Racism in Dissent?

Short answer: no.

It's an easy straw man argument to make for both sides of the political aisle. Democrats and liberals can claim that dissenting arguments are racist because we have a black president; Republicans and conservatives claim that all claims of racism are merely attempts to squelch dissent.

Of course, neither side is right and neither side is wrong. But if Joe Wilson has shown us anything, it's that the default skeptical view should be placed on the conservative argument.

Republicans love to martyr themselves. "Obama wants to crush dissenting voices!" they cry, not noticing that nobody is crushing them at all. "Well, the media won't let us speak!" they shout, apparently unaware that they are doing so on Fox News, a non-vital but significant member of The Media. And of course, if someone suggests that their unformed, vague, and unhelpful "opinion" is the product of an underlying, and racist, distrust of the President, well then you're in trouble, bucko.

Is every conservative opinion racist? Not by the longest of shots. Many are well thought-out, reasonable, and deserve to be considered. Doesn't mean I will ultimately agree, but I appreciate the alternative viewpoint.

But then there's the people who bring guns to townhall meetings. The people who have pictures of Obama as Hitler, or a monkey, or a monkey-Hitler. The people who yell out "You lie!" during the President's speech before Congress. These people add nothing of value whatsoever to the national debate. They are not "courageous" for taking a stand, as some claim. It is not courageous to act like a coward and a fool, especially when you're so very, very wrong. It's also not analogous to every other President; nobody questioned Bush's origins, or McCain's (even though there was just as much "evidence" that McCain was born out of the country as well) and when Clinton was running things, it was all about sex scandals. And nobody--nobody--yelled insults at them during a joint session of Congress. Especially not an elected official.

And for what it's worth, Obama didn't lie. The health care bill has a provision that explicitly disallows the benefits it confers from flowing to illegal immigrants. So Joe Wilson is not only an uncouth coward, he's also an idiot. Well played, sir.

But is he any stupider than the various townhall attendees, who shout about socialism and fascism without realizing there's a remarkable difference between the two? And is he any stupider than those who elected him and who will, I'm sure, see his pathetic outburst as a source of pride? It's tough to make South Carolina look any worse than it already is, but Wilson sure found a way.

To be fair, I don't trust the liberals who argue that any dissent is based on a foundation of racism, either. It is a foolish message that is tantamount to crying wolf; if every dissent is racist, then we won't be able to rally the outrage necessary when the actual racism rears its ugly head.

Because honestly, contesting the President's country of birth? I don't care how rational you think your argument, it is the height of "The Other"-based fear. Obama is an Other! We have proof! By being an Other, his opinions and ideas are invalid!

It's such complete bullshit that I'm amazed people can stand it. I guess when you have a kernel of an idea at the core (the birth certificate) it just fuels the other issues that haven't found a place to take hold (the racism). But it's sad, and it makes me sad to see our country behave this way.

Then, it makes me angry and I want Obama to win EVERYTHING just to shut those racists bastards up. I gotta find a way to help on that front.

Sotomayor

In my continuing quest to tank any future judicial appointments for myself, I've got some opinions on this whole Sotomayor confirmation process.

First of all, boo-fucking-hoo to all the Republicans who want to take issue with Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments. Yeah, she rather obliquely disparaged some old white male judges. You know what group has made some really terrible decisions in the past 2 centuries? Old, white male judges. I'm not saying that a "wise Latina" would have necessarily made any better decisions, but she certainly has a perspective that some of those old cantankerous bastards could've used.

If I were her, I'd respond to questions about this comment by saying, "You know what? I AM better at making some decisions than some of you old white bastards. Yes, you, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. My heritage doesn't control my decisions, but it informs them and it does a damn sight better than your whitebread upbringing. Next question."

"But why..."

"NEXT QUESTION. Don't make me come up there, Sessions."

But then maybe that's why I'll never be on the Supreme Court.

Second of all, that New Haven Firefighter case is not controversial. Yes, it was struck down by the Supreme Court. FIVE TO FOUR. That means that four judges of the Supreme Court agreed with Sotomayor's ruling. It is beyond asinine to say that she was way off the reservation when four of the most esteemed legal minds in the world agreed with her.

