More Comedy!

Your cheeks will thank you for laughing so hard.



Last night, writer and comedianne Tina Fey reprises her role as Sarah Palin when mocking Palin's latest interview with Katie Couric.

Disoriented

I have been feeling a little out of sorts lately. Some days I get the sense that I'm in control of my tasks and duties, and that I have a firm holding on my priorities and actions. Sometimes I think I'm going in the right direction, and other days I begin to question if I am ahead as I think. I try not to think about it too much because, unlike other past experiences in education and career, I have a bit more time and space to really get what I want out of this doctorate program. I am finally getting a little feedback in my performance, but I don't know what to make of it.

I had a strange day today.

Think, but don't think too much. Let me be a little brutally honest. It is difficult and cumbersome to read primary sources of sociological theory. I don't think a translator can enhance notes and writings of Marx and Weber to make them more readable or enjoyable. So, when I read about bureaucracy or capitalism, I let my mind wander a bit. I try to think about what it must be like to live under certain conditions -- to be without the means of controlling production, or to be a cog in a bureaucratic wheel. When I discuss readings, I try to stick to the text, but I try to show that I'm actively engaged in them.

What does Weber mean by a cog? How is the bureaucratic cog different from the Marxist proletariat? There are the obvious answers, but there are the quality of life conditions that I'm interested in talking about. I got teased a little today for writing too much. Hurting my feelings seemed unintentional, I suppose, but nevertheless, I don't think there's a nice way to tell someone that I value the judgments and comments from my professor more than my peers. He issues my grade. They don't. Simple as that.

But hey, I describe my social psychology course as a daily battle. Some days I win, or at least I think I do; other days, I'm nursing some wounds. My first professor seems really interested in the primary theoretical material, so he'll smile at us (for the most part) when we're actively engaged in the text. My social psych professor might get one too many jollies out of shooting us down. He has few qualms about name-dropping or discussing his intellectual lineage from Stanford. He's personable enough in the classroom, but he's violently brutal in written format. I just have a difficult time gauging my performance. Hell, anytime the man says I'm right about something, I think, "Yes! I won today!"

I thought it was appropriate to try to connect what we have discussed in class before with the articles I was responsible for leading. Not so much. I had to split the class hour with another student, and the professor seemed to do way more talking than either of us. We were asking rather involved questions about the nature of the self, and he told us that we had it all wrong. Talk about taking the wind out of one's sails!

So, you know, I got my personal gold star for explaining distinctions between "role" and "identity," but my discussion comments were pretty much flattened all around.

I took a few notes:

1. Define concepts and terms in each article.
2. Don't wander too far with discussion questions.
3. Just stick to hypotheses, arguments, and end results.
4. Keep it cut and dry.

I don't mind trying out this new approach, but I'll admit readily that I will yawn my way all the way through it. For instance, I brought up discussion questions about how gender and race color how we view ourselves. I brought up the value of doing survey research instead of participant observation. Apparently, I just didn't stick tightly enough to the article.

That's all I need to do, I think -- just keep it simple and stick to the points. I suppose inspiration or interest will just spring up given enough time.

Maybe inquisitiveness is not as desirable a trait as I thought. As unsettling as it is, I just need to embrace the idea of being a cog.

UPDATE:
I got an A- on my critique and an A on my discussion leading. Apparently, I did a good thing trying to tie my articles back to the main theoretical issue. The rest of his comments were quick responses to my discussion questions. A sigh of relief, indeed, though I imagine the next time I lead discussion that I will sweat through it.

Gloves Off!

I can appreciate the fact that Chris Matthews has hit that point in his journalism career where he can honestly say, to hell with this; the gloves come off now! Here is some footage with Matthews grilling Republican senator Eric Cantor from Virginia about a party failure to take accountability.



And to that, I say, thank you! Let me be honest about something. I recognize that we're in a financial crisis, but I want to wake America up to the possibility that people have been struggling long before the banks started collapsing. I have been talking more recently about engaging in civil disobedience now that I know that my tax dollars are going to fill up some CEO's golden parachute. I have to admit, I don't really lose a lot of sleep about the 401K or the stock market or all that much about the risk of foreclosure. I sleep comfortably knowing that I never had an inkling of a chance of reaching that $100,000 insurance ceiling set by the FDIC. Nowhere near it. Not even a little bit.

But for those people who are signing their names to the foreclosure rosters, I do pine a bit in pain, in knowing that these hard-working people are doing the best they can to stay afloat. See, the people on Wall Street have long forgotten what it's like to scrape a barrel or to press hands to forehead while calculating a meager budget. I mean, I've already done my share against my will to front a war that "should have" been paid off within six weeks and with oil revenues. Now my government is making it my taxpayer duty to bail the big boys out when I didn't have a say in how they ran their business anyway?

Cantor didn't provide an iota of an explanation. Matthews grills adviser Pfotenhauer a couple days or so later and all she offered was a weakening pageant smile. "But John McCain's policies..."

Please. Stop lying. Just stop it.

Lying Pays Off?

Sort of. Keith Olbermann writes a check for $3,700 to benefit the Alaskan state Special Olympics to commemorate the number of lies -- at a Benjamin per lie -- Palin has told on her campaign trail since her debut at the Republican National Convention.

