems to have been scheming for some time as governor.

With regard to the Tribune Co. situation, Blagojevich was upset that the Tribune editorial board was calling for his impeachment. It hurt his feelings, don't you know. So he was going to withhold state assistance in connection with the Wrigley Field sale unless certain editorial board members were fired. The article never says what came of that. The representative from the Tribune Co. supposedly told Blagojevich's chief of staff that the matter would be handled, but I don't think any editorial board members were fired, so who knows.

The man is clearly off his rocker. I didn't vote for him in the last election, because I didn't feel he had done anything for Illinois, and I was skeptical about the rumors regarding corruption (rumors at that time because no one knew what was true yet). He pissed me off when he held hostage state funding to the Chicago Transit Authority unless the CTA allowed free rides for seniors. I didn't mind free rides for seniors as a concept, but Blagojevich threw it in there at the last minute and refused to sign off on funding, which the CTA desperately needed in order to avoid severe fare hikes and reduced service, until an agreement was reached. It was a threat -- do as I say or else. He didn't care that many Chicagoans would be literally left out in the cold if the funding wasn't provided. The CTA was planning on cutting half its bus routes. Blagojevich didn't care. He wanted free rides for seniors. Now, the CTA is raising fares in January, partly as a result of the free rides for seniors. And I will now be taking Metra to save $23 a month. Yippee. Thanks, Blago.

I can't really point to anything Blagojevich has done for Illinois. We had some expressway construction that made traffic on the Dan Ryan and I-294 better, but I-88 has been torn up for years now with seemingly no end in sight. He instituted open road tolling, which I suppose makes commuting faster, but only if you have an I-PASS. I don't drive to work, but I bought an I-PASS just to make my life easier. Not everyone does. And now Blagojevich's been arrested and has embarrassed our whole state. I thought former Gov. George Ryan's conviction was bad. This is worse.

I'm disappointed. Disappointed because people everywhere seem to think Illinois is all about corrupt politics. That Chicago is about corrupt politics. This is the city and state I live in, and I take offense. But people like Blagojevich prove those people right, and it angers me. Because it does a disservice to those politicians who aren't corrupt and just trying to do right by the citizens of Chicago and Illinois. Because it's hard to climb out of the hole that's been dug by people like Blagojevich, hard to escape the notion that politics here is all about "the machine" and corruption and "pay to play."

If people who live here think Chicago is so corrupt, stop voting for the people who continue to corrupt politics. Blagojevich didn't elect himself. Mayor Richard J. Daley didn't either. Blagojevich got what was coming to him -- at least in the form of an arrest, it remains to be seen what will happen going forward. But he shouldn't have been in office to begin with.

The full-page ad

2008-12-02T10:33:00.000-08:00

I'm sure most people thought that once the election was over, we wouldn't hear any more about President-elect Barack Obama's citizenship. Oh, but you'd be wrong. Yesterday on the train, I was standing in the aisle, because on the el that's pretty much what everyone ends up doing after 5 p.m. -- standing in the aisle. A woman was reading the newspaper, but I didn't know what paper and wasn't even close enough to her to actually read the page she was on, but I noticed that it was a full-page ad with a title that asked Obama if he was a natural born citizen of the U.S. The man standing next to me snorted when he saw it and shook his head. My sentiments exactly. But I was curious about this ad and looked it up this morning.

Mary Mitchell from the Chicago Sun-Times wrote a column about it today. The ad was paid for by the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and as I thought, the ad questioned Obama's citizenship, once again bringing up the tired subject of the Hawaiian birth certificate. If you want to waste a few minutes of your day, here is the actual ad. It appeared in the Chicago Tribune.

I'm not sure what the point is to this, except to waste tens of thousands of dollars, which the chairman of We The People Foundation, Robert Schultz, said his organization spent. What I find interesting is that people and organizations who have questioned Obama's citizenship don't seem to be upstanding citizens themselves. We The People Foundation has been in trouble for tax fraud. Phillip Berg, who filed a lawsuit against Obama alleging that Obama wasn't eligible to run for president of the United States, is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist (he thinks the U.S. was in on it). He's also been sanctioned for unethical actions as an attorney.

The economy is a mess. Unemployment is at an all-time high. People are losing their homes. And with all those issues to deal with, the Robert Schultzes and Phillip Bergs of the country think what we care about most is a months-old conspiracy theory that has already been debunked several times over. I almost can't even fathom the stupidity. Almost.

Can't hold back

2008-11-21T07:19:00.000-08:00

I yell at the television. I know I'm not the only one. People yell at the television during sporting events, when the quarterback throws an interception or when the the pitcher walks in a run. But when I yell at the television, I'm usually watching cable news. MSNBC is my guilty pleasure at night. I know, I know. MSNBC is to Democrats what Fox News is to Republicans, but at least I'm not watching the station thinking I'm getting unbiased news. And it's funny to watch sometimes. Funny in an "I can't believe they are such idiots" sort of way. I love watching the "strategists" talk about what President-elect Barack Obama is thinking. I didn't realize they all had ESP.

Hardball with Chris Matthews was especially shout-worthy last night. Questions came up like, "Who will be making foreign policy if Hillary Clinton takes the secretary of State position?" Hmm, let's ponder that one. She hasn't even accepted the position. Even if she does, she won't take over the position until January, 2009. No one knows what will happen. Maybe she'll take over and refuse to take orders from Obama. Maybe she'll realize she's on Obama's team and work together. Flip a coin. Matthews posed a scenario where if Clinton gets the nomination, she'll be ticked later on because Obama will draw the line on which appointments she can make. Matthews actually said "here's what will happen" as if he looked into his crystal ball and saw it. It's all conjecture. And I suppose that's what being a strategist or a political pundit is about -- conjecture. But it gets ridiculous at times.

Matthews talked about the "noise" or "chatter" surrounding the Clinton appointment. He asked Howard Fineman from Newsweek why we're hearing so much about it? Um, here's a thought, because people like you, Chris, don't shut up about it. Fineman said, in the end, that we're hearing more about the Clintons than we are about what Obama is going to do as president. And whose fault is that? It's as if Matthews and Fineman think they have no control over what words come out of their mouths.

I also loved Matthews' discussion with Joan Walsh from Salon.com and Michelle Bernard from MSBNC. First, Walsh said that it's Obama's decision on who will be his secretary of State, and if he picks Clinton, she'll do a great job, but that it's funny that people who, up until now, respected Obama are now second-guessing him before a decision has been made. Right on, sister. Walsh then went on to say that she doesn't think it's fair that the Clintons are getting blamed for the press on this because it was Andrea Mitchell who first broke the story after speaking to two Obama advisors. Matthews said, "That's a good question. Who's leaking all this information?" He picked up the New York Times and "read" that Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Clinton, said that Clinton has outstanding campaign debt and repaying it is a pre-condition for taking the secretary of State job. Never mind that if you read the NY Times article, Reines said nothing of the sort. Walsh even brought that up on the show, and Matthews pretended to re-read the article, obviously not getting any more out of it than he did before, because he moved on. Never mind that the article's focus was not the secretary of State job, but rather Clinton's unpaid campaign debt. Matthews said, "That's being done in public." But I don't know what he's talking about, since he didn't understand the article to begin with. Then the talking heads just move on. Matthews is flat out wrong. He doesn't correct himself. But let's move on.

Bernard then has a discussion with Matthews, again, about how the Clintons are all over the news, and who is the President-elect, is it Obama or Clinton? And again, I'll say that if people like Bernard weren't so eager to get on Hardball and talk about the Clintons, they wouldn't be in the news. Who is driving this bus? Obama is doing what he needs to do as president -- appointing cabinet members, getting a staff together. Suddenly, he's no longer No Drama Obama because the press is capitalizing on these picks and running story after story. Is he supposed to hide out in a mountain cave while conducting business so the press doesn't get wind of what is going on? Give me a break.

The other thing that had me yelling at my television last night during Hardball was when Matthews discussed the Norm Coleman-Al Franken recount in Minnesota with strategists Steve McMahon and Todd Harris.

At one point, Harris told Matthews that Franken's campaign wants a list of absentee voters whose ballots were rejected so they can contact these people to "get them" to say they voted for Franken. I had just read an article about this earlier in the day. Franken was trying to do no such thing. What Franken wants is for absentee ballots to be looked at to make sure that they were legally rejected. From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Franken spokesman Andy Barr said Monday that the campaign knew of "hundreds" of absentee ballots that had been rejected by election judges, and that at least a dozen counties had so far complied with the campaign's formal request to each Minnesota county for lists of rejected ballots. He said a hearing is scheduled Wednesday in the campaign's lawsuit seeking Ramsey County's list.

The 18-page legal brief that the campaign filed Monday with the state Canvassing Board included four examples of absentee voters said to be disenfranchised when their ballots were rejected. Jessup Schiks, of Kandiyohi County, had his absentee ballot rejected because officials ruled the signature didn't match the registration card; campaign officials said Schiks later signed an affidavit confirming the ballot was his.

In another case, Bruce Behrens, a Goodhue County resident, said his absentee ballot was rejected because officials believed his girlfriend, who vouched for him, wasn't a registered voter even though she is.

"The [canvassing] board must consider and take into account all ballots cast -- including validly cast absentee ballots that have been wrongfully rejected," a legal memorandum signed by Franken's lawyers stated.

From The Public Record:

Franken’s campaign wants to review the lists to ensure that individuals whose ballots were rejected were truly ineligible to vote.

I haven't read anything that said Franken intends to contact these voters or knock on their doors, except from Coleman's campaign:

But Coleman's campaign attorney Fritz Knaak said Wednesday he thinks Franken's campaign will "pound on people's doors" and ask them whom they voted for.

So when Harris brought this up on Hardball, I expected Matthews to rebut his statement with the facts. Instead, Matthews response was "Are they really going to do that?" Harris responded, "Absolutely." Absolutely? Are you absolutely friggin' kidding me? Harris doesn't know absolutely anything, but he's going to make the statement anyway. And Matthews said nothing. It was worse than Matthews pretending to read that NY Times article about Clinton's campaign debt.

I may just be a pajama-clad teenage blogger in my parents' basement, but even I know that facts are facts. It's not like I haven't been shocked by commentators' and strategists' disregard of facts before on cable news shows. But for some reason, last night, I'd had enough. I am astounded at what passes for "journalism" nowadays.

Interesting turn of events

2008-11-18T11:35:00.001-08:00

I read online today that James Dobson's Focus on the Family will be cutting 202 jobs. This is the same group that threw $539,000 in monetary support and $83,000 in non-monetary support toward the passage of California's Proposition 8. Now, it's sad to see people lose their jobs, especially in this economy where finding another job isn't easy. I question whether Focus on the Family had its priorities straight. Sure, $622,000 collectively isn't a big chunk of change. But when your organization reports shortfalls or layoffs year after year, maybe it's time to re-think the budget. Wonkette had a good post on the matter, which included the following:

"Sure, you have no income now because James Dobson burnt all of your company’s money on a state ballot proposition. But imagine the alternative! Would you want to be employed knowing that several hundred miles away, in another state, pairs of consenting adults that already have been living together, people whom you’ve never met and will never meet, were applying for state licenses (pieces of paper, really) that offered them some new tax and medical options??"

