Turning Off The Lights, Stepping Out Into Sunshine

If you’re still reading at this point, that’s impressive. If you were the one person who ever did read this thing, thanks for all the fish. As you can probably tell by the title, I’ve decided to call it a day with this blog, even as I could’ve gone on indefinitely in hiatus mode, which is sort of this thing worked anyway with a post every 3-6 months.

The political writing can be fun, but I’m no political writer but more of a ranter, and I just have no interest or the resources in making this thing timely, and there are so many other places that do it in a superior manner. Kos, Digby, and the like are great places to go for great writing and constant updates. For great commentary on the Middle East, Juan Cole at Informed Comment has no peer.

Admittedly, some of the wind in my angry sails has been deflated with the election of Barack Obama, the dominance of Democrats in both houses of Congress, and the slip into irrelevance by the Republicans, who now seem to be more of a comedy act touring the country parodying their greatest hits from decades past (Teabag parties? Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Rick Santelli, Miss California, and Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, what the fuck happened to these people?). The country has been in as dire a state as it has been in a long time, but hopefully, the right people are in place to stop the slide, and even grow the country in new, dramatic ways as the 21st century progresses. But of course, things will never be perfect, and the Democrats aren’t our saviors.

I hope the Republicans make a comeback some day. Seriously, I do—opposition in a democracy is a thing to be cherished not despised. I just hope it’s sans the looniness, the destructiveness, and the hatred. I’m not sure where that leaves them though. Somehow, they were a viable party for a long time, even if I disagreed with most of their platform. It was only five years or so ago we were talking about John McCain as a possible Democratic VP pick (before he had to go the required loony route to be a Republican nominee).

As for me, well, it’s on to other things, as is the way life works. More blogs, different subjects, different names. At the beginning of this blog, I gave the image of a man sitting alone, insulated from the world. Just imagine me now, getting out of my chair, reaching for that door handle after so many years and opening it, the light of the world blinding me as I open it and step into it, at long last restored. All right, that’s a bit dramatic. I’m supposed to be a cynic, after all. As my favorite Republican former movie actor is famous for saying, hasta la vista, baby!

In Our Time

In case you missed it last night—perhaps you were on an interstellar voyage—Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama gave a speech. In this speech, he showed America and the world what he’s about, but he also showed Americans and the world what America is about. You have to see it or read the transcript to get it. He covered everything, eloquently and intelligently, and was fearless without using fear as a weapon, and he sent a message that he’s ready to fight. Simply put, it’s a landmark moment, and Barack Obama is a politician that’s cut in the mold of JFK. Bill Clinton is a great speaker and inspirer, but Obama’s got him beat.

Now, we’re bound to hear a deluge of stuff about how Obama hasn’t swayed voters (the media is bound to find a stray Clinton supporter somewhere who’s not convinced—who cares really?), hasn’t gotten a big bounce as expected (if it’s not a 15 or 20 point bounce, they’ll indicate he’s failed or not catching on as hoped), still hasn’t given us a clear picture of who he is (to which I say, what the fuck else do you need?). But if you’re actually paying attention, you’re witnessing history, and not just the fact that Obama is the first African-American presidential nominee. He made the case for himself and the Democratic party and took down McCain, Bush, the Republican party, and all the failed policies and campaigns of fear that have marked their time in power. Not only did he make a case for progressive politics, but also a case against conservatism.

But Obama, in brilliant rhetoric that he’s capable of and that the American public has rarely seen in a long time, took his case and, in an inspiring manner, took the questions about him and mutated them into questions to America without disrespecting Americans but instead respecting us enough to hold us to something better . Do you want something better, not just for you and your family but for the United States of America? Do you want to boldly go into the future as Americans and not schlep into it head down, using nothing but fear to pace you along?