Checking for Voter Registration

Here are a couple of links to find out if you're registered to vote in your home state. Pay attention. There isn't a quiz, but there's a country at stake here!

You can use the links below to:

1. Check your voter registration status.
2. Register to vote if you have not already done so.
3. Request an absentee ballot.
4. Determine your polling place.

Are you registered to vote?
https://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php

Are you registered to vote if you're overseas?
https://obama.overseasvotefoundation.org/overseas/home.htm

Every vote counts!

Obama Speaks About the Economy

A 2-minute commercial that gives it to us straight, including a summary of his plan and intentions to undermine special interests.

Reactions to Black Monday, 2008

Rachel Maddow has the story.

Liar!

Stockpiling courtesy of John Aravois at America Blog. I have been liveblogging this individual entry for over an hour. I'm catching up on political feeds and find that Mr. Aravois is a strong, primary source for the most relevant, hardhitting information to break through the fog of disenchantment and distortion plaguing American voters. I encourage you to visit his blog and stay in touch with the issues.

Before I start the list, I must admit that I am happy and I am saddened this morning. I salute the corps of reporters and journalists who have finally reached their tolerance levels for political lying, but I am saddened that it took so long to get here. Maybe it was a few weeks ago, but I read online that one of the reasons why the media was resistant to push McCain was that, considering the depth of his relationship with reporters, officials did not want to sacrifice future rights to exclusive access. I recognize that the news media have to operate like a business -- to stoke advertising revenue, to command a higher percentage of market share, to specialize and tailor interest to the reading audience -- but the rush to get the scoop, and the only scoop, inevitably lead to not getting the jist of what a scoop means. There was only expediency and no designed intention to inform voters in the American electorate.

How ironic that Palin's first appearance immediately sought cordoning of access, and that it took her, after pressure, no less, seven days before she talked to ABC's Charlie Gibson. McCain preempted this with an abrasive interview for TIME magazine. So, for all that cultivation, here's what you get. A "no thanks!" and a "talk to the hand."

Seth Colter Walls features the new Obama ad corresponding to this still image.



The Reid Report issues a similar message.



Recommended reading:
Count the Lies

Recommended viewing:
(Ed. - FOX News makes its first appearance on Brainsplitter for actually attempting fair and balanced reporting.)

Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer take on distortion issues with the candidates.



These journalists have stepped up. We can trust that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow will continue to do the same, as does Eugene Washington, Chris Kofinis, Howard Fineman, and Richard Wolffe (coincidentally all usually featured on "Countdown"). That's clear. Who else will look out for our best informational interests?

Ben Smith (Politico)
Brian Rogers doesn't care what I think:
“We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media’s swooning coverage of McCain’s ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. “But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”

St. Petersburg Times (Editorial)
“Campaign of lies disgraces McCain”:
McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak. It is leaving a permanent stain on his reputation for integrity, and it is a short-term strategy that eventually will backfire with the very types of independent-thinking voters that were so attracted to him.

Atlanta Journal Constitution (Jay Bookman)
The volume and audacity of lies pouring from the McCain campaign is startling and even historic.
That’s really something, lying straight out about a FactCheck group, knowing that you’re going to get caught but not giving a damn about it. With stuff like this, the McCain camp has cut any remaining tethers to reality and integrity and is now floating wherever the winds of illusion and whimsy may take them. It’s quite remarkable, and quite insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

Pittsburg Post Gazette (Tony Norman)
Where have you gone, John McCain?
You once said you'd rather lose an election than lose a war. Is it worth winning an election if it means forfeiting your soul on the altar of political expediency?...Where is the honor in reciting lies for something as transient as political advantage? What are we as voters supposed to make of political ads that accuse Barack Obama of advocating sex education for kindergartners?... Despite the intellectually dishonest maneuvering of your campaign, many Americans admire you, John McCain. Before you embraced the darkness, I was among those who disagreed with your politics, but considered you honorable. Now it's hard to look at you without seeing the scoundrels who made you what you are today.

Kansas City Star (Barb Shelly)
McCain stoops to deception, distortion:
Maybe you’ve seen it. The campaign ad cites the authoritative journal Education Week to claim that Democrat Barack Obama has been missing in action on education reform…Shamelessly misleading the public?...These are old tricks we’ve been seeing in local elections for years. Distort. Twist. Deceive. Damage. And the winning candidate drags a load of public contempt into office. I had hoped for better from McCain…John McCain may win the presidency this way, but he will lose the respect he has acquired over the years.

Boston Globe (Scot Lehigh)
Pretzel logic from the McCain campaign:
Here’s the question voters should be asking themselves this week: Just how stupid does the McCain-Palin campaign think I am? The answer: Dumb enough to hoodwink with charges so contrived and cynical they make your teeth ache…As the nonpartisan campaign watchdog FactCheck.org has made clear, this is a thoroughly dishonest ad [Kindergarten]. No matter. The McCain campaign has shown it's ready and willing to say preposterous things to win.

Washington Post (David Ignatius)
Stopping at nothing to win:
Thinking about the Palin choice, you begin to ponder other moves McCain has made on the road to winning the Republican nomination. McCain was right a few years ago to warn that Bush's tax cuts would have potentially ruinous fiscal consequences; now he favors extending the cuts that have produced a crisis of debt and deficit. Why did he switch his position, other than political opportunism?...In May 2006, after McCain had courted the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an effort to win conservative support, I asked him if he was bending his principles for the sake of winning. "I don't want it that badly," McCain answered. "I will continue to do what is right…If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil." He was right.