I'm sure the former employees of Focus on the Family are much happier knowing gay marriage in California has been prevented, even if they won't be able to put food on the table. I'm starting to think Focus on the Family is quite an ironic name for this group.

Love, not H8

2008-11-13T08:30:00.000-08:00

Watch CBS Videos Online

If you hadn't heard by now, California voters voted in favor of Proposition 8 last Tuesday. Prop 8 eliminated the rights of same-sex couples to marry. The passage of this ballot proposition has angered many gays and lesbians. Protests have taken place across the country, and lawsuits have been filed in California on the grounds that the proposition is a revision, not an amendment. A revision requires a 2/3 vote in the legislature or a constitutional convention. The California Supreme Court will make the decision. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has spoken out against Prop 8:

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," he said about the same-sex marriage ban. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

And Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the matter on Monday's Countdown asked the question: "This is what your religion tells you to do?"

WWJD, people. Love and acceptance. Are these not things Jesus would want us to give to others? "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Yep, that's in the Bible. But I guess we only love our neighbors if they are hetero.

What it comes down to for me is that this isn't an issue for Christians to decide. What difference does it make to them whether gays and lesbians marry? It has no effect on anyone else in this country. If a person doesn't approve of gay marriage, then he or she shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved. If we're going to start talking about "protecting marriage," then maybe these Christians should start looking at the hetero marriages in which one spouse is cheating on the other. That's not very Christian. Brother, can we get a proposition on the ballot to say that both spouses in a marriage need to be monogamous? Amen. Keep it in your pants.

Of course, some Republicans are guilty of not keeping it in their pants (Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuiliani, John McCain, Tom DeLay). Yet, Christians still love them some Republicans. Do as we say, not as we do. Looks like the Christians only want to protect marriage from homosexuals. They don't seem to care what the heterosexuals are doing to marriage. First marriage divorce rates in the U.S. are at 41%. Wow, way to protect marriage there!

If Christians are so interested in making sure marriage's name isn't dragged through the mud, why ban gays and lesbians from getting married? They are only making marriage look better. How can same-sex couples coming out of city hall with big smiles on their faces after getting married hurt marriage's image? Marriage shouldn't be about the who but the why. It shouldn't be about two men getting married or a man and a woman tying the knot. It should be about the love those two people have for each other to make that commitment.

No one is asking the Christian Church to start marrying same-sex couples. Just leave well enough alone. You go your way, they will go theirs. Let's not forget that before 1967, whites and blacks couldn't marry. The Lovings of Virginia were sentenced to one year in jail for marrying, with the sentence suspended as long as they left the state of Virginia. It was their case (Loving v. Virginia) that ended the ban on interracial marriages in the U.S. The Court in Loving stated that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival . . ." In 2007, Mildred Loving said:

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights."

Nowadays, I don't think people could imagine a time when blacks and whites couldn't marry. I hope someday we'll look back on the uproar over gay marriage and say the same thing. I really think this is the civil rights movement of our time. Back in the 1950s and 60s, it was about equality for blacks. Now, it's about equality for gays and lesbians. Prop 8 was a setback, but it shouldn't be the end. It won't be easy, but all men were created equal and have certain unalienable rights, the pursuit of happiness is one. Keep pursuing happiness. It can be achieved.

It's A New Day

2008-11-10T08:14:00.000-08:00

will.i.am's video -- gives new meaning to the peace sign.

US Secret Service Blames Sarah Palin for Obama Death Threats

2008-11-09T14:38:00.000-08:00

From the "What Was McCain Thinking" department, another reason to be grateful that Barack Obama was elected to be the 44th President of the United States.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

No kidding. Ya think?

Howie won't buy this, of course. He's sold on the idea that the Secret Service has already made a finding that no one called out "Kill him!" at Palin's rallies, when, in fact, news stories of that time say they were still investigating.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

Too little, too late, Senator McCain. That's closing the kennel door after the pitbull is alaready out. So are you glad that you picked Palin?

Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs. Palin took it upon herself to question Mr Obama's patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr McCain.

That claim is part of a campaign of targeted leaks designed to torpedo her ambitions, with claims that she did not know that Africawas a continent rather than a country.

The advisers have branded her a "diva" and a "whack job" and claimed that she did not know which other countries are in the North American Free Trade Area, (Canada and Mexico). They say she spent more than $150,000 on designer clothes, including $40,000 on her husband Todd and that she refused to prepare for the disastrous series of interviews with CBS's Katie Couric.

Yeah. Country First. And all that....

Barack Obama is IRISH!!!

2008-11-07T11:16:00.000-08:00

I knew it.

Another episode of Why The Right Doesn't Get It

2008-11-07T08:16:00.000-08:00

On yesterday's Focus on the Family radio broadast, James Dobson said the following about President-elect Barack Obama's victory:

"But, to be honest, I have to say that his win causes me enormous concern because he will be the most committed pro-abortion president in our history," Dr. Dobson said. "He’s in favor of much of the homosexual agenda and he’s going to appoint the most liberal justices to the Supreme Court, perhaps that we’ve ever had. So, there are many reasons why I’m struggling today over the likely path that the nation has taken."

The economy is in tatters. People are losing their jobs, can't pay their bills and might have their homes foreclosed upon. Money is tight. Some people are having trouble buying groceries or paying for gas. And don't even get us started on the holidays and presents. Yet Dobson still thinks Americans care most about abortion and gay marriage. You keep your thumb on the pulse of America there, Jimmy.

Note to Boehner: Quit while you're ahead

2008-11-07T06:52:00.000-08:00

I'm really starting to dislike Rep. John Boehner. I thought him ridiculous when he stood up in front of reporters and said that Rep. Nancy Pelosi's speech to the Congress was the reason why some House GOP members didn't vote for the bailout the first time around. Boehner said her "partisan speech" "poisoned the conference." I read Pelosi's speech and watched the video. It wasn't partisan or poison. If House GOP members are that sensitive, they shouldn't have their jobs. Let's call a spade a spade here. The House GOP members were wimps and needed a fall guy (or girl, in this case).

Then Boehner wrote that letter to House GOP members the day after the election, in an effort to keep his minority leadership. A partisan letter, might I add. I talked about it in a previous post.

And then, today I heard on the news Boehner's comments about President-elect Barack Obama's pick for chief of staff -- Rep Rahm Emanuel:

"This is an ironic choice for a President-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center."

This from a man who wrote a letter that was all about how the Republicans were going to win Americans over to their side and how they were going to have their own agenda. Boehner wouldn't know change if it crawled up and bit him on the posterior. I realize Emanuel has been said to have a "take-no-prisoners" style, but that is not Obama's style. Give Obama some credit -- does Boehner think he hired Emanuel to run roughshod over him? The people Obama picks to be on his staff or in his cabinet essentially work for him, and while I don't see him as a control freak, he is still in control as the President. This isn't George W. Bush's White House where the President sits back and lets those around him pull the strings.

As far as change goes, like Boehner, Rachel Maddow also asked last night on her show whether some of Obama's latest hires represented change, because they were either in the Clinton White House or worked for Obama on the campaign. I say a change from the last eight years is a change we are comfortable with. The Clinton years were good years. But I'd also argue that these aren't the Clinton years, no matter how many Clintonites Obama might hire. HE is the President. Not Bill Clinton. However, Steve Benen from The Washington Monthly talked Maddow down by telling her that if Obama wants to hire experienced people, those people will undoubtedly have been involved in politics at some point in the last several years. Sen. Dick Lugar, a Republican (gasp), has been mentioned as a possible pick for Obama's secretary of state. Of course, Lugar's spokeperson said Lugar is fine where he is, so that might be the end of that. But give credit to Obama for wanting to have Republicans in his cabinet. Not his fault if they aren't interested. Colin Powell, a Republican (double gasp), has been mentioned as a possible pick for secretary of defense or education. But no, Boehner is right, Obama is all about doing things the same tired way.

Boehner is obviously already starting his plan to win Americans back to the GOP's side and put forth the GOP agenda. Thing is, he doesn't realize you don't win by doing the SAME things you've been doing. What kind of leader is that? He blamed Pelosi's speech like a coward. He wrote that letter to the House GOP members that detailed no changes whatsoever from the way Republicans have been doing things, which obviously hasn't been working because they lost even more seats in Congress this time around. And now, Boehner's putting Obama down for not being serious about change? Puh-lease.

The World Reacts to Obama's Election

2008-11-06T13:02:00.000-08:00

What a difference four years makes.

2004:

2008:

Clueless

2008-11-06T08:25:00.001-08:00

I read a letter that House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner sent to House Republicans the day after the election. It made me shake my head. Does Boehner not get it? Republicans lost more seats in the House and Senate because of the very attitude in this letter. Us against them. Even after the election, they can't talk about working together. Some excerpts:

Some of our opponents aren't likely to settle for that. They want us to surrender. They want to see us raise the white flag and concede that our principles of freedom, responsibility, and smaller government no longer speak to the hopes and dreams of American families. They want us to stand aside for the next two years, abandon our principles, and give the new administration and the Democratic leaders of Congress a free pass.

Who are "they"? Because I don't remember hearing anyone ask the Republicans to give the Democrats a free pass, not even the voters who elected Democrats for Republican seats. This election wasn't about getting the Republicans to surrender or concede defeat, it was about doing what was right for the country. A party whose motto is "Country First" should realize that.

America remains a center-right country. Democrats should not make the mistake of viewing Tuesday's results as a repudiation of conservatism or a validation of big government.

Hang on, I have to stop laughing. "America remains a center-right country"? If that were the case, Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin would be getting ready to move into the White House, and Boehner and his colleagues wouldn't be the minority. The results of the election were totally a repudiation of conservatism and big government, because that's what the last eight years have been about.

We can rebuild our majority by winning the issues one by one and moving the American people to our side one issue at a time.

Why does it have to be about moving Americans anywhere? Nothing gets done when two groups do nothing but fight against each other. We are the United States of America. Not a conservative America. Not a liberal America. Boehner and the GOP should be more concerned right now with how to move the country forward, by working together with Democrats, than with how to move Americans back to the Republicans' side.

We supported the Petraeus surge, it worked, and now our troops are coming home after victory rather than defeat.

Even Petraeus said he will never use the word "victory" for Iraq. And wasn't this the party that was against a timeline for bringing troops home from Iraq, at least in the coming months? Wasn't the GOP line during the campaign that they don't want their troops to come home in defeat under Obama? Well, Obama was just elected, and now, they are coming home in victory? Boehner needs to get his story straight.

We showed Americans we stand with them.

And Americans politely said, "No thanks," and voted for the Democrats.

Therein lies our opportunity. Rise or fall, Congressional Republicans in the next two years will be judged on our own record, our own vision, and our own agenda – and our willingness to hold Washington Democrats accountable.

Our, our, our. Nothing about "we." Nothing about how we should work with the Democrats to get good legislation passed, bills that sit well with everyone, not just one. No, instead Boehner wants the GOP to focus on their own agenda, and just hold Democrats accountable for mistakes. Don't bother reaching out to make sure there aren't any mistakes.