Using Dennis Kucinich’s words from a previous night, this is the time for America to wake up. Obama said in his speech that his campaign was not about him but it was about the American people. Right now, at this moment in history, it’s up to the American people to chose the failed policies of the past in John McCain—policies that will lead the United States sliding further in its worldwide relevance and influence and standard bearer of democracy and peace—or go with Barack Obama, who reflects a change to someone who recognizes the greatness that America was and can be again if it rejects conservative policies as they’ve been played the last eight years (and even longer).

Update: John McCain picks Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his VP choice. It’s hard not to see this as a reaction to the Obama campaign and its seeming trajectory straight to the White House. The Democrats, of course, cannot afford to take her lightly and underestimate her; with the way campaign has been conducted thus far, I don’t fear this as much as I would have in previous years. On the surface, it appears that McCain has ceded the argument of Obama’s experience (he at least has 4 years of experience in the Senate, which is a national policy job) and has opted to go with someone who will appeal to the conservative base, and I think it magnifies the choice of VP when that might not have been necessary (magnified already because he’s 72 and, let’s face it, on the wrong side of a human lifespan, but magnified even more when going with someone with as little experience). If he wanted a woman as VP, he could’ve gone with someone with more experience, like Kay Bailey Hutchison, or Olympia Snowe, or Christine Whitman. You wonder if this is an attempt to steal some of the youth or Hillary/women voters thunder from Obama, but you’d have to think that Hillary Clinton, a true fighter and Democrat, would not be thrilled with the prospect of a Republican woman becoming the first female president.

A Long High Drive, Deep to Left Field…

Obama’s speech—the text is here. It’s brilliant stuff, and it’s enough to make you feel that it’s possible to be inspired by our politicians and leaders once again.

In a different time in this country, such oratory could be uplifting and remarkable and a true “moment.” But that was in an America ascending, not one in decline. Look for the major media outlets to chop up his words into packaged sound bites and turn them against him. Don’t you know we’re working toward “post-partisan,” and we’re already “post-racial,” and John McCain is a great hero guy who invited the media to his ranch for a BBQ?

Even before this speech, the takedown of Barack Obama had already begun. It’s a cynical, multi-faceted takedown. Just like the “swiftboating” of John Kerry served to not only destroy his candidacy but also deter any future soldiers—most particularly, those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan then and now—from talking about the wars they fought in or running for political office opposing the militaristic party, this takedown is designed to not only destroy Barack Obama’s candidacy but the candidacy of future African Americans as well. After all, no candidate can be taken seriously if they are not a regular churchgoer, and a serious African American candidate will have gone to—you guessed it—a black church that may have a pastor similar to Rev. Wright. And this takedown has an added bonus—the voters energized by Obama, particularly the young, will be disillusioned and cynical about the whole process, particularly if Obama is not the Democratic nominee. Those feckless young voters can never be counted on to show up at the polls anyway.

The America we’re in now has a president who, in his eighth and final year in office, still can’t speak coherently unless he’s taking down his political enemies or talking about bombing the crap out of other countries. There is no leadership and there hasn’t been for quite some time.

We’ll inevitably hear about how Obama’s speech wasn’t “enough” (what the hell is “enough”?), and there will be the continued knocks on him that he’s inexperienced, he’s all fluff, he’s not a leader. The words he spoke today demonstrate leadership, but leadership to the media is only dressing up to be a fighter pilot, making light of great tragedy, and talking about patriotism and wearing your flag pin and who’s unpatriotic and un-American.

And speaking of lack of leadership, where are Bush, McCain, and Clinton at on this whole issue? I realize that all three are white, Bush and McCain could care less for various reasons, and that Clinton (as well as McCain) are the immediate beneficiaries of any wounds to Obama, but the racial issues that Obama talks about in his speech, as he makes clear, affect all of us.