Washington Post (Eugene Robinson)
The Scream Machine:
There was a time when Republicans campaigned on their ideas, programs and values. This year -- lacking ideas, programs or values -- John McCain and Sarah Palin are running for the White House on an elaborate fictional narrative of victimhood…Creating the false impression that Democrats and journalists are unfairly attacking Palin serves another purpose as well: It helps create the impression that legitimate and necessary questions about her record -- such as her one-time support for the Bridge to Nowhere or her history of seeking the congressional earmarks she now claims to reject -- are somehow out of bounds.

Chicago Tribune (Steve Chapman)
To McCain the truth is expandable:
McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe. He has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an election. What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul.

Chicago Tribune (Frank James)
“McCain plays dirty on Obama & sex-ed:”
So the McCain ad, in the way it contorts the truth, is pretty shocking from a candidate who has promised to bring change and reform to Washington, a man who's urging Americans to live for a cause larger than themselves. This is an old-fashioned, unreconstructed politics whose goal, first and foremost, is to get the candidate elected, the truth be damned. McCain has said he'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war. But it appears from this ad he'd rather lose any purchase he has on straight-talk than lose this presidential election.

Chicago Tribune (Eric Zorn)
`Sex ed' ad educates us on the character of John McCain:
The surprise came at the end: I'm John McCain and I approved this message. With that infamous admission, McCain surrendered his integrity and signaled a willingness to say or do anything to get elected… We used to expect better from John McCain. No longer.

TIME (Joe Klein)
A new rule here:
Rather than do the McCain campaign's bidding by wasting space on Senator Honor's daily lies and bilge--his constant attempts to divert attention from substantive issues--I'm going to assume that others will spend more than enough time on the sewage that Steve Schmidt is shoveling and, from now on, try to stick to the issues.

TIME (Joe Klein)
Apology Not Accepted:
He is responsible for one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics, so sleazy that I won't abet its spread by linking to it, but here's the McClatchy fact check.. I just can't wait for the moment when John McCain--contrite and suddenly honorable again in victory or defeat--talks about how things got a little out of control in the passion of the moment. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.

TIME (Joe Klein)
Another McCain Flip Flop:
Army Times, which is not--last time I checked--a radical left wing publication, takes John McCain to task for changing his position on the Future Combat Systems program. This is yet another example of how running for President has driven McCain off the deep end. In the past, he was one of the more consistent voices against foolish Pentagon weapon systems. Here's a program that McCain previously wanted to end. Then Obama says he wants to slow-walk it...and McCain--reflexively, it appears, and unable to recall that he previously opposed it--decides to support it.

New York Times (Paul Krugman)
Blizzard of Lies:
I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come…And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country? What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

New York Times (Editorial):
The most disheartening aspect of a scurrilous Republican ad falsely accusing Barack Obama of promoting sex education for kindergarten children is its closing line: “I’m John McCain, and I approved this message.” This from that straight-talker of yore, who fervidly denounced the 2004 Bush campaign’s Swift Boat character attacks on John Kerry’s military record. What a difference four years makes, especially after Mr. McCain secured the nomination by hiring some of the same low-blow artists from the Bush campaign.

New York Times (Larry Rohter):
The advertisement [“Disrespectful”] is the latest in a number that resort to a dubious disregard for the facts. The nonpartisan political analysis group Factcheck.org has already criticized “Disrespectful” as “particularly egregious,” saying that it “goes down new paths of deception,” and is “peddling false quotes.”

New York Times (Michael Cooper and Jim Rutenberg)
McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions:
Mr. McCain came into the race promoting himself as a truth teller and has long publicly deplored the kinds of negative tactics that helped sink his candidacy in the Republican primaries in 2000. But his strategy now reflects a calculation advisers made this summer — over the strenuous objections of some longtime hands who helped him build his “Straight Talk” image — to shift the campaign more toward disqualifying Mr. Obama in the eyes of voters.

ABC News-Political Punch (Jake Tapper):
One can only imagine what the John McCain of 2004 – who called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads “dishonest and dishonorable” – would say about this ad… I suppose one could twist this stuff any way you want if your only point is to make an inflammatory charge. And win an election… The New York Times’ “Checkpoint” (“Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy “), Factcheck.org (“Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners”) and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker ("McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive") say the ad is a gross distortion. I agree -- in both senses of the word "gross."

AP (Charles Babington):
The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak. Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He said Friday that Palin never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor, even though she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.

What if the News Ran the McCain-"Cunt" Story?

Warning: The following web video contains... well, some "colorful" language, but also a rather salient point. Viewer attention is advised.

A Special Comment on 9/11

The floor is yours, Mr. Olbermann.

In What Respect, Charlie?

Charlie Gibson, thank you. Thank you for showing us that in studying for a pretty rough mid-term, let alone the biggest comprehensive final exam called running our country, that you can't cram for it. You just can't.

By the way, she gets really feisty at 7:56, and Charlie schools Palin at 8:40.



Recommended viewing:
Look. I've waited tables for five years. That makes me infintesimally more qualified than Palin to be VP!