In Obama's victory speech on Tuesday, he said:

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

It would have been nice if the letter Boehner wrote the day after the election would have contained a little humility as well and less of a determination to continue the divides in our government.

The Obama rally

2008-11-05T13:55:00.000-08:00

I'm working on four hours of sleep today, so it's taken me awhile to get my brain to the point where I could write a post. I was at the rally in Grant Park last night. I had a ticket, but ended up in the non-ticketed area because I had two friends with me and could only get in one with my ticket. I think we saw about as much in the non-ticketed area as we would have seen anywhere else, so it wasn't a big deal. The crowd wasn't too big when we entered at 8:30pm, and we made our way to an empty spot near two big Jumbotrons. I don't know how many Jumbotrons they had in that section, but there were a few. Enough so that wherever you stood, you could see and hear what was going on. Each Jumbotron was tuned to CNN, and my favorite parts of the night were when projections would come in. People barely listened to the chatter between commentators, but as soon as we heard the music that signaled a projection, everyone shut up and paid attention to the screens.

Projections for Obama were met with claps and whoops. Projections for McCain were, um, not. The biggest outburst of excitement came when Virginia was projected for Obama, even before we had heard from the West Coast, and people started to realize Obama had done it. Then shortly after Virginia, the race was given to Obama. People cried. People hugged others they didn't even know. People cheered. Chants of "Yes we can" rung through the crowd at times.

Sen. John McCain gave his concession speech, which I didn't completely hear because people were talking. I knew at the time that what I did hear sounded gracious, and I listened to it today online and feel the same way. I feel bad for him in some ways because I think he could have run a different campaign. But he chose the George Bush way, not the John McCain way. I'm sure he will be rethinking that today, among many other things (Sarah Palin, anyone?).

When Obama stepped out on the stage for his speech, the roar from the crowd was deafening, and people continued to cheer throughout. Again, chants of "Yes we can" rang out while Obama spoke. People started crying again. Some guy, I think he was homeless, wandered through the crowd with tears running down his face. We stood there together -- black, white, brown, gay, straight, you name it. We stood there, shoulder to shoulder, and listened to our new president. The man who we had elected. It was an awesome moment. I am glad that I didn't go home early. I am glad I stood there for hours, with feet and back aching. I was glad I was there to witness history.

It really was a moment where you just had to be there to feel what went through the crowd. It only proves even more what I had said in other posts. Obama is different. I truly believe he is someone who will work as hard as he can to unite, not divide. And it was evident in the diverse crowd last night -- because there we were, united.

A Proud, Proud Day for the United States of America

2008-11-05T00:01:00.000-08:00

I started this blog four years ago today.

I started it out of frustration with the sordid relationship between our political system and our mass media. As the title of this blog ought to suggest, I thought that our systems of mass communication were leaving most Americans IN THE DARK.

While that situation has clearly not entirely been rectified, and I remain terribly concerned about the ignorance that emperils us (just yesterday before voting, I spoke with a woman who told me she voted for the guy "with the Vice President from Canada" -- I wish I were making this up), I am heartened by what I've seen this past few years. And last night, as I watched the election returns, and cheered with my wife as the polls on the west coast closed and Senator Barack Obama became President-elect Barack Obama, and we listened, teary-eyed, to his victory speech, I felt prouder to be an American than I have in many, many years.

When I started this blog, I believed that the United States of America was living in the darkest hour of my lifetime. US Intelligence agencies were being politicized. Hundreds of thousands were dying in Iraq (and still are). The Iraqi insurgency was just finding its legs. Domestic surveillance of private individuals was just beginning. And -- even before Abu Ghraib -- observers were criticizing US interrogation techniques as "torture."

And the mass media largely ignored or downplayed everything, or aided and abetted the Bush administration's conceptual construction of a "post-9/11 world." It was the perfect prescription for fascism.

I won't dwell long on what the election of Barack Obama means to me personally. As the son of Irish immigrants to the United States in the first half of the twentieth century, let me just say that I am happy for him. As a university professor in an urban setting in a large American city, I feel my students' joy and I celebrate with them, knowing that many of their parents can hardly believe this day has actually come. But as an American, I am extremely proud today, not just because we have turned our backs on centuries of hatred and elected an African-American President, but also because we have managed to see beyond the fear, resentment, greed and hatred that have characterized the last eight years, and rejected the policies they spawned. This is what I am truly proud of.

The dawn is breaking. I think I see the light. It's morning in America.

The view from Chicago

2008-11-04T12:35:00.000-08:00

On Election Day, in Sen Barack Obama's hometown, the excitement is building. I just got back from lunch and saw a C-SPAN bus down the street. A man selling Obama shirts on the street. A couple with matching Obama shirts walking in the direction of Grant Park. Obama is said to be at the Hyatt down the street from my office. The city is starting to empty out, at least as far as businesses are concerned. Many companies are letting their employees out at 3pm (but not mine, yay!). City officials are recommending that those who can leave the city by 3pm should do so. I have a ticket for the Obama rally and will be attending with some friends, but I don't know how long we'll have to wait in line. The Chicago Tribune reported that people were lining up at 8:30am for the rally. I don't expect to get a close spot, but I don't care. I just want to be there. Win or lose, this is a historic day for Obama and his supporters. I will post on the rally tomorrow, if I'm not too tired. Obama isn't scheduled to speak until 11pm, but it may be later. The rally is set to go until 1 a.m., but possibly later if need be. I haven't stayed up that late in . . . well, a long time. So we'll see how it goes. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for an Obama win. Obama! Obama! Obama!

"This is not a liberal America. This is not a conservative America. This is the United States of America."

2008-10-30T10:09:00.001-07:00

If you didn't see Sen. Barack Obama's 30-minute message last night, you missed out. I think it cut through the negative attacks of the past few weeks and allowed Obama to talk to American voters about his plans for the future of the U.S. But the message wasn't just about Obama. Real families with real problems were highlighted in the video. I already voted for Obama, but even so, watching that resonated with me because I identified with those families' issues. Both my grandfathers had to work after retirement because their Social Security checks weren't enough. They both worked right up until they died, never getting a moment for themselves. My grandmother, after my grandfather died, had to go back to work, first at a convenience store and then at a JCPenney. Then she developed Alzheimer's and started forgetting to pay her bills. Pretty soon she was in debt. The last years of her life were spent living with my aunt in Colorado and then in a nursing home. My parents are both "working people." My dad is in a union and has two bad knees and a bad back. But he gets up every day at the crack of dawn to go to work as a pipefitter, which isn't a cushy job. My mom works at a gas station as a cashier. My dad just turned 59, and my mom will be 59 in a couple months. It's not easy for either of them, and at times, when my dad didn't have work, they've struggled.

So I watched that video and understood where those families were coming from. And I think a lot of middle class, working people around the country could too. Just a few months ago, my dad was saying Obama is a Muslim and sounding like he couldn't stand the thought of Obama for president. Last night, he watched that 30-minute message and said, "That's right" a few times. He agreed with Obama. I think that, out of everything, touched me. My dad is stubborn in his thinking, and he rarely ever admits he's wrong, but here he was now agreeing with the very person he was against a few short months ago.

I said in another post that I believe that Obama will be the president who can bring us together. Of course, I know that doesn't mean everyone. There will be stubborn Republicans who refuse to accept an Obama presidency, or people who, regardless of party, are too racist to look past skin color. That can't be helped. There will always be doubters and cynics and hypocrites. But I have more faith in Obama than I have had in any other candidate. Because he's already brought people together. People from all walks of life are behind Obama. People who I never would have thought would put aside race to vote for a black man are behind Obama. That shows me what Obama has the power to accomplish. I'm an American, and I'm glad to be one. But I'm not glad to see our standing in the world diminished because of poor leadership. I'm not glad to see a polarized country -- lines drawn between liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, Christian and well, everyone else. No one, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or even political party, has the right to look down on anyone else. And we don't need a president who thinks that way either. The most powerful statement in the 30-minute message for me was when, during Obama's 2004 convention speech, he said, "This is not a liberal America. This is not a conservative America. This is the United States of America." Unfortunately, Republicans see America as their way or the highway. You're for tax cuts for the rich, or you're a socialist. You're for war and against diplomacy, or you're naive on foreign policy. You're against abortion, or you're a baby killer. You're with us, or you're against us. That's not the leadership we need. Republicans love America. I know they do. I just don't think they have the right vision for America. Maybe after this election, if the poll predictions are true and Obama wins, they'll see where they went wrong.

If you haven't seen Obama's 30-minute message, here it is (in four parts):

Another "Oh, that's gotta hurt"

2008-10-27T07:22:00.000-07:00

The Anchorage Daily News endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. As a result, Alaska's top newspaper forgoes endorsing one of their own, Sen. John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. In addition to explaining why the paper is supporting Obama, the editorial said this about Palin: "Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth." I'd say the Anchorage Daily News would know better than any other whether that is true, having covered Palin during her time as governor.

In other positive news, for Obama anyway, the Chicago Tribune endorsed him for president. It is the first time in 161 years that the Tribune has endorsed a Democrat. One might argue that of course the Tribune would endorse Obama. He is from Illinois. But given the Obama endorsement by the Anchorage Daily News, it's clear that being the "hometown" politician does not guarantee an endorsement.

Why I voted for Obama

2008-10-24T18:20:00.001-07:00

I first registered to vote four years ago, 11 years after I was eligible. Until that point, I hadn't cared much about politics. I thought politics was booooring. But then I had this wild idea to go to law school and went back to college to get my bachelor's degree in political science. I wasn't sure how I'd like majoring in political science, but I needed a bachelor's degree for law school and was told political science was the way to go. A funny thing happened, though. I started to like politics. I realized it was interesting. And more than that, it was important. I couldn't believe I had gone all this time just not caring. That was when I registered to vote.

I never went to law school, because I realized that wasn't my passion. Instead, after I graduated with my bachelor's in political science, I went back to get my master's in journalism. And that is how I got here, to this blog. I gathered my political science background wouldn't be wasted in journalism, and I was right. It has served me well over the years, at least in understanding certain things.

So why all this background? Because this is the first year that I was actually excited to vote. That I saw other people excited to vote. Willing to wait in line hours to do so. Before, it was a duty, a duty that I was proud to have once I realized how important it was, but it was never exciting. While I always supported the candidates I voted for, I was never terribly attached to them. However, Sen. Barack Obama is someone I am thrilled to support.

I'm not going to tell you how I like his tax or healthcare plans. Or how I think he has the right idea with regard to our foreign policy. Because if you support Obama, you probably feel the same way. And if you don't (Howie!), you won't care. What I like about Obama -- no, what gives me great hope -- is what I've seen over the past few months. Not the negative ads. Not the cries of terrorist or false stories that Obama was born in Kenya. Certainly not the direct or indirect racism. What has given me hope is that, despite those things, people support Obama. I see people with Obama buttons and bumper stickers, signs on the lawns. I see college-age kids with Obama shirts, volunteering for the campaign. We've come to accept that racism is a part of the U.S. I know that it may always be, sadly. But here are examples of people who are supporting a candidate, regardless of race, religion, etc. The equality we have always hoped for is happening right here. I grew up with racist relatives, and it has always disgusted me that people could talk that way, as if they are better than someone else because of race. I know of relatives that will not be voting for Obama because of his color. They don't care what he stands for, probably don't even know anything about his plans. They just won't vote for a black guy. What gives me hope is that people like THAT haven't stopped people like Obama, or his supporters.