Their silence indicates to me that political gamesmanship still trumps issues that matter. After all the shit that’s happened in this country—9/11, Katrina, the Iraq war, the subprime mortgage meltdown—politics still beats everything. No one demonstrates any leadership and reaches over and says, we got your back, we understand, we want to fully understand, and we also want to help in any way we can to bridge the divides in this country. No, everyone else seems content to just watch it happen and benefit when the media picks out some gotcha moments so that, when Obama is kicked to the curb and they’re in position to be president (or, like Bush, actually are president), they can tell us how they are the one to breach the divides in this country.

Perhaps I’m being naïve here, but is it too much for Clinton and McCain to say, look, we want to win, but not this way because America doesn’t win this way?

Conservatives Question Obama’s Blockbuster Rentals and a Potential “Project Mayhem” Presidency

Breaking news

A leak of Barack Obama’s Blockbuster video rentals shows that, in the summer of 2000, he rented the controversial film Fight Club, and kept it for two nights. While Mr. Obama has denounced terrorism and claims he has no ties to radical Islam, the film shows a troubled young man who evolves from seeking an outlet for his rage in underground fighting clubs to becoming a full blown terrorist who destroys buildings. The film being out for two full nights—the maximum for new movies at Blockbuster during that time before incurring late fees—leads to trouble questions as to why Mr. Obama held the film for two evenings and did not return it the same night or even the next day.

A source close to the Illinois legislature, who prefers to remain unnamed due to the sensitive nature of his employment, claims that Mr. Obama may have watched the film more than once.

It is entirely possible, though, that Mr. Obama was not able to watch the film the first night, watched the film the first night but, aware of the rental deadline, decided to wait until after the second night to return it, or did not watch the film in its entirety or at all.

“Busy people like Mr. Obama often rent movies but end up not being able to watch them because of their time commitments,” said Jonathan Santos, a Democratic strategist.

Still, the rental and its return time raises serious questions about the Illinois senator.

“We have to seriously question Mr. Obama’s patriotism if he did not denounce this movie and did not return it sooner than he did,” said Fred Jackson, a Republican strategist. “The film Fight Club advocates open confrontation, hostility toward law enforcement officials, and ultimately terrorism in the form of Project Mayhem. A person who has not denounced this film and who did not return it to the movie rental store within what only be considered a reasonable amount of time is not fit to be president.”

“Considering the tragedy that befell this country on 9/11, I cannot believe that Mr. Obama rented this film and held onto it for two evenings,” says Vince Toughman, a fellow at the Center for Responsibility in the American Public. “My question to Mr. Obama is, do you love America?”

George Tallon, a Democratic consultant, notes, “The movie came out in the fall of 1999, the rental in the spring of 2000, and 9/11 didn’t happen until September of 2001. Mr. Obama rented the movie in the summer of 2000, more than a year before that great tragedy. To somehow tie his movie rental choices that occurred a year before 9/11 to that event is patently absurd.”

Still, it may be difficult to convince conservatives of Mr. Obama’s movie choices, where they may fall in the timeline with regard to 9/11, and his loyalty to America.

Sean Hannity of Fox News radio and television says, “We may have free speech in this country, but speech isn’t free. Mr. Obama, in light of this Blockbuster scandal, I demand that you end your candidacy now and save America from what can only be a disingenuous, potentially lethal Project Mayhem presidency.”

The Obama campaign could not be reached for comment.

The Wright Stuff, or How Democratic Presidential Candidates Get Destroyed by the Right Wing and the Media

I guess now with the furor over Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the supposedly incendiary pastor of Barack Obama’s church and the now-departed spiritual advisor to his campaign, we can at least lay to rest the “Obama is a Muslim!” nonsense, eh? Of course not, I’m sure! Yeah, it’s quite farcical to go from “serious” discussions about Obama’s Muslim-ness (is he or isn’t he? He says no but, is he or isn’t he? groan) to now the condemnation of Obama by proxy because of his pastor and some remarks he may have made on the pulpit. Yes, his pastor. The last time I checked, and I’m no theology scholar, Islam didn’t have pastors. I guess the media would’ve been able to supply the missing transition here if they weren’t spending time at John McCain’s ranch enjoying a BBQ.