Recommended reading:
Huffington Post includes two huge blunders in one entry
ABC News excerpts of the Palin interview

Barack ON! Petition

Dear Friends, Readers, and Organizers of all stripes,

I am working with Ben Bosley in circulating a petition to help bring Obama to Tucson. The petition is called Barack ON! and we would like to show our future president just how much of a fan base he has here in the Solar City.

Update: Let's get local candidates to coordinate our effort. Ben Bosley has two email address for local Congresspersons -- Michelle Crow from the Grijalva campaign and Zach from the Giffords campaign. Send a polite email urging them to visit this page, print up the petitions, and distribute them at their HQs and events.



You can help this petition along in two ways. You can visit Google Documents to save and print your own PDF copy of the petition. (Download FoxIt Reader if you need a program that can read PDF files.) You can also e-mail me or Ben, and we'll e-mail you a copy.

(Note: The Google Docs version does not have the Progress photo. In converting it into PDF format, Docs jacked up the spacing.)

I've been telling people, "All it takes is one sheet." Why? There are 25 lines. If ten people can get a sheet filled, that's 250 signatures. Twenty makes 500. One hundred makes 2500 signatures. It doesn't take much, but like the persisting theme of his campaign, everyone can give just a little bit and it makes a huge difference!

With over a million people living in this city -- all those bumper stickers and yard signs -- he's got a huge following here. While we are pretty short on time until Election Day, we can still make a big statement.

Please help with the petition. You and your city and your country will thank you.

Best wishes,
Dee Hill Zuganellli
Grassroots Organizer
Tucson for Obama

Why White Women Should Fight Sarah Palin

Courtesy of fellow grassroots organizer, Jane Haigh. She passed along an interesting article from her history professor, Karen Anderson, Ph.D.:

When John McCain introduced Sarah Palin as his choice to be the Vice-President, she stated that she would advance Hillary Clinton’s efforts to break the glass ceiling American women face in national politics. When Clinton was a candidate, however, Palin said that she could not support her because she was “whining” about sexism in the media. Sarah Palin is a freeloader and an ingrate. She takes advantages of the opportunities presented to her by generations of activists while doing nothing to safeguard or advance those rights. Of course, her partisans are now complaining that media criticisms of her experience and qualifications are sexist. These charges are both hypocritical and deceptive.

Palin’s partisans label as sexist both the idea that she cannot serve in national office while she tries to meet the needs of her family and the idea that she is unqualified for her office. They are right about the former, but dead wrong about the latter. Her lack of any national or international experience, her record as a mayor and a governor, and her stands on policy issues are all fair game. American freedom is based on the existence of a free press willing to hold all politicians accountable for their actions. I half expected to see the ghost of Spiro Agnew rise up at the Republican National Convention last night to bemoan the “nattering nabobs of negativism” in the American media.

Palin’s record on women’s issues is thin, but her speech to the Republican National Convention illuminates her views sufficiently. She offered herself as one who will fight against the great bogeymen of the Republican Party: “big” government and high taxes. Leaving aside the gross misrepresentations of Barack Obama’s positions on these issues and her unwillingness even to mention the gargantuan federal deficits (taxes on the present and the future) left by every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, I want to focus on the implicit anti-feminism of her rhetoric.

First, American women and people of color need government do to its job well in order that they might have a modicum of economic opportunity and well being. Women’s wages still lag far behind men’s, yet John McCain has refused to support the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, proposed in order to undo a recent reactionary court decision that shields employers from accountability for any wage discrimination that occurred more than six months before a worker files a complaint. McCain claims it would only invite lawsuits. That, of course, is the point. Workers who experience discrimination in pay should have access to the courts.

Moreover, women and people of color need an administration committed to enforcing all discrimination laws, to putting teeth back into the Wagner Act so that workers can form labor unions to improve their wages and working conditions, to ensuring the enforcement of environmental laws so that all of us are protected from dangerous pollutants at work and at home, and to a strong Social Security system so that low wages will not consign millions of American workers to dire destitution in their old age. Palin has never mentioned her positions on any of these issues, except to question whether global warming is accountable for climate change in Alaska. What are Palin’s economic policies or her views on questions of social inequality? We don’t know and will not know unless American voters demand that she offer something more substantial than deceptive charges and hyperbolic rhetoric.

This raises another issue that should be a concern to all Americans. Palin’s reaction to information that challenges her ideologies or values is to place herself firmly on the side of ignorance. From her attempts to remove books from the Wassila, Alaska library to her desire to have creationism taught as science to her support for abstinence only sex education, Palin has worked to repress ideas at odds with her own. Whether you examine studies of the outcomes of abstinence only education (high rates of sexually transmitted diseases for those who hold the line against intercourse and high numbers of “drop-outs” from the prescribed behaviors), you find that they don’t work. Nonetheless, the Republicans keep touting them as the moral response to social change. The most notable example of the failure of this approach, of course, is her own daughter. If Palin and her allies were not so willing to impose their values on all Americans, this would not be a public issue.