Republicans will say it's media bias that has led to this phenomenon. That the media has made Obama into some celebrity or God, or that his supporters have done so. But you can't MAKE someone into something he isn't. People can be naive, can even be tricked sometimes, but most of us know when a turd is a turd (see Bush, George W.). Some people missed the boat on President Bush the second time around, but I think after these past eight years, we can spot the turd. If Obama was just some second-rate political hack who had tricked the country into supporting him, Americans would have realized it by now. We've had 18 months to watch him, waiting for some indication that he wasn't fit for the presidency. Instead, we've seen Sen. John McCain flounder and look like the candidate who isn't ready for the presidency. Seen him look like the turd.

What gives me hope is not only what I believe Obama can do for our country in areas where we usually expect a president to lead, like the economy, foreign policy, etc., but also what Obama can do for us as Americans. Prove to us that race really doesn't matter. Prove to us that it doesn't matter if you have a funny name, or that your father was Kenyan. Prove to us that we were all created equal, and if we all try hard enough, there is no telling where we can end up. Prove to us that we can come together and say, "We're not a white America. We're not a black America. We're the United States of America."

Who cares about your sick grandmother

2008-10-23T18:15:00.000-07:00

Republican strategist Bruce Blakeman's defense against the $150,000 spent by the GOP on Gov. Sarah Palin's and her family's clothes is that Sen. Barack Obama had the nerve to take his campaign plane to visit his sick grandmother. Watch it:

Seriously? This is the defense? Obama's a spendthrift because he went to visit his ailing grandmother?? Listen, I don't think Palin's clothes are all that big of a deal. If GOP supporters don't mind that their money went to clothe Palin and her kids, then I don't either. I think the only reason for bringing this up at all is how it relates to the McCain/Palin argument that Obama is elitist. I mean, spending $70,000 at Neiman Marcus doesn't exactly make you Jane Everyday. But I don't think we should still be talking about this days later. They spent a ton of money on her clothes. Great. It's been talked about, move on. However, to use as a defense that Obama somehow wasted money by using his campaign plane to visit his grandmother, who is gravely ill by all accounts, is beyond low. Blakeman argues that Obama should have taken a regular airline flight to visit her instead of his campaign plane. Sure, when a loved one might pass away at any moment, that's what a person should do -- wait hours in the airport for a flight that will then take hours to get to Hawaii. You know, my grandmother was living in Colorado when she died. She had been sick for weeks, but I couldn't make it out to Colorado to be with her because I couldn't afford a flight on last minute's notice. So I wasn't there when she passed away, although thankfully, my mother, aunt and cousins were. If I had a plane at my disposal and could have flown to see her before she passed away, I would have jumped on board in a heartbeat. I wonder what Blakeman would do in the same position? I suppose when you're heartless, you'd probably ignore your grandmother's illness altogether and go on with life.

Oh that's gotta hurt

2008-10-22T18:00:00.000-07:00

This is a follow up to my post from Sunday about Rep. Michele Bachmann from Minnesota. Looks like her comments on Hardball with Chris Matthews did more than just energize Democrats from all over the country to donate to her challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg's, campaign. Now the National Republican Congressional Committee is taking away Bachmann's ad money and giving it to a Republican candidate in a different district. Whoops!

Meanwhile, Tinklenberg has raised $1.3 million since Bachmann's comments and received another $1 million from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Do you think Bachmann is regretting her comments? Apparently, since she's attempted to take them back (i.e., lie about what she said). She claimed Matthews laid a trap for her, that she had never seen his show and didn't know what to expect. In other words, it was all someone else's fault.

But here's the lesson to be learned here: People don't appreciate being called anti-American just because they don't fit a particular Republican congresswoman's idea of what makes someone "American." We are all pro-America. If we weren't, we wouldn't care so much about the state of our country. We wouldn't fight for our beliefs. We wouldn't vote. We wouldn't donate to the campaigns of politicians and causes we believe in. We wouldn't show up at rallies and marches. Being pro-America has nothing to do with where we live or what political party we belong to. Being pro-America has nothing to do with a flag pin or supporting a war. I don't appreciate being called anti-American because of my political views. And it looks like neither did the thousands of other people who donated to Tinklenberg's campaign over the past week.

Iraq to the U.S.: Quit pushing

2008-10-22T11:48:00.001-07:00

Iraq has taken a backseat to the economy lately. According to the polls, the economy and jobs are the top issues concerning voters, with Iraq trailing far behind. However, we are still in the midst of two wars, and it's important that we don't forget that, because the next president won't be able to. Today, I read an AFP article about the Status of Forces Agreement that has not yet been signed by the Iraqi government. What was interesting about this situation is that the Iraqi government feels bullied by the U.S. The Iraqis want to make up their own minds in their own time about what provisions should be contained in the agreement.

Senior Shiite lawmaker Abbas al-Bayati said: "[U.S. military chief Michael] Mullen's remark is an attempt to pressure the Iraqi side, but we will not be subjected to such tactics because our reservations are linked to the sovereignty and national interest of Iraq. The American side should be more flexible because if they really want to pass this agreement, they should first stop launching such warnings which provoke Iraqis."

The U.S. is worried because if the agreement isn't signed by December 31, 2008, U.S. military forces will no longer have the authority to stay in Iraq. Yet, Iraqi government officials don't seem too worried.

"Iraqi military spokesman Brigadier General Qassim Atta also insisted that domestic forces were ready to handle security nationwide, saying their numbers have increased and their ability has improved."

The Iraqi government is worried, however, that this agreement will somehow lead to a long-term U.S. military presence. Funny how McCain and Palin talk about victory in Iraq, how they will WIN the war, and yet, it seems as if Iraqis could care less if we're there. If they don't want us and feel they are ready to take over their own security, more power to them. Wouldn't having the Iraqis take over their own country and allowing U.S. troops to come home be a "win"? Oh right, I forgot that as soon as we leave, Iraq will become a haven for terrorists. Hmm, well that Status of Forces Agreement, if signed, only gives the U.S. military permission to stay in Iraq until 2011. Golly gee, what if we haven't eradicated all terrorists by then? I suppose we could stay there indefinitely, spending billions and losing even more American lives. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Except al Qaeda seems quite pleased with the way things are going. In fact, they are so pleased, they hope Sen. John McCain gets elected because he will continue President Bush's policies in Iraq, further crippling the U.S. economy. So in essence, we may be playing right into their hands. As long as we want to stay in Iraq, they will be happy to "accommodate" us.

Mullen said we need to stay in Iraq because they will not be ready to provide for their own security when the agreement expires at the end of this year. Who decides that? Iraq's military spokesman said Iraqi forces are ready to take over. When do we trust the Iraqis to take over their own country? Again, it leads to a scenario where we will be there indefinitely.

At some point, the U.S. will have to trust the Iraqi government and military to take care of itself. And no doubt there will still be terrorists in existence either in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East, just like there have been for decades before this. If the Iraqis aren't ready after five years, they never will be. And that is not good news for the U.S. -- not for our troops and their families, not for our economy.

Note to Republicans

2008-10-19T16:04:00.001-07:00

When you venture out in public, perhaps to appear on Hardball with Chris Matthews, it might be wise to tone down the craziness just a smidge. Rep. Michele Bachmann from Minnesota learned that the hard way. Bachmann appeared on Hardball this past Friday, where she said Sen. Barack Obama may have anti-American views and called on the media to do a "penetrating expose" on what members of Congress are pro-America or anti-America. Whoa. Anyone think she sounds like a female Joe McCarthy? I knew nothing about Bachmann until her appearance on Hardball, but after hearing her comments and reading about her other views, I went online and donated to her challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg's, campaign. Looks like I wasn't the only one. Within 24 hours of Bachmann's Hardball appearance, Tinklenberg received $450,000 in donations. So the lesson to be learned here? If you want to talk crazy, that's just fine in your own home, maybe even in your own district, where voters like you and don't care if you're crazy. But if you're going to go on national television and start talking like you're ready to bring back the House Committee on Un-American Activities, it won't go unnoticed. Hey, Michele, even Gov. Sarah Palin said she "doesn't question Obama's love for this great country."

Alfred E. Smith Dinner in New York City

2008-10-16T19:20:00.001-07:00

Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, among others attended the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York City tonight. Both gave humorous speeches. I actually thought Sen. John McCain was quite funny. I liked this McCain. I realize a presidential campaign can't be about humor, but I think McCain was very personable. Definitely check these out.

No longer "my friends"

2008-10-16T14:50:00.001-07:00

Last night, Sen. John McCain replaced "my friends" with "Joe the plumber," talking about Joe some 21 times. Joe is now so famous, he's appeared on his local news, a segment which was played on MSNBC's Morning Joe today. I gather talking about Joe the plumber was supposed to endear McCain to the middle class, like when Gov. Sarah Palin talked about Joe Sixpack. But sorry to say, John, you lost again. A CBS poll had Sen. Barack Obama winning the debate 55% to 22%. Aww, say it ain't so, Joe!

Now, to hear some of the political commentators (i.e. David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, et al.) talk, McCain won the debate. They usually qualify it by saying "on points." I don't know what debate they were watching, but it wasn't this one. They said McCain was passionate, aggressive (in a positive way), that he brought it to Obama. But about Obama, they said he was too calm, seemed to be resting on his lead. Huh? So if a candidate is controlled and talks about the issues calmly and intelligently, he's resting on his lead? They must have expected Obama to jump around in his chair and get all fired up. Frankly, I don't think that would serve any candidate well. The American voting public doesn't want or need a hothead for president. On Morning Joe today, someone mentioned that Obama was smiling often as if he were laughing at McCain. Again, what debate were they watching? Yes, Obama smiled, but it's called being friendly. What a concept. Much better than scowling at McCain, or doing as McCain did during some of Obama's responses, which was to just write on his notepad or stare at moderator Bob Schieffer instead of focusing on Obama as he spoke. Or maybe they would have preferred the eye roll, which McCain employed several times last night. Much more mature.

Maybe Obama should have been condescending like McCain. "I admire so much Sen. Obama's eloquence," McCain said. He pointed to Obama's eloquence more than once during the debate, which seemed to be his way of saying Obama is uninformed and has to cover up for it with words (too bad McCain's own running mate doesn't have eloquence). But Obama was much more than just eloquent. He had a good grasp on the issues and detailed what his solutions would be, just as he had in the other debates. In the first debate, I thought McCain conveyed his stance on issues well, but in the last two debates, he's fallen apart. He no longer looks like someone who knows what needs to be done and will do it. The eye rolls, the sighing, the condescension. It was almost as if McCain didn't realize he's down in the polls.

A few issues that came up during the debate stuck with me, and those are the ones I want to address in this post. I think by far, this debate was the best one of the three in that both candidates engaged more with each other and were more detailed in their responses, mainly because Schieffer asked follow-up questions or let the candidates do so.