Beyond the fact here that this is a classic guilt by association, and beyond the fact that we can expect practically zero coverage about John McCain’s church, his churchgoing habits, and any spiritual beliefs he may or may not have, though we’ll hear plenty of unsupported fluff stories about he’s a “man of faith” or “deeply spiritual” (and by the way, has anybody ever seen the supposedly born-again George W. Bush attend a church service at his church? Oh, that’s right, spiritual matters are supposed to be private, and it would be wrong to follow the man to church if he even goes), this is classic racial division politics. I was not convinced of this until I actually heard Rev. Wright speak (his “God damn America” line is being played over and over by all the major networks—surprise, surprise!). He is speaking following the tradition of black Christian churches in this country. As a white male, I have little experience with this beyond what I’ve seen on tv, but I get the general flavor of it and realize that it’s supposed to be inflammatory (in general, it follows the sort of “fire and brimstone” sort of preaching), it’s supposed to be theatrical and follow a certain line of rhetoric, and, like any belief system worth its salt, supposed to challenge both your secular and religious point of view. Taking anything literally and out of context from such sermons, I believe, misses the point.

It all leads to a racial-spiritual-generational narrative that is being built bit by bit by the right wing and perpetrated by the media and it’s designed to destroy Barack Obama, who is the one person right now closest to being the presumptive Democratic nominee. This narrative is a shady one, designed to paint Obama as some sort of radical, dark-skinned spiritual follower (you know, like those ones who flew planes into the World Trade Center) who is some sort of Manchurian candidate who hates America and is running to destroy us all! Tacked on to that is the issue of black spirituality, which is labeled as being either radical Muslim or the sort of radical Christianity that Rev. Wright is supposed to demonstrate. The ultimate goal of the right wing regarding what I talked about in the first paragraph is to rhetorically link both things: the “radical” black Muslims represented by Louis Farrakhan (and Malcolm X too—oh, no, the ‘60s and those lefty destroy America pinkos!) and the “radical” black Christians represented by Rev. Wright are one and the same and they are all out to destroy you and America. Indeed, the right wing has consistently had to deal with a black populace that has deep ties to Christian faith—a faith that the right wing, for all intents and purposes, has claimed as its own—but yet overwhelmingly votes against them (probably more so than any other major demographic group). So, the only thing to do is discredit them, paint them as fake Christians, which, of course, is tied to some supposed hatred of America.

This is all garbage, of course, but it’s being played out right now. Whether it’s Obama supposedly plagiarizing Deval Patrick’s words (a black man as a thief), questions about Obama’s patriotism (he doesn’t always wear a flag pin or put his hand over his heart when the national anthem being played—a black man as America-hating radical), Obama trying drugs in his younger years (black man as drug addict), or, even our own side engaging in this, Geraldine Ferraro and her comments last week (Geraldine Ferraro? Geraldine Ferraro? Has anybody even seen her since 1984?), it’s about race and it’s designed to further divide us by people who take their talking points straight from the likes of Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News, and the ultimate goal is to destroy Barack Obama.*

Really, I’d like to hear what the candidates have to say about Bear Stearns, the state of the economy, and how they will either provide some relief in what is looking to be ugly economic times. Not in this time or country, I suppose. Perhaps this time next year, when the election is over and the wrong person is president and the economy is in even worse shape, we’ll read stories about how the candidates should’ve focused on the economy.

*To be fair, if Hillary Clinton were in Obama’s position right now, the narrative would be as destructive, but it would be led by gender not race. It would still be tied to some sort of radicalness, and it would probably have ties to the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Of course, other than her husband, no one currently alive in America has been scrutinized more, but they’ll either regurgitate the old stuff or make up shit. If it were John Edwards, it would be about lawyers (an acquaintance of his probably defended a person who was somehow thought to be connected to terrorists), hair cuts, and how Edwards’s wealth makes him a hypocrite to be an advocate for the lesser off. It doesn’t matter who the Democratic candidate is, this person will be assailed by the right-wing led media. The cumulative effect of years and years of this nonsense is that Democrats are terrible people who hate America and Republicans are great, patriotic people who you want to have a drink with.