Where does Sarah Palin stand on services for the large numbers of pregnant teens who do not come from families of privilege and cannot or will not opt for a “shotgun wedding” to set things right? All we know for sure is that she cut funding for the Covenant House in Alaska. Among its services is a residential program for pregnant teens which provides training and other forms of support for them. In general, she and her running mate seem oblivious to the problems confront single mothers throughout this country. McCain even opposed a proposed federal program to ensure that all American children have health care. As many women have already noted, the question is not whether Sarah Palin can balance work and family, but whether the millions of American women who struggle to do so without Palin’s level of privilege will find their lives improved by a McCain/Palin administration. The answer to that is a resounding NO.

Finally, of course, she opposes abortion in all circumstances. Republicans like to talk about freedom, but their notion of freedom seems to boil down to the right of small businesses and corporations alike to do whatever they please. Mine includes the right of all Americans to have full access to all reproductive choices and services. This is utterly crucial to women. We already have to take the marketplace on its own sexist terms. We need some control and assistance (affordable child care, flextime, and other reasonable accommodations to the work-family dilemma) in order that we can manage our lives and claim some degree of economic independence.

Sarah Palin is the perfect vehicle for the reactionary right’s message. In her short political career, she has already shown a kind of Nixonian mean-spiritedness, firing several Wasilla city employees who disagreed with her to replace them with unqualified people who owed everything to her. Her distrust of all who disagree with any of her views or goals is disturbing enough, but the power of her folksy just us “gals” and “dudes” political rhetoric to obscure her radical right agenda is even more dangerous. Her sarcastic, sneering references to Barack Obama and to community organizers everywhere reveals her complete contempt for all real reformers, for all who work to secure fundamental changes in American society. The Democrats will ignore this perky thug at their own risk.

For my part, I know that I owe my rights (including the basic right to vote), my workplace opportunities, and some cultural acceptance of women outside of traditional domestic roles to generations of social activists. I know that men and women in the civil rights, labor, and feminist movements risked their reputations, jobs, and, indeed, their very lives to secure my rights and freedoms. As a white woman, I am deeply grateful to the civil rights movement for expanding our sense of social justice and providing baseline legislation, particularly the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so that discrimination became less prevalent in our society. I benefited from this and will never forget that this legacy must be protected and extended so that future generations of women, men, people of color, and whites will be able to realize their full potential as workers, political actors, and community members.

And, yes, I, too, come from a small town.

Read more of Dr. Anderson's perspectives here.

Distortion and Nausea

This is a letter that I had written to Fight the Smears this evening, commenting on the latest slime spewing from the McCain campaign.

---

Dear Obama,

Hi. I'm Dee, and I am a supporter hailing from Tucson, Arizona. I am a student at the University of Arizona and have been working with a few grassroots groups and the Pima County Democratic HQ since moving here a couple of months ago. I am a proud supporter, and what I heard on The Rachel Maddow Show made me violently ill.

The McCain-Palin campaign released a nasty ad, one that got my immediate attention. The ad shows your smiling face and a voiceover narrating something to the effect of your bill being designed to teach sex education to young children. It was a repeat of something taken grossly out of context from July 2007. Yes, you said the words "age-appropriate," but your full quote reads, "But it's the right thing to do, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools" (emphasis added).

Apparently, this video footage from YouTube didn't get all that italics either.

Here's why I get pissed off reading this, Mr. Obama. One, if I pulled that stint in a grad school paper, I would get my butt handed back to me with a red "F" stamped on it for academic dishonesty. I can paraphrase content and condense ideas only if I preserve the original intention of the articles or books that I read. If I change the message or distort it, then I'm lying about a claim and using a faulty buttress for my arguments. But second, and more upsetting to my stomach, is the fact that you're a guy of some Christian background and depth who has two lovely daughters, and I can hardly believe that you would have such a slackened attitude about rearing Sasha and Malia like that, so I wouldn't think you would encourage anything different for anyone else's children. You're a father, a good one at that, who wouldn't practice inappropriate teachings at home.

I listen to Maddow's commentary from her guest, and they were having a short debate about McCain's deliberate attempts to invoke a cultural war on you. They couldn't beat you with inexperience. They couldn't beat you with Reverend Wright. They couldn't make the unpatriotic thing stick, or the lapel pin issue stick, or the "bitter" thing stick, so they're not going to call you not-an-American; they'll call you an ideological pervert. Why don't they just throw out the n-word if they're looking for an expedient rush job?

Mr. Obama, as a supporter who respects your direction of running a clean campaign, I implore you: Please take 30 seconds, 60 seconds max to get on camera. Just you. No noise, no background images, no approval rating. And I want you to tell McCain that this accusation makes you violently sick like it did to me. I don't care if you have kids, or don't have kids, or don't want kids. I think the vast majority of Americans get sick enough of the idea of anything terrible or dirty happening to our children, and that your bill -- yes, your bill -- sought to do something about that. But instead of dignifying that like a real gentleman, McCain and his sidekick Palin want to make you a pervert for standing up for the people that can stand for themselves.

Please, Mr. Obama. You can talk about the economy and health care and everything else right with your proposals for the rest of the 60-odd days. Just make one day about looking McCain straight in the eye and telling him to not trivialize something important like this EVER again.

Respectfully yours,
Dee Hill Zuganelli
Obama/Biden '08
ENOUGH!

Whoa, No Maverick!

The latest advertisement that was linked to the Huffington Post, lost, and then resubmitted elsewhere on YouTube.