Corporate taxes. McCain said that American businesses pay the second highest tax rate in the world at 35%. Ireland pays only 11%. Why Ireland? Your guess is as good as mine. But McCain failed to mention that those same American businesses get quite a few tax breaks due to loopholes, to the point that some corporations pay no tax at all. McCain also failed to mention that there are many other differences between the U.S. and Ireland when it comes to corporate taxes. Still, taking all that into account, U.S. corporations aren't creating jobs at home. Obama has said he will give corporations tax breaks if they keep jobs in the U.S., but penalize them if they ship jobs overseas. Obama will close the tax loopholes. So McCain's notion that paying the second highest corporate tax rate in the world is the problem is not on point. Maybe he should move to Ireland.

Oil. When McCain repeated his oft-used statement, "We have to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much," I was able to repeat the line right along with him. Why? Because he's said it in each of the three debates. I am starting to think he repeats it in his sleep. Unfortunately, it's not true. Do we need to work on energy independence? Yes. But the notion that we need to do it because we're buying all our oil from overseas is misleading. This from an Associated Press article: "The United States spent $246 billion in 2007 for all imported crude oil, a majority of it coming from friendly nations including neighboring Canada and Mexico. An additional $82 billion was spent on imported refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel and fuel oil. A majority of the refined products come from refineries in such friendly countries as the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Trinidad-Tobago and the Virgin Islands." McCain scolded Obama for saying he will go after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan if the Pakistani government won't, or wanting to renegotiate free trade agreements, because McCain said that you just don't say those things out loud. Yet, McCain has no problem referring to allies like the U.K. as "countries who don't like us very much." Now, I know that's not the country he's talking about, but the fact remains that a third of our oil comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K. They like us. We like them. Why is McCain dissing that by repeating a false claim?

The Spending Freeze. We've heard McCain talk about an across-the-board spending freeze more than once. Of course, the plan changes depending on the day. Sometimes there are exceptions to the freeze. Sometimes the exceptions get expanded to include more programs. Sometimes, like last night, it's just a freeze with no exceptions (although I'll give McCain the benefit of the doubt that he just forgot to mention the exceptions last night). But then during last night's debate, McCain kept talking about things we need to spend money on, and a few times Obama even called him out on those statements. How can we have a freeze but spend money? McCain talked about helping parents who have special needs children. He talked about taking care of the children of mothers who might look to abortion. Family service departments across the U.S. are strapped. Where will the money come from to take care of the children McCain wants born? He talked about education programs, like Head Start and vouchers. Money, money, money. Yet, McCain also told Schieffer, in all seriousness, that he will balance the federal budget in four years. Not will try. Will. McCain said he knows how to "save billions of dollars in defense spending. I know how to eliminate programs." Really? Then why haven't you shared this knowledge with others so our debt didn't continue to rise? It reminded me of his claim that he KNOWS how to get Osama bin Laden. Well, by all means, John, share.

Negative Attacks. I wasn't sure if Schieffer would bring up Bill Ayers. Some commentators said he would. I didn't think it was important to the debate. The issues were much more important. But to Schieffer's credit, he didn't ask specifically about Bill Ayers or ACORN, which I felt would be unfair. Why ask about that, but then not ask a pointed question about McCain's connection to ACORN, or the Keating Five scandal? Schieffer instead questioned the candidates on the negative tone of the campaign. McCain didn't talk about Ayers or ACORN -- at first. He blamed Obama for the negative tone of the campaign, saying this wouldn't have happened if Obama had agreed to those town hall meetings. This argument is weak. So the only reason McCain went negative is because Obama wouldn't do town halls? Town halls or not, Obama had already explained his relationship with Ayers and ACORN. It just wasn't good enough for McCain and his supporters. They wanted the smoking gun. They wanted Obama to come out and say, "Oh you're right, Ayers is my best friend. We hang out frequently. I think he's a great guy." Short of that, nothing would ever be good enough. When McCain finally did bring up Ayers and ACORN, he looked like someone who had been pushed into it. I think McCain came out with the accusations when he did because Obama's original response to Schieffer's question had been so even-tempered. I think McCain was angry that Obama still looked presidential and above the fray. "Mr. Ayers, I don't care about a washed-up old terrorist. But as Sen. Clinton said in her debates with you, we need to know the full extent of the relationship," McCain said. So he doesn't care about Ayers, but he cares? And again, the full extent of the relationship HAD been explained. It just wasn't good enough for McCain. I think Obama did a great job of once again going over his connections to Ayers and ACORN (and I noticed that still no one talked about McCain's connection to ACORN, hmm). And what was McCain's response? He STILL wanted to know all the details about Obama's relationship with Ayers and ACORN. Hey, numbskull, weren't you listening? Do we need to write it out for you? McCain also went on about Rep. John Lewis's comments and wanted Obama to repudiate them. In fact, he brought it up twice. But Lewis had already said he didn't mean to make a direct comparison between McCain and George Wallace, just to say that the tone of McCain's campaign could provoke violence. Lewis had amended his own remarks, so why did Obama have to kneel down before McCain and beg forgiveness? McCain also spoke about how he's proud of the people who come to his rallies, and he's "not going to stand for people saying that the people that come to my rallies are anything but the most dedicated, patriotic men and women." He mentioned a group of young women who were Military Wives for McCain, and the veterans who wear the World War II hats, that it is wrong to say that these people are saying something derogatory about Obama. Um, when did anyone say they were? I could care less about those people. It's the people shouting "kill him" or "off with his head" who are the problem. As long as it's not one of the Military Wives, then what's the issue here? That whole statement just made no sense. I think McCain was trying to say Obama was putting down ALL his supporters, not just the fringe, which he was not.

Education. A few things were said about education, but the one issue that made me laugh was McCain's insistence that vouchers are a good idea. He brought up vouchers in Washington, D.C., was condescending toward Obama on the subject ("And I'm frankly surprised you didn't pay more attention to that example."). Right, the D.C. example. Sure, it was good for the families who were able to get vouchers, but even McCain himself said there were 1,000 vouchers (actually closer to 2,000) for 9,000 parents who wanted them. So 8,000 kids got screwed. Perfect. The voucher program is good in theory, but not in practice. What about those 8,000 kids who don't get a voucher? Where do they go? Right back to the public schools, which weren't doing them any good in the first place. So yes, this is great for the children who get to partake in it, but unless you expand voucher program funding so that more kids have access (and where will you get the money with a spending freeze), it's not a solution. Still, even with expansion of the program, kids will be left out, and unless their schools are improved, we are still in the same boat as we are today.

Abortion. "But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision," Obama said. These are the only people who should have any say in a decision that involves what happens in a woman's life and with her body. Now, McCain touted adoption, citing his and Cindy's decision to adopt as proof of the joy it brings. I commend McCain and his wife for adopting their daughter, but they didn't adopt from within the U.S. What about the children who are already stuck in the system, who might never be adopted? The children placed in foster homes and beaten. The children in orphanages who have very little. Since 1970, adoptions have declined. But McCain said "We'll help take care of it." Meaning he'll, or the government (spending freeze, anyone?), will take care of those children born to mothers who would have had abortions? With what money? Where? Will McCain and Cindy adopt them all? No. Because anti-choice activists only seem to care about what happens to the baby up until birth. After that, the mother and baby are on their own. No money to take care of the baby, Ms. New Mom? Sorry, too bad so sad. Obama made a good point on this issue, saying that pro- and anti-choice activists can find common ground -- pregnancy prevention. He mentioned appropriate sex education, teaching kids that "sexuality is sacred." McCain, however, wants abstinence-only sex education. Great. Again, I ask, where are you going to put all these kids? Where will the money come from? McCain also made a snide remark about the health of the mother with respect to partial-birth abortion stating "that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything." I think the mothers who have been in situations where they had to choose between their health and their baby probably won't take kindly to that. They may not have wanted to go through an abortion, but had to in order to save themselves. A tough choice no doubt, and now John McCain thinks it's all just been "stretched by the pro-abortion movement."

The commentators have their opinions, but on every issue last night, Obama was on point. McCain made points, but he certainly didn't win on them. He often sounded angry and stilted. I didn't see passion. I saw a man who knows he's down in the polls and has no idea what to do about it. Maybe the commentators felt sorry for him. I know I did, for about a minute, until I realized he brought this on himself. And the statement of the night, according to some commentators, was when McCain said "Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." Oh, it was a zinger, for sure. Wasn't about issues, but hey, why should the most important statement of the debate be about issues? However, Obama had a witty response: "So the fact of the matter is that if I occasionally have mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush." Take that, John McCain. You've been pwned.

Sorry, Dad, I'm voting for Obama

2008-10-14T16:37:00.000-07:00

That was the title of a blog post written by Christopher Buckley that appeared on The Daily Beast. It also was Buckley's undoing. As a result of that post, Buckley had to resign from the National Review, a magazine founded by Buckley's father, William F. Buckley, Jr. I hesitate to say Buckley was forced to resign, because he offered up his resignation freely. However, Buckley told Chris Matthews tonight on Hardball that he didn't expect National Review to accept it. Why did Buckley have to tender that resignation in the first place? Because, after his Daily Beast post, readers of National Review were threatening to cancel subscriptions and sending angry e-mails. Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, downplays the anger from readers saying, "We have gotten about 100 e-mails, if that (a tiny amount compared to our usual volume), and threats of cancellations in the single digits." But if the response from subscribers was no big deal, why accept Buckley's resignation so quickly?

I bring this up because I find it funny that someone like Sen. Joe Lieberman shows up at the Republican National Convention to support Sen. John McCain, and Republicans talk about it like Lieberman just realized which candidate is right for America. It's not that he's a traitor. Not that he should be hung for his lack of allegiance to his political party. He just had a mind of his own. It's all about bipartisanship. It's not about being a Democrat or a Republican, but about being an American. I'm not a Lieberman fan, but to each his own. If Lieberman thinks McCain is his kind of guy, bully for him. My problem with Lieberman is that he seemed to be part of the Obama bandwagon when it benefited his Senatorial campaign, then suddenly, Obama was the wrong choice for America.

I don't understand how conservatives could think that Lieberman endorsing McCain is a smart move, but Buckley switching sides is something akin to being a traitor. Buckley said of his father, "He would let you say anything you wanted as long as it was argued." Buckley made his argument in the post, and while it might not have been what many National Review readers wanted to hear from one of their own, it is what it is. Is Buckley, or anyone for that matter, not allowed to make a decision to vote for the other side without being considered a traitor of some kind? Where is this freedom of democracy we tout as a cornerstone of the United States, the right to make a choice regardless of our party affiliation?

I guess this is similar to those people at McCain rallies who yell "off with his head" and "kill him" with regard to Obama. If you're not with us, you're against us.

Buckley's own statement said it best: "We seem to be living in a time of arteriosclerotic orthodoxy."

Who's the real Messiah candidate?

2008-10-13T17:18:00.000-07:00

At a McCain rally on Oct. 11 in Davenport, Iowa, Rev. Arnold Conrad stood up before McCain supporters and said the following:

"I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god -- whether it is Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that [McCain's] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons," said the Rev. Arnold Conrad, former pastor of the Grace Evangelical Free Church. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day."