More on the Police State

It would be nice to say that, if a Democrat wins the presidency, the Democrats hold onto the House, and also expand their majority in the Senate to a filibuster proof 60+, the police state system that has emerged since 9/11 will be dismantled, but I would be a sucker for believing that.

This would have to make some serious assumptions. For one, we’d have to believe Democrats are willing to combat corporations who are participating in and profiting from the emerging police state. They’re more likely than Republicans to take on corporations, but you have to figure that at most that’s half of them, and at best, this would be no more than 30% of either body of Congress. You can see how many were willing to let credit card companies have their way with screwing the populace, and how just uneager most of them are to stop wiretapping and to not grant immunity to telecom companies.

Another would be that they would stop worrying about being called “weak” on national security. This has been the standard operating procedure for decades now. If the Democrats take a position opposite to Republicans on matters deemed part of national security, they are called weak. Often, they meekly backtrack and just cede the argument to the Republicans, as if that doesn’t make you also look weak or even stop the other side from calling you weak in the future. This fear is why too many Democrats have to now backtrack, apologize, and restate their position on why they voted for the AUMF on Iraq back in 2002, which presents a new type of weakness in Republican-land: changing your position. Does anyone think controlling the government will change this? Of course not. Even with solid control, I still expect the Democrats to allow the Republicans to write the rules of the game.

Lastly, I think that the temptation to use this police state system for their own benefit will be far too great for them to resist, so the assumption would be, do they resist temptation and destroy it. It’ll be like the all powerful ring in Tolkien’s trilogy. They’ll think that they are the ones who can use it correctly to protect the country. But that’ll transform into desire for keeping power, which will lead to destroying their political opponents and opposition groups. The irony is that, faced with this, a deep minority Republican party changes the tune its held the last seven years and works to dismantle it. It’s all done for their selfish ends, of course, as they use the issue to label Democrats as fascists who want to watch every move you make (and the irony of the fact that the Republicans were actually fascists who were actually watching every move you made will be completely lost on them).

I think the sad fact we will learn is that once you allow a police state to exist, it becomes impossible to remove it regardless of the party in charge. If you think it’ll benefit your party, you’re a shortsighted fool. If you think you’ll just change it once your party has power, you’re in for a rude awakening when you find where your party really stands. This is why the Constitution was created—to protect people from tyranny, not so a tyranny could emerge claiming it was protecting the people. Unfortunately, I think the groundwork of tyranny has been laid and it will be very difficult to undo it.

Spitzer and the Police State

Eliot Spitzer, governor of New York, resigned today after admitting to being a client of a high-priced prostitution ring. This dramatic downfall is disappointing and, as painful as it is to see a Democratic star go down, his resignation is the right thing to do given the nature of the political environment we’re in. If this were Europe, say, he’d only go down if he were running the ring or having it operate out of the governor’s mansion. But this isn’t Europe. This is USA 2008, where sex outside of your marriage is more egregious than, say, starting a war under false pretenses and turning the nation’s intelligence on its people for your own political needs. You have to seriously wonder what Eliot Spitzer, a former attorney general and well immersed in the law, was thinking. Given what Bush and the Republicans have done to justice in this country—completely politicizing the process to the point where public servants serve the Republican party ahead of the public itself—he should’ve known better.

I’d venture that Spitzer was probably among the top 5 Democrats in the nation that were in office that had a target on his/her back, with the others being Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. Spitzer went after Wall Street and corporations, and I’m sure there’s uproarious schadenfreude occurring as I’m writing this at related institutions around the country. I’m sure that, to some degree, this will translate into negation of the work that Spitzer has done, meaning that his stance against corruption has now been rendered moot because he got busted buying the services of prostitutes, and judgments and laws will have to be reversed because they came from the immoral Spitzer.