BarackRoll'd

No, I'm not kidding.



Thanks for the lollerskates, The Margins of Error. :)

Say What, Rick Davis?

"Senator McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, explained this week that the Republican plan is to make this election more about the personalities of the candidates than it is about the issues."



Did we hear that right, America? Are we playing that Community Chest card from Monopoly? The "win second place in beauty contest, collect $10" card which, ironically enough, describes McCain's choice in a vice-presidential pick? I just want to make sure I didn't hallucinate my way through that seven-minute video segment.

After the jump, Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America comments on the Walter Reed (Middle School) background art slip-up at McCain's acceptance speech:

Recommended reading:
Here is the blog of Adam Kokesh, a protester present during McCain's speech holding a black banner from the rafters reading, "McCain votes against veterans." I recall the three- or four-second glimpse caught on camera before he was ejected. McCain's response? "Ground-noise and static," to the protesters of the crowd.

On the Ground

Some credit is in order. First, to Katherine Adam. who met with Arizona women supporters, in all political shades, of Barack Obama, to talk about the role of building collaboration and reframing debates. Her new book is entitled The New Feminized Majority.

She shared a useful tip with me about crossing political borders: Obama uses language not as rhetoric but as a sincere effort at connection. Adam finds that there is a majority presence of progressive voice -- not by much, 60 to 40% -- but still more statistically significant than the prior few elections would let on. Republicans succeed at using divisive, value-laden language. Democrats can benefit from value-laden stuff, too, but they need to do so in a way that suggests, "You know, we may not see eye to eye, but our families are probably struggling together in more ways than you think." This invites individual conversations about how politics should change and in what ways it would serve more of us out there. It just so happens that Obama has the everyday person in mind to help.

Second credit goes to a fellow organizer from Tucson for Obama, Peter Burns, who had this to say about McCain's speech tonight. Here is the full transcript received via e-mail with added emphasis from me:

I have to admit, I was getting a little worried there for a while about the newfound excitement growing behind the McCain/Palin ticket. But then John McCain spoke. I will sleep better than I have since Grandpappy Fred told me his bedtime story two nights ago. I think the scene that captured it all best was when the cams were panning the audience after Cindy McCain's speech. It settled on an attractive young blonde woman with unbelievably large black buttons on her sweater. She was full-on yawning. Mouth wide, no hand-cover, no apologies. Just flat-out yawning. Then, when she was done, she broke out into a second gaping yawn. The camera operator must have realized his shot was live and he quickly panned left. I was left wondering if that poor girl, with the oversized black buttons might have yawned herself to death.

All this was going on while they were playing Chuck Berry's Johnny Be Good, one of many great songs that are now forever ruined in my mind by the RNC. Can Kool and the Gang and Heart get together and sue the RNC for damages. I bet Ann and Nancy Williams will never play Barracuda live again. As I saw the poor girl yawning to Johnny Be Good I was wondering why they chose this song. Was it to try to remind McCain to please try to hold his temper? It almost worked.

He smiled his way through his introduction, his approach to the podium, and the longwinded cheering. It was about the third wave of applause and cheers that his old temper looked like it was about to take over. Then the USA chants started in and I swear I heard him growl just a bit. I thought for sure he was about to reflexively let out a "SHUT UP!" But then he seemed to realize he was neither in a closed committee hearing, or standing on the floor of Congress, so he politely reeled in the rage. He should have yelled for the crowd to shut up. They say a speech should have a strong introduction and that would have certainly been a strong introduction. The intro he went for instead, was not. That set the tone for, pretty much, the rest of the speech.

But I will say now in his defense that as boring and unmoving as his speech was, it sounded like a JFK, MLK and Obama oration all wrapped into one compared to his wife's. What can I say about Cindy McCain's speech that a corpse couldn't explain better? I was struck by this notion: the late great Tammy Faye would have been pleased with Cindy's appearance. And I would have to agree. She did not look like some canary-colored Vampiress tonight like she did last night alongside Mrs. Bush. She told some heart-warming stories about her understanding of impoverished nations and their people. I hope she donated her $300,000 getup form the previous night to the people of Bangledesh. They could make a tent out of her de la Renta when those pesky monsoons come. Sadly, she didn't confirm or deny if her husband did in fact drop the C-bomb on her. And, in her defense her make-up didn't seem "painted on", nor did she look like a trollop (though if she did, no one but John and his 96 year old mother would think to use that word to describe her). She spoke without saying anything. She smiled without seeming kind or nice. Basically she left me with the same feeling I get every time I hear her speak or see her walk into a room: fear. She reminds me of the Snow Queen from Narnia, ready to cast the world into an icy frozen existence while her army of snow leopards wreaks havoc on all the innocent little deer of the world. But that's just me.

John's speech wasn't THAT bad. It wasn't much better though. He was introduced by a voice over from none other than Grandpappy Fred, which made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. I felt safe and wondered if summer might not last forever. Before that, I saw a video which taught me a lot about John McCain. Not that he was a POW. I have heard that countless times. I get it. I appreciate it. John is a hero. But do I have to give over my country and my civil liberties. Just because he was a prisoner, do we all have to be? No I knew John's war record. I didn't know his father's (not to that degree anyway), nor did I know his grandfather. Both 4 star military men. That's when it hit me. The White House is John's 4 stars. He couldn't get them with is injuries and all, so he's going to outdo his forefathers by getting promoted even higher than they ever did. It's an old macho ambition thing! Now I get it! That's why he sacrificed his own will in selecting Lieberman or Ridge for Palin. That is why he woudn't budge on an unjust war no matter how the real intelligence changed. Ambition. Blind, dangerous Ambition. It all makes sense now. Like Bush, McCain has Daddy Issues. Great! We can all pay the price for those, too! [Ed.: Brilliant!]