So let's see here. God should get involved to make sure that Sen. John McCain wins and Sen. Barack Obama loses, because other people around the world are praying to their Gods that Obama wins. Hmm, sounds a little like Rev. Conrad sees McCain as God's candidate. God should get involved in ensuring a McCain win? Doesn't God have other things to do with his time?

Ooh, that's gotta hurt

2008-10-13T17:08:00.001-07:00

Gov. Sarah Palin scolds her own supporters at a rally today in Virginia. That's not going to help in the polls. I can't find a video of the incident, although I saw it on MSNBC tonight. After Palin makes her remarks about the "protesters," Todd steps up to her and says that they were just saying they can't hear you.

Associating with terrorists

2008-10-13T16:37:00.000-07:00

The argument that Sen. Barack Obama associates with terrorists, or somehow is one himself, because of his past professional relationship with Bill Ayers is a weak one. But I started thinking that if Republicans want to go down that road, where might it lead? If Obama is a terrorist or somehow has bad judgment because he served on a board with Ayers at one time, what does that say for others who have had contact with Ayers over the years?

Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Who hired him, I wonder? Let's get that person on the horn because he or she is obviously supporting terrorism. For that matter, UIC as a whole is supporting terrorism, and while we're at it, has anyone contacted the FBI to see if they'll add UIC to the list of terrorist organizations? If you go to the UIC College of Education site, you can find other professors who teach in the same department as Ayers. Are they terrorist sympathizers? Could they be considered terrorists? If we use the same logic that has been used in Obama's case, how can we not? Let's put their pictures on the news. Why is America letting professors who associate with terrorists continue to teach our children? Wait, can we get Ayers' present and past class lists? Because really, if you think about it, any student who took one of Ayers' classes must also be a terrorist. We should see what those students are up to now. Are any of them teaching children presently? If so, we better get them fired as soon as possible, because how can we let someone who would associate with a former domestic terrorist teach in a school anywhere in the country!?

Also, if you look on UIC's Web site, Ayers was recently elected to the College of Education Faculty Senate. Are these people crazy??? Don't they know Ayers is a former terrorist? All of them must be terrorists themselves! Or at the very least have no qualms about associating with terrorists. Someone better do some background checks.

If we use the logic the Republicans have used, imagine how many terrorist sympathizers we have out there. If Obama is guilty of a questionable association, then everyone who attends or teaches at UIC is guilty as well. Pretty absurd.

The Bank of America Chicago Marathon

2008-10-12T13:37:00.000-07:00

Today, I ran the Bank of America Chicago Marathon for the seventh time. It never feels easier, no matter how many times I've done it. But one thing that has always struck me is the number of people out there trying to make it easier for us. Thousands of volunteers are out on the course handing us water, Gatorade and bananas, even cold sponges at some points, and then cleaning up our mess afterward. These volunteers don't know most of us, but they cheer us on anyway. It made me think back to the service forum that both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain appeared at on September 11 at Columbia University in New York. I know the type of volunteer service both candidates were talking about was different from the volunteers at the marathon. But I am humbled to see high school kids and younger out on the course, spending their Sunday helping out. If those kids were given the chance to help out on a national scale, I can only imagine what help they could and would be. I'm also humbled to see those paid volunteers, like medical personnel and police officers, helping out on the course. Toward the end of the race, a few people weren't doing too well. The temperatures made it into the 80s, and runners were cautioned to stay hydrated and slow down. But even those warnings didn't prevent incidents. Whenever a runner slowed down and stopped, either a medic, police officer or even fellow runner would stop to make sure that person was okay. I saw several police officers keeping watch over stopped runners until medical personnel arrived. I saw other runners carrying a man off the course, because he could no longer walk. Those runners didn't care about their times. They cared about helping where help was needed. That too humbled me.

Last year, the race was a disaster. The temperatures were much higher and the organizers hadn't prepared properly. Gatorade and water were running out by mile 2. Further along in the course, runners were struggling to get both at aid stations. I managed to finish before the race was canceled, but it was a horrible scene. People laid out in medical tents or just on the grass or street. Wailing sirens everywhere you turned. It was scary. But even then, people helped people. If it wasn't police officer, medics or volunteers helping injured or ailing runners off the course, it was other runners. Residents living along the course were handing out bottled water to runners, or dousing them with hoses. Everyone pitched in.

This year, the heat wasn't as bad. The Gatorade and water didn't run out. But spectators along the course still helped out by handing out oranges or water of their own. Residents again were out with their hoses. I am beyond grateful for the way Chicago pitches in for this race. It isn't just the organizers who make this race great, but the people of Chicago, and those who come from other states and countries to run and watch. Without them, I just don't think this race would be the same.

At a time when a contentious election is going on and people are spewing hate, I am humbled to see a city come together like this for a race. We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're not liberal or conservatives. We're not Illinois residents or residents from other states. We're not U.S. citizens or foreigners. We're all one group of people trying to help each other, to get everyone to the end of that 26.2-mile journey safely.

It would be nice if the country could be like this every day. Put down the hate and pick up a cup of water or Gatorade. Put down the hate and cheer on a runner. Put down the hate and help someone you don't even know make it 26.2 miles to the finish.

More SNL humor

2008-10-10T07:56:00.000-07:00

SNL is at it again. Not as funny as the vice presidential debate skit, but still funny.

A Primer on John McCain's Role in "The Keating Five" Scandal

2008-10-09T15:25:00.000-07:00

Howie (and those of his ilk) want to move the discussion off our current economic meltdown and shift the focus to the past. I say, "Good. Let's do it!" Yes, let's talk about the past for a while. But rather than talking about what Bill Ayers did when Barack Obama was in grammar school, let's talk about what John McCain did when he was (presumably) an adult "serving" in the US Senate.

Funny stuff

2008-10-09T14:36:00.000-07:00

Well, I certainly had McCain/Palin supporters pegged all wrong. Those people are certainly the most intelligent in the bunch. Seriously. I think they all had to have graduated top of their class from some Ivy League university. Otherwise, how could they provide so many compelling arguments? (Videos from Bloggerinterrupted)

Part 1:

Part 2:

McCain's other dubious association

2008-10-08T19:22:00.000-07:00

Looks like Sen. John McCain doesn't have a problem "palling" around with domestic terrorists either. Or at least speaking in 1993 at a conference of the Oregon Citizens Alliance where the vice-chairwoman, Marilyn Shannon, praised a woman, Rachelle Shannon (no relation), who shot and killed an abortion doctor in 1984. Rachelle Shannon "considered herself a soldier in the underground terror organization, Army of God," and Army of God's Web site describes how Shannon transformed into a domestic terrorist. McCain didn't denounce Marilyn Shannon's support. He didn't denounce Rachelle Shannon's violent actions. Instead, Marilyn Shannon served as a McCain delegate at the Republican National Convention.

So, let me get this straight. A former domestic terrorist holds a coffee for you when you're running for the state Senate, and you are labeled a friend of terrorists and said to have bad judgment. You're said to "pal around with terrorists." But attend a conference where a domestic terrorist is praised for killing a doctor who was not breaking the law in any way with his practice, and it's no big deal? In fact, the woman who did the praising becomes one of your delegates. Talk about double standards.

Listen, I know some people think it's just a-okay to murder abortion doctors because somehow they are killing innocent life. Never mind that abortion is legal. Never mind that killing anyone, even an abortion doctor, pretty much negates your argument about killing innocent life. Just because you, the anti-abortion activist, think the abortion doctor is doing something wrong does not make it so. Again, abortion is legal. Therefore, you, the anti-abortion activist, are also killing innocent life. The hypocrisy is astounding.

One other thing to add: McCain voted against making anti-abortion violence a federal crime, among other things. McCain doesn't think protecting innocent lives is a big deal either.

McCain/Ayers Link Established

2008-10-08T15:19:00.001-07:00

John McCain, on his own campaign's website, lists Leonore Annenberg among a group of former US Ambassadors who endorse his candidacy. Annenberg is, of course, the widow of former Ambassador Walter Annenberg, and the chair of the Annenberg Foundation -- which, of course, sponsors the "Annenberg Challenge," the Chicago school reform project that hired notorious former domestic terrorist William Ayers.

Of course, the liberal media will ignore McCain's link to this dangerous radical...

The Way Things Look to Me...

2008-10-08T10:50:00.000-07:00

I've been checking the state-by-state polls over at fivethirtyeight.com and usaelectionpolls.com (both sites aggregate scores of multiple polls taken in each state) on a daily basis and keeping tabs on the interactive electoral map at 270towin.com. From where I'm standing, it looks like nothing short of a catastrophe (a terrorist attack? a US or Israeli attack on Iran? some catastrophic event culminating in a Presidential declaration of martial law under the Patriot Act?) can keep Barack Obama from being elected the next President of the United States of America.

As I write this, Obama has a solid lead in 22 states -- and the District of Columbia -- accounting for 269 electoral votes (17 points in California, 7 points in Colorado, 17 points in Connecticut, 70 points in the District of Columbia, 21 points in Delaware, 33 points in Hawaii, 13 points in Iowa, 20 points in Illinois, 20 points in Massachusetts, 23 points in Maryland, 11 points in Maine, 8 points in Michigan, 10 points in Minnesota, 12 points in New Jersey, 9 points in New Mexico, 21 points in New York, 14 points in Oregon, 9 points in Pennsylvania, 20 points in Rhode Island, 25 points in Vermont, 13 points in Washington, 10 points in Wisconsin). Essentially, any other win in any other state would guarantee him the Presidency -- in other words, in order for John McCain to win, he has to win every other state beyond these solidly blue states. (click on the map for a larger image)

However, in addition to those solid states, there are another 5 states (Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia) where Obama is leading by 3-6 percentage points for an additional 69 electoral votes. A win in any of these states gives Obama the Presidency. A win in all of them would give him 338 electoral votes.

Even some toss-up states originally expected to go to McCain are moving in Obama's direction, and in a few of which Obama has taken the narrowest of leads (Missouri by about 1 point, Indiana by about a half point, North Carolina by about a point-and-a-half).

Here's how it looks to me right now, according to the state polls I've seen, and giving McCain the benefit of the doubt by leaving Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, and Florida as "undecided":
It's Obama 306/McCain 163.

My friends

2008-10-08T06:51:00.000-07:00

If you were playing a drinking game during the debate last night, that should have been your phrase -- "my friends." Sen. John McCain said it 19 times last night. It was almost comical. Similar to Gov. Sarah Palin's "you betcha" and "Joe Sixpack," McCain was trying to identify with everday people. He failed. Polls show that Sen. Barack Obama won the second debate. Probably no surprise I agree, being an Obama supporter, but watching McCain during this debate was painful. I felt sorry for him. In the first debate, he did well, even if he didn't win. I still think he hurt himself by not looking at Obama or seeming to acknowledge his presence at all, but at least he managed to get his points across.

In the second debate, McCain looked nervous, stumbling over his words at times. He made jokes that fell flat. He tried to connect with the audience by talking to those members who asked questions, but it came off as creepy. He didn't seem sincere at all. And when it was all over, he shook hands with audience members briefly, then he and Cindy dashed out of the Curb Center. For a man who considered the audience "his friends," he sure didn't stick around to talk to them. That was telling. Obama and his wife were individually talking to people in the audience and stayed for some time after the debate ended. Michelle Obama also sat in the audience during the debate. Cindy McCain, on the other hand, seemed to come from backstage after the debate ended, and then just followed her husband around on stage while he shook hands. She didn't talk to any audience members and didn't seem interested in them. Then the pair left. Their actions didn't make me, and probably didn't make other hockey moms and Joe Sixpacks, think he was their friend. Just that McCain was a sore loser who knew he had lost and was ready to get out of Dodge.