I’m sure it will be considered tinfoil-hat conspiracy stuff to say that, with the assistance of corporations, a Republican-headed justice apparatus specifically targeted Spitzer, a Democrat, to destroy him. But with all the other “wild” conspiracy-theory type stuff that has emerged as truth—we were manipulated into war with Iraq, the government has been illegally spying on many Americans, U.S. attorneys were purged because they didn’t fall into lockstep with the Republican-led agenda, and the government has secretly used a vast network of rendition to torture suspected terrorists in locales worldwide—why would this be any surprise? Too many supposedly outrageous theories of this Republican-led government have come to be true that we can’t trust the system anymore. Our justice has become completely politicized. It was probably always politicized to some degree, but I think, in the end, justice more often than not prevailed (but not always, of course). Now, you’d be naïve if you didn’t think they were looking to destroy you if you were of a different political party or held a differing opinion on any pertinent subject. The White House and its minions have spent the last six or seven years constructing a police state in the name of fighting terrorism; if you think they were upstanding and could resist the temptation of turning it on the populace in general and more specifically its political opponents, then you’re a sucker of the saddest sort.

Spitzer was an idiot for getting busted like this. It could be addiction, human failings, power, or complete arrogance that blinded him, but he should’ve known he had a bull’s eye on his back and this type of thing would end his career (not to mention the legal alarms that would go off from moving around large sums of money). I don’t condone anything he did, and his resignation, in the long run, is the best thing probably for him, the state of New York, and for his political party at both the state and national levels.

I think it’s naïve, though, to say this was just a personally corrupt governor who got snagged in his own immorality and leave it at that. I say this is a shot across the bow for all domestic political opponents—the federal government, led by the White House and its allies, have been and will continue to watch you (that includes certain Democratic presidential candidates remaining in the race). Protecting all of us against terrorism and even the immorality of prostitution (do we even need such protection from that at the federal level? I’m sure conservatives say yes) is what they might be selling us, but it’s really about political advantage and maintaining power.

The GayOP

Sen. Larry Craig is the latest in an increasing line of Republicans who are not only gay but are committing crimes that are in some way related to their gayness. Can’t their sexuality even be free from criminality? Apparently not. Seriously, I really don’t care who’s gay and who’s not. But when you’ve built your political career on not only advocating some sort of biblical morality but using it to treat “violators” of that morality you preach as subhuman and, of course, further your political career while doing so, you’re open to it full force. If you would keep your mouth shut, treat people with a touch of respect, and realize that not everyone in the world is going to follow your rulebook and there’s no call to demonize them when they don’t, this wouldn’t be a problem when you turn out to be a hypocrite.

Here’s a general observation: if you hold a press conference to announce to the world you’re not gay, you’re probably gay. Here’s another one: if you spend a lot of time loudly protesting what you deem to be the immorality of gays, you’re probably gay too. It’s been a long time for me now, but I believe some of these basic issues are covered in Psychology 101.

Sen. Craig, you’re sorry that you pled guilty? That should be cause for you never to be elected to office again. You’re not guilty, so you say, but you pled to being guilty, as if no one was ever going to find that out. You’re a freakin’ senator who might’ve run for election again in 2008! I realize it’s been commonplace for Republican misdeeds to fly under the radar and not be brought out (I mean, we were talking about Bush’s National Guard service during his re-election bid, for crying out loud—nice detective work there, Democrats!). That’s a pretty bold gamble, though, if that’s the case.

His defense the other day about being sorry he pled guilty was just lame and no one’s buying it, not even the people in his own party. That one was worthy of a Seinfeld episode. You’re gay, man—not that there’s anything wrong with it!