The speech itself was not only a snoozer in its delivery, but in content as well. And I am not talking about vocabulary, though someone needs to tell Mr. McCain, and Mrs. Palin for that matter, that the word is pundit, not 'pundint'. But that is a trifle. I mean the real content - all the stuff that makes a simple speech into a hearty stew. This speech was a watery, salty, bitter porridge that left me feeling like little waifish Oliver wanting "more sir". The most significant thing he said in this speech was that the Republican party has been ruined to its core by corruption. He admitted that they - I presume he meant he and Strom Thurmund - had all gone to Washington 120 years ago to change Washington, "but Washington changed them." Now he was proposing to fix it... as a Republican. Isn't that like a cop saying he's going to clean up the streets by dealing crack for the gang-bangers?

Other than his accurate assessment of the Republican party, there was little meat at all in his speech. There was an attempt to liven it up about half way through. Good speeches often rely on repetition. McCain tried a variation on this method at one point. He tried to mix in a simple equation with the repetition. The equation looks a little like this: "My [insert your policy here] will [insert something good here]." Then add, "His [insert your opponent's policy here] will [insert something bad here]. The result should be a volley of "Yays" and "Boos" respectfully allotted to you and then your opponent. McCain failed to set the equation up well and it wasn't until he'd nearly run though his list of inserts that the crowd knew when to "Yay" or "Boo". It all sounded confused and a little awkward. I figured by then, the girl with the big black buttons was dead asleep in a corner somewhere.

Speeches are supposed to have attention-getting intros; this one didn't. They are also supposed to have rousing endings; this one did! It sure was rousing alright. It got me so excited; I wanted to run out and punch my neighbor in the head! McCain got the repetition trick right at the closing of his speech. He decided to repeat the word "fight" over and over. This is a great tactic as almost all of us, unless home-schooled, have a memory from childhood of a playground scuffle where the fight-fight chant stirred great emotion in us - either because we were getting pummeled, we were pummeling or we were watching one of our friends either getting pummeled or pummeling someone. Well, there weren't too many home-schoolers in that audience, I can tell you. Everyone went wild for the fight-fight-chant. I did too. I bet even the yawning girl was up, wide awake, and pounding hell out of someone! And I will tell you something else. I don't even know who he was asking us to fight, but I was all for it. Obama and Biden? Sure, fight 'em! Big Oil? Sure, I'll fight them too! The Iranians? Fight 'em! The Russians? Hell yes! That Putin thinks he's such a big shot! Let's fight him! Mother Nature? With all her stupid global warming and hurricanes! Let's fight her too!

But wait. Haven't we been fighting anyone and everyone for the past eight years? Where has all that fighting got us? Maybe McCain's conclusion wasn't so great after all.

Read more of Peter's insights at Arizona for Obama.

Need a Laugh?

Thanks, Colbert...



...and Jon Stewart.



Recommended viewing:
Oops! The mike's still on!

Lessons from Kindergarten

I suppose I was really little -- maybe two or three years old -- when I was taught some basic tenets that eventually get reinforced in kindergarten classes. Listen to a grown-up when you're being talked to. Do what you're told to do.

Some footage hosted by ABC indicating that even when McCain publicized how the Republican National Convention will be scaled back in order to divert more relief toward victims of Hurricane Gustav, apparently, they didn't get the message.

Thankfully, Gustav did not reach its full catastrophic potential, but still left about $12 billion in infrastructural, property, and flooding damages, says Australian outlet, the Herald Sun.



Meanwhile, CNN anchor Campbell Brown convinces Americans that Tucker Bounds, spokesman for the McCain campaign, would do better to ingest his broccoli and brussels sprouts than to actually answer the question on Palin's foreign policy credentials.



Much appreciation to Len at First Door on the Left.

From Kate Linthicum at the Los Angeles Times: "Jon Klein, president of CNN, has issued a statement in support of Brown's interview. 'Campbell Brown did what journalists do," Klein said Tuesday evening. "She asked fair and important questions in a respectful way and was simply trying to get a straight answer to a straightforward question.' "

Recommended viewing:
Rachel Maddow fires off the littany list on MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" and discusses the hush order falling off the bottom half of the ticket.



Recommended reading:

1. I'm not a huge fan of the verbiage "________ sucks," but here are a solid 16 reasons why Palin makes a poor vice presidential candidate for McCain with numerous citations linked.
2. McCain takes ball, goes home [second source].
3. Time magazine columnist, Joe Klein, responds: "The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme."
4. Track isn't deploying on September 11, and even if he were, it would be illegal to release that information. I bet Palin didn't get the memo on that either.
5. Or the one on, "Hey, leave the kids outta this!" (so that we can use them for ourselves).
6. Fiscal conservative, my natural tan behind!