The other thing that struck me was that McCain supposedly does well in town halls, so it would stand to reason that he should do well in a town hall debate. Just like one would assume that with all McCain's supposed foreign policy experience, he would have won the first debate by a wide margin. Yet, he didn't win the first debate and looked stiff in this one. He didn't seem comfortable at all. McCain repeated some of the same lines from the first debate (which didn't work for him then) and his stump speeches, lines which Obama again debunked and countered. McCain had to do well in this debate. He's falling behind in the polls. He's resorting to desperate personal attacks to try to stop the hemorrhaging. He needed to win handily, because anything less would do nothing for him. McCain didn't win handily. He didn't even win.

So where does that leave McCain? I'm sure he'll be back to personal attacks today, as will Palin. I'm sure the personal attacks will increase as the weeks go on. But I think voters are smart enough to see it's a desperate attempt by a desperate campaign that is willing to do anything to win. Experts say that going negative can alienate the candidate going on the attack. Sometimes it can help, but it's a risk. It looks like McCain is willing to take that risk. But after a day of personal attacks on the campaign trail from McCain and Palin, Obama still won the debate. If anyone believed these stories about Obama and William Ayers, it wouldn't have mattered what Obama said during the debate or how well he performed. Voters would have turned against him. It didn't happen. Twenty-six days until Election Day. Stay tuned.

Sunday Morning Chuckles

2008-10-05T10:48:00.000-07:00

This just keeps getting better and better...

The VP Debate

2008-10-03T07:53:00.000-07:00

Well, it was a win for Gov. Sarah Palin. Yes, I know what you're thinking. Did I hit my head? No, but I'm not being entirely serious with that statement either. Conservatives have said Palin hit it out of the park, but I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Actually, more than a bit. What amounts to a win for Palin is that she didn't sound like an incoherent idiot, quite like she did with Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson. She managed to string sentences together and make some sense, but it was clear she was either reading from her notes or reciting what had probably been drilled into her head the past few days by her debate coaches. Many of her responses sounded exactly the same as statements we've heard from her and McCain, whether on the campaign trail or during their convention speeches. Nothing new. I don't think you can count a debate a win just because your candidate didn't sound stupid. What matters is whether that person comes off as knowledgeable and qualified for the job. Polls show that 98% of undecided voters thought Sen. Joe Biden was more knowledgeable, and 87% of voters polled nationally think Biden is more qualified for the job. Palin had a high percentage of voters who thought she exceeded expectations, but after the constant airing of her recent disastrous interview with Couric, Palin had nowhere to go but up.

The polls also show that Biden won the debate. Depending on which one you look at, 46% of undecided voters thought so, and nationally, 51% of voters agreed. I think in the coming days, as more in-depth polls are conducted, we'll see those numbers grow.

Looking at Factcheck.org's analysis of the debate, it's clear that while both candidates made statements that weren't 100% accurate, Palin made more statements that were just outright false. What's more, she either didn't know Gen. McKiernan's name, or just got it wrong, but it was a bit embarrassing since she was so adamant that she was right about what the general said regarding the surge in Afghanistan. More embarrassing is that Palin was wrong about what McKiernan said. From Factcheck.org:

To start, Palin got newly appointed Gen. David D. McKiernan's name wrong when she called him McClellan. And, more important, Gen. McKiernan clearly did say that surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. As the Washington Post reported:

Washington Post: "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' " McKiernan stressed, saying that what is required is a "sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.

Like McCain, Palin also needs to go back and have a chat with her friend, Henry Kissinger, who said he would meet with Iran without preconditions. She mentioned the "Talibani" when I think she meant Taliban, but it was strange. I also thought Palin's comment that "'Enough is enough with your ticket,' on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game" was hilarious. She kept saying that Obama and Biden are stuck in the past, looking backwards. Does she not realize that her running mate IS the past, siding with President Bush 90% of the time? And while I know Palin is not the smartest tool in the shed, you can't talk about change without talking about what you're changing FROM. I also find it funny that Palin thinks Obama and Biden are stuck in the past when during the RNC, many Republican politicians were talking about change as well. Suddenly, they were the party of change! "Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington," according to Gov. Mitt Romney. Of course, no one told him that Republicans had been in charge the past eight years, and in charge of Congress for six of the past eight years. Please, not talking about the past? How many times have we heard McCain and Palin bring up Ronald Reagan's name? How many times have we heard McCain's P.O.W. story? Pot meet kettle.

Other things annoyed me about Palin. The winking. The constant use of the word "also." Saying she might not answer the questions the way the moderator liked, but she was going to talk to the American people. Then why have a debate at all? Palin admitted that she had only been at this five weeks, which I'm not sure was something to mention. It's not really funny or cute. She was folksy with her "you betcha" and "darn right," but again, I didn't really find those things funny or cute or even endearing. Maybe she thinks speaking like that brings her down to Joe Six-pack's level, but it just makes her look silly. I won't even go into all this talk about how she and Todd are middle class.

I don't think Palin did horribly in the debate, but as far as who "won," it was Biden all the way.

Now I've heard it all

2008-10-02T09:01:00.001-07:00

I received an e-mail today from a friend at work. It reads as follows:

For Immediate Release: - 09/24/08

Obama & DNC Hide Behind Legal Issues While Betraying Public in not Producing a Certified Copy of Obama’s “Vault” Birth Certificate and Oath of Allegiance

Country is Headed to a Constitutional Crisis

( Lafayette Hill , Pennsylvania – 09/24/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on the last day to file a response, for the obvious purpose of delaying Court action in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by delaying the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama was “natural born” within U.S. territory.

It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist.

I'd post the link where this press release came from, but the Web site is running a smear campaign against Sen. Barack Obama, and I'd rather not give them more business. I really have heard it all now, though. I can't believe someone is even wasting the court's time with such a frivolous lawsuit. Obama has produced his birth certificate. The controversy is ridiculous. I won't blame the McCain campaign, because these claims haven't come from them, from what I can tell. But some conservatives who dislike Obama are jumping all over this.

Let's just look at this a little closer. The attorney who filed the lawsuit, Philip Berg, has had troubles of his own lately. $10,000 in sanctions for unethical actions? Now, there's a guy with credibility problems. Oh, and here's another interesting factoid about Phil Berg. He filed a lawsuit against individuals in the Bush administration because he believes the administration covered up the truth about 9/11, i.e. that the U.S. government had something to do with the attack. He considers the Bush administration's version the "Official Story." Read the complaint posted on his 911 For The Truth Web site. It's good stuff. And now Berg claims Obama isn't a natural born citizen.

The part in the press release that struck me was how filing a joint motion to dismiss can be seen as "obviously delaying Court action." I took a look at the Obama/DNC motion to dismiss (PDF). They asked for dismissal based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. But the motion also states the allegations are false. I don't see how that's delaying Court action. The lawsuit is frivilous, filed by someone who also wasted the Court's time with a 200-plus page complaint stating that the government's version of 9/11 is not the "Official Story."

Here's another little item to think about. The Obama/DNC motion to dismiss cites a case filed by a voter against Sen. John McCain (Hollinger v. McCain) for the very same reason -- that McCain wasn't a natural born citizen of the U.S. and therefore not eligible to run for President. McCain filed a motion to dismiss in that case for the same reasons as Obama and the DNC filed theirs. So what's the problem?

These issues aren't even real issues. McCain is a natural born citizen, and Democrats even passed a resolution in the Senate saying as much. Obama is a natural born citizen. End of story. Get over it.

McCain in Iowa

2008-10-01T19:10:00.000-07:00

Watch as Sen. John McCain's nose grows . . .

If I were on the Des Moines Register editorial board, I would have said, "Please, Sen. McCain, show me that documentation." Because he's lying. Now, there's some straight talk!

Watch McCain get testy when the editorial board questions Gov. Sarah Palin's experience . . .

Disagree all you like, Sen. McCain. You're wrong. I like how he considers being a member of the PTA a serious answer. And how many times did he mention her being a governor and a mayor? McCain was also wrong on a couple points. Sadly, Palin is not the most popular governor in America. Nor are the American people siding with you, Sen. McCain. The polls show that Republicans aren't confident about Palin. McCain hasn't detected that? Maybe he needs to pay more attention. Maybe if he wasn't suspending his campaign, then restarting it, then not phoning it in on the bailout bill, but really phoning it in, he'd have more time to see how support for his VP is tanking, right along with his campaign.

The First Debate

2008-09-30T18:35:00.000-07:00

I've waited to write about the first presidential debate for a couple reasons. One, my sister gave birth to my nephew, Colin, last Wednesday, and I've been busy visiting her and the baby and just keeping tabs on her in general. Two, I wanted to see what discussions would ensue in the media after the debate. However, the bailout bill has pretty much taken over the airwaves, so what happened during the debate was popular for like a minute. But a minute was long enough to see that Sen. Barack Obama came out on top.

Going into the debate, I knew he'd do well, but I also knew the Sen. John McCain would try to use Obama's supposed lack of experience against him. Obama wasn't fazed, though. He gave great answers and, more importantly, sounded presidential. McCain also did well, for the most part, if you only look at his answers. McCain had his missteps, like saying that Pakistan was a failed state or that Obama would be foolish to speak out loud about going into Pakistan after Osama bin Laden, as if Obama were talking about full scale war, which he wasn't. Obama hasn't said he wants to attack or invade Pakistan. He has specifically said that if the U.S. has Osama bin Laden or other top al Qaeda lieutenants in our sights, we need to act, if Pakistan won't. Isn't that what we have been after all this time -- the terrorists? McCain accused Obama of not supporting the troops because he opposed a funding bill that had no timetable, neglecting to mention that he, McCain, also opposed a funding bill because it HAD a timetable. So gee, looks like McCain doesn't support the troops either, by that logic. McCain also argued back and forth about Iran, and this idea that no one would sit down for talks with Iran without preconditions. Obama brought up Henry Kissinger, and McCain ridiculed Obama's statement that Kissinger said he would sit down with Iran without preconditions, stating that "By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years." I'm sure Kissinger would, considering that at a Sept. 15 forum, he said just that. Not that he would sit down with President Ahmadinejad, which Obama didn't say, but that he would sit down with a high level member of the Iranian government. McCain again looked like a fool for pointing out something so forcefully, but being wrong.

And it was this foolishness that lost him the debate. Well, that foolishness and more. As McCain should know, voters look at far more than words during a debate. Who acts presidential? I'll tell you it wasn't McCain in this debate, and this is why. It was his condescension. The constant statement of "what Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand." His refusal to look at Obama, as if Obama weren't even there. His refusal to address Obama in the first person. McCain acted as if he were just having a conversation with Jim Lehrer, not a debate. And maybe McCain thinks that makes him look tough. It didn't. It made him look immature. His rambling on about his record, as if people needed a refresher. Yes, we know, you were a P.O.W., you've been in politics for ages, ad nauseam. So if that's the case, why did you get schooled at this debate?

And after the debate, how did McCain try to save face? By airing an ad that pointed out how many times Obama said "John is right" during the debate. Really? That's all you have? Never mind that Obama was being gracious, something McCain knows nothing about, and that after each of Obama's "John is right"s, he followed it up with what he would do better or where McCain was also wrong. If this is what McCain has to cling to, then I feel sorry for him. Or maybe conservatives making a fuss about Obama's bracelet is going to help McCain climb back out from the hole he's found himself. Too bad the fuss is all wrong.

Like his campaign, McCain is becoming a joke. He should have excelled at the debate, by all accounts, but instead, he failed. The polls show Obama even further in the lead. No matter how you look at it. Now, nothing is written in stone. Two debates still remain, and anything could happen. But this debate was on foreign policy, an issue McCain has consistently said he knows more about. Yet, Gallup shows Obama and McCain practically even as far as which candidate debate watchers have confidence in on national defense and foreign policy issues. If McCain was such an expert, shouldn't his "more confidence" number have been much higher? And with Obama's supposed lack of experience, his "less confidence" number should have been higher. The fact that these numbers are so close shows just how much McCain has slipped.

My American Prayer

2008-09-28T09:39:00.000-07:00

Sent to me by my old friend Richie Cole (of St. Rita's Brassmen) , Dave Stewart's new music video expresses hope for the future under an Obama Presidency.

Yes we can, baby.

Suspending the campaign

2008-09-25T11:41:00.000-07:00

Or in McCain-speak, trying to look like a shining knight on a white horse. Or possibly, trying to bulk up my poll numbers by appearing to care about the economy, even though I didn't much care for the regulation that would have prevented this from happening in the first place. Or even, I know I'm down in the polls and don't want to have my ass handed to me in the debate.

I'm shocked that the man who says he has the experience to be president can't handle dealing with fellow Congresspeople on the Wall Street bailout and doing a debate. In this age of technology, he has access to Blackberrys, laptop computers, cell phones (or his wife)! Is he unable to keep in touch with Congress while in Mississippi for a few hours? It appears so. It appears that without White Knight McCain, this bailout just isn't going to get done. But now it looks like it will get done, and what's that you say, John? You STILL aren't going to compete in the debate? Nope, St. John wants to make damn sure the bailout plan is solid, or whatever. I think this from the AP article on the bailout plan agreement says it well:

[McCain] again portrayed his announced halt to campaign events, fundraising and advertising as an example of putting the country ahead of politics. But in doing so he also hoped to get political credit for a decisive step on a national crisis as polls show him trailing Obama on the economy and slipping in the presidential race.

Putting country ahead of politics? Yeah, sure, that's what he was doing. Never mind that this statement shows just how much McCain WASN'T putting country ahead of politics. This was a stunt. A ploy. A campaign tactic. He didn't suspend his campaign -- suspending his campaign was PART of his campaigning. Otherwise, why would he have had a conversation with Sen. Barack Obama about issuing a joint statement, then appeared on television himself? McCain said later that this wasn't the time for statements, but then he went on television and uh, made a statement. No, he just wanted all the glory for himself. Wanted those voters who are responsible for his plunging poll numbers to say, "That John, what a guy!"

What a guy. He's such a guy he can't even handle doing a debate at the same time as dealing with pending legislation. Or maybe that wasn't it? Maybe this is the plan:

"McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.

In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday."

Rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, huh? You know, when Gov. Sarah Palin was first introduced as McCain's running mate and people wondered how she'd do in a debate against Sen. Joe Biden, I jokingly thought, "Oh she'll pretend she's sick, or make up some other excuse why she can't do the debate." I didn't think that would seriously happen. Maybe they'll move the vice presidential debate to another date, but suddenly, there's no time. Palin will be unavailable or otherwise occupied with campaign business or the plague. After her interview with Katie Couric, that might be exactly what the McCain campaign is hoping to do.

Never mind that a bailout deal has been reached, however tenative it may be. It's solid enough that both parties are ready to present the proposal to President Bush for approval. Not good enough for McCain, though. No, the White Knight won't rest until the ink is dry, and he has something he can take credit for. Suspending his campaign to put country first! (Um, are you getting all this? Do you have my good side? Is my hair straight?)

Yes, McCain was in such a hurry to get back to Washington to get things done, he canceled an appearance on David Letterman last night.

Understandable. Oh, except he didn't quite rush off to Washington. He spoke with Katie Couric first (see above at 6:40). But he had a good reason:

"The clincher for me is the fact that McCain cancelled his Letterman appearance at the last second and instead sat down for an impromptu interview with, of all people, Katie Couric. The hope was to bump the Palin interview even on the CBS Evening News, which otherwise would have hyped and teased the Palin interview all afternoon and used it to lead the broadcast. Instead, CBS devoted most of its coverage to McCain and played segments of the Palin interview almost as an afterthought. Mission accomplished."

Sneaky, sneaky. Suspending the campaign to put country first. Sure thing, John, and I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. Punk.

Liberal media

2008-09-23T14:44:00.000-07:00

It's funny that I just wrote that last post, and then I saw this. I suppose only some of the media is "liberal," i.e. not interested in printing articles that shine a negative light on Sen. Barack Obama. The Wall Street Journal certainly isn't "in the tank."

UPDATE: It's also funny to watch conservatives grab onto this story like pitbulls (with or without lipstick) who haven't eaten in a week. You'd think Obama was making a deal with Osama bin Laden to commit some new terrorist act (I'm sure that story's coming soon). It's not like this story wasn't out there. It's not like Sen. Hillary Clinton didn't try to make it an issue in the primary. Too bad it's just not an issue. Try again, "liberal" media.

In the tank

2008-09-23T11:06:00.000-07:00

I didn't come up with the phrase, but I kind of like it. I suppose this blog would be considered "in the tank." Maybe we should change the name from IN THE DARK to IN THE TANK? Just kidding. "In the tank," for those of you who haven't heard the phrase used lately, is the phrase Sen. John McCain's campaign is using to describe media organizations who are uninterested in pursuing sordid details about Sen. Barack Obama's or Sen. Joe Biden's political careers or lives. At least that's my understanding. It came after two McCain campaign aides, Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis, held a conference call to "complain about being called 'liars.'" My thought on that is, "They wouldn't call you liars if you weren't lying."

But where it gets interesting is that on that same conference call, Schmidt proceeded to try to point the media in what he thinks is the right direction -- Biden's son, Hunter's, lobbying work, Obama's alleged ties to William Ayers, and attacks made on Gov. Sarah Palin by Obama backers. When later questioned about these assertions and asked for factual backup, another McCain aide claimed Politico was "in the tank." Steve Benen from Washington Monthly put it well when he said "if you care about reality, you're necessarily biased. You are either with McCain or against him, and if you notice McCain's campaign straying from the truth, you're obviously the enemy."

If the Obama campaign was lying as often as the McCain campaign, the media would have something to report. But while the Obama campaign has been guilty of exaggerations and lies at times, it is not nearly on the same scale as McCain. Both McCain and Palin have continually repeated things they know to be untrue. Not only do they know them to be untrue, but the media has repeatedly reported them to be untrue. If the label "liar" fits, well . . . What did the McCain campaign expect? That the media would just turn and look the other way? That the unfettered access he once granted them would make them his lapdogs? I may not love the media lately, but I'm glad that the lies have at least been exposed as such. This idea of a "liberal media" is just so comical to me. As if the media has never reported a single thing about Obama's "scandals."

I ran some searches on Google News to see what articles were written (just in 2008) about certain alleged scandals during the primary and now general election relating to Obama. Let's see . . .

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: 13,000 hits
Tony Rezko: 1,750 hits
Michelle Obama is proud of her country: 1,380 hits
Michelle Obama and the "whitey" comment: 184 hits
State Sen. Alice Palmer: 71 hits
"Present" votes in Illinois state senate: 8,930 hits
Lack of experience: 637 hits
Obama and anything Muslim: 8,490 hits
Obama is a celebrity (or is pals with them): 3,750 hits
Franklin Raines: 38 hits
William Ayers: 1,150 hits
Earmarks: 1,500 hits
Obama's patriotism: 3,420 hits

These are just the "scandals" I can remember right now. Also, I started looking through some of the hits to see what media organizations these pieces were from, but it became too tedious, so I just hyperlinked to my searches for those who want to see for themselves. Admittedly, many of these hits will be for sites that are not "mainstream." And other hits will be for pieces that were written or broadcast debunking these "scandals" or that were favorable to Obama. However, I maintain that, favorable or not, all a news piece has to do is talk about Obama and such and such scandal, and the two are linked. My father still thinks Obama is a Muslim, depsite the articles saying otherwise. Why? Because he saw "Obama" and "Muslim" in the same articles too many times, and now he refuses to think otherwise. And the final point is that many of these hits are from the mainstream media, so the "liberal media" isn't ignoring Obama in favor of pointing out that McCain is a liar. It just so happens the McCain campaign has lied a lot lately and that has gotten more play. My suggestion to the McCain campaign is to stop lying.

Instead, the campaign has chosen to complain about being caught in their lies and try to direct the media to write some negative pieces about Obama. You know what that looks like? It's like my getting in trouble at work for goofing off all day, and instead of being honest and saying, "Yes, I have been goofing off all day, and I will work harder," I say, "Well, Jane Smith goofs off all day too. I see her on the Internet all day long and talking to other people when she should be working. Maybe you should reprimand Jane Smith as well." I've seen people try this defense on for size, and it usually ends up getting them fired. Or at the very least put on their employer's shit list. Looks like McCain is moving toward the shit list. Maybe the media's shit list too.

(Mangled Metaphor Alert) The Bloom Appears to be Off the Pitbull

2008-09-19T12:04:00.000-07:00

Okay. Here we are, nearly a month beyond John McCain's unexpected (and very, very risky) annoucement of his Vice Presidential running mate, Sarah Palin.

Ms. Palin's overall favorability ratings have plummeted (not unexpected once people actually got to know who she is and how little she understands).

The Obama/Biden ticket has regained its lead in national polling (a statistically significant lead of 49%-44% in a CBS News/New York Times poll, and a statistically significant lead of 49%-45% in the latest Quinnipiac poll), and the Gallup Daily Tracking poll shows Obama/Biden leading over Palin/McCain today by 5 points, 49% to 44%. The post-GOP convention "bump" for Palin/McCain seems to have been fueled by a renewed excitement among the religious right, and not by any real excitement among Independent or undecided voters.

Meanwhile, on 270towin.com's interactive electoral map, giving John McCain all the current toss-up states, but leaving Pennsylvania out (because at this moment, it is an absolute dead heat), I have Obama/Biden over Palin/McCain 261-256. In this scenario, it all comes down to Ohio (look for GOP dirty tricks there in October or, God forbid, on election day).

But more realistically, Virginia has been trending Democratic in recent years, and trending toward Obama since January, according to Rasmussen, and Obama has a higher favorability rating than McCain in Virginia. Indiana has also been trending toward Obama (although John McCain still holds on to a 2 point lead, down from 4 points in August), and Obama has higher favorability ratings there too.