Anne Kilkenny

Excellent and thoughtful note posted by an Alaskan native, Anne Kilkenny, who said in some correspondence to me: "I'm about educating voters. If you run it as that, ok."

The following note is taken in full from Ms. Kilkenny. You can read it for yourself here. I have only cleaned up the spacing from the original page; I have left the syntax and mechanics fully intact. Ms. Kilkenny is not taking an official endorsement of any presidential candidate. The editor of the Brainsplitter Project applauds Ms. Kilkenny for her willingness to let her content get published on an Internet blog.

ABOUT SARAH PALIN
I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state. In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.

She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen
contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her. When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”.

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President. There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.

CLAIM VS FACT
[Ed. Cleaned up some spacing and modified into a list arrangement.]

• “Hockey mom”: true for a few years
• “PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
• “NRA supporter”: absolutely true
• social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
• pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
• “Pro-life”: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
• “Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska.
  No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
• political maverick: not at all
• gutsy: absolutely!
• open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
• has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
• ”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
• fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
• pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
• pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
• pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
• pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny +Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & axation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly hat I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

[Ed. If you try to try your luck anyway, here is some contact info for the City of Wasilla.]

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.

Anne Kilkenny
annekilkenny@hotmail.com
August 31, 2008

Recommended viewing:

A hilarious panel "discussion" vetting Sarah Palin's experience:

Your Video is My Terrorist Threat

Below, eleven minutes of footage detailing the preemptive raid on a group of eyewitness journalists deemed of protest and capture cause in St. Paul, site of the Republican National Convention. The group goes by the name of I-Witness and is based out of New York. Here is their mini-documentary:

The Easy Button

"John McCain's temperament makes it clear that he's not cut out to be President of the United States."



This is Dr. Phillip Butler. Dr. Butler carries a rather impressive personal story, biography, and vita and, despite his many achievements, dictates a fairly simple and straightforward message about why he does not support John McCain's candidacy. Appalled by his constant self-qualification of being a fit leader based on his POW experience, disenchanted with McCain's growing efforts to pander to his own base despite how that would undercut his heretofore "maverick reputation," and an increasingly evident personal profile that would enable rash and uncritical decision making (unless that happened to involve judgment of choices Obama makes on his personal endeavors, policies, or campaign conduct), Butler is appreciably worried. With saber rattling directed at Russia and Georgia, a nicer-put-than-naive confidence in the American economy, and an ego-driven rationalization of how he knows how to take care of American policy, McCain has a lot to worry people about with good reason.

We think of the red button in ominous terms, of course. Even the Simpsons movie parodied metacharacter Itchy "accidentally" pressing the button (completely with eyes closed and smile on face) and launching countless nuclear warheads to blow up Scratchy, stranded on the moon's surface. We also see variations of the red button, particularly in the Staples "easy" brand marketing. What do these buttons have in common? In any sense, it's the notion that with fell swoop of button press, a set of highly complex and complicated situations could lend themselves to quick relief, and with all of the chaos going on at home, in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world, Americans are long overdue and deserving of a quick fix. Such rhetoric crosses into public policy as Republicans often extol the virtues of immediate offshore drilling -- a necessary, let alone unquestioned easy button topic -- while Democrats and various energy officials are clear that, even if we could dredge up oil, we would only supply a few percentage points more to the global economy and that the few pennies saved would be reappropriated into supply costs.

While I can appreciate that McCain means well in his efforts to want to help struggling middle class families, he operates from a slanted view -- that is, a life lived with an easy button branded right on his hip. With systems of economic privilege in place, those sets of voters can continue to maintain rather black-white false dichotomies seen in the real world because the ability to take care of needs and wants requires no real afterthought or overexposure of struggle. People of privilege worry about money and gasoline, of course, but they do so from a perspective of maintaining their state of privilege as it is. If it cuts into the thousand, hundred thousand, million, or even billions saved, then it is of threatening consequence. Meanwhile, some sets of working class families may have absolutely no idea of what it means to have a stable financial outlook. That the reality that makes up their existence is fraught with paycheck-to-paycheck struggle; that indulgences or events with little purpose of reason often get pushed aside; and that even smaller-scale burdens like car repair or needing a regular physical screening can make or break an already brittle budget.

Profanity and rash judgment aside, today's theory of social psychology class talked about a difference in letting research tell you objective facts about the world and how experimenters start issuing prescriptions for how people should live based on those findings. It may make more sense to invest in exercise and eating as well as one can in order to better health, as much as one's income would allow it to do so. It is different when, for example, Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin uses her young daughter's pregnancy as a universal fix for how people should handle teen pregnancy. Not just pro-life and/or no abortions tolerated, but also a de facto insistence that families should rally around and direct all attention on the newborn, insistence for the young teens to seek marriage off the bat, and to put the real life worries of work and school and career dreams on hold. Fair enough. It works well for two relatively well-off families from an insulated geographical system equally committed to those goals. It also makes a great foreground for such conservative values. However, it ignores the reality for many families that that is an extra mouth to feed when one or more may not get adequate nutrition as it is. Or, it idealizes that every family just magically rallies around a crisis situation and falls into place perfectly. The universality argument -- even if you take a hard scientific look -- just fails to come to order.

I need a President who understands that quick fixes are all but impossible in 2008, and that they won't snow me into thinking otherwise.