This is posturing by the Republicans to an insane degree. Only Lindsey Graham seems to see the writing on the wall: unless Sotomayor starts disrobing during testimony or firing shots into the air, she's going to get confirmed and there's absolutely squat the Republicans can do about it. She should have more confidence and tell them to go to hell.

So Much! Too Much?

Man, I step away for a minute and like, 15 different things happen. Let's get into it.

The King of Pop is dead. Long live the King? There is much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing about how to "celebrate" the life of such screwball. On the one hand, he made some great music. This is an area in which if you disagree, you are Wrong. Sorry, but while you don't have to like the music (that's called taste) you have to appreciate what MJ put together. I can only somewhat recall, because I was so young, the fervor with which 80s-era kids loved the man. But some of those songs are eternal.

But, he was a whacko. Ultimately, I have no problem expressing remorse at his passing because, despite the messed up life he was leading, death is it. It closes the door on any redemption or the possibility of a turn-around. MJ will never call a press conference and say, "Jesus, I was pretty messed up, wasn't I? I apologize to my fans for so much screwy behavior." And even if such a statement was super unlikely, I can mourn for the lost opportunity. It is a bummer.

Senator Stuart Smalley. Not too much to say about this because Franken should have had this months and months ago; but I'm glad to see the rule of law win out in an election scenario. Coleman may have been a good man before this mess, but his inability to let it go when absolutely nothing was in his favor has lessened my opinion of him quite a bit. I don't know what kind of senator Franken will be, but it will definitely be interesting. 6 years! And away we go.

True Blood is Entertaining. But it got a lot better after the first few episodes. It's really like an adult-themes Twilight, though, which isn't so hot. Because Twilight is horrifically stupid.* But it's still pretty hokey at times, and the characters are teetering right on the edge of being too stupid for words. If Jason Stackhouse ends up sleeping with the preacher's wife, for example, and without clear explanation how it got to that, I'm gonna be pissed.

There is a piss-poor method of character development that hack writers use to establish that someone is "lusted after" or "sexually adventurous." Basically, you have the character meet the eyes of some hot young woman (it's almost always men that need this development) and then immediately cut to them having sex. Californication does this ALL THE TIME, and it's really, really lame. No explanation of how they got to that point, or the woman's motivations for doing so. It's actually a hugely sexist and misogynistic form of character development that feeds the adolescent male fantasy of being an irresistible sex machine. The women don't matter at all; they're just tools to show that this guy is "totally awesome and the chicks can't stay away!!!"

To be fair, Jason Stackhouse has benefited from better writing during his own escapades. He has only had sex with one random chick that I can recall, and that was because he was high on vampire blood. But the show is dangerously close to the "lusty eyes -> immediate sex" cut in his interactions with the preacher's wife, and it makes me wary. The fact that people are "amazed he didn't screw that Christian singer AND the wife by now" (as mentioned in my office) just shows you how close to ridiculousness his character has been.

*I've been told. Have not yet been so bored that I actually need to read those books.

The Tigers Give Me Ulcers. Jesus they win like, 7 straight and then lose a series to Houston? The ASTROS, Detroit? Come on. They're suffering from the same problems that always plague them: power outages at hitting and unreliable closers. If you include the fact that they've only got 2 or 3 reliable starters (and just one really good and reliable pitcher) it's hard to see how they're even in first in the division.

But, they are. Improbably, amazingly, they are 3.5 games ahead of Chicago. They have a chance to win the series with Oakland today (here, in Oakland) but by all objective measures they probably should have swept the lowly, last-place A's. We'll see. I will try and keep the faith.

Oh but did anyone see that Baltimore-Boston game last night? The O's came back from a 10 to 1 deficit to win! I dislike the Orioles most of the time but that's just impressive, especially against Boston.

Needless Update: Apparently blog posting is a jinx. The Tigers are sucking it up and losing 4-1 in the 6th as I write this. Verlander just gave up a homerun to freakin' Jason Giambi, who is batting .195 this year. Pathetic.

The New Draconian Recycling Plan in My Office. We now have 4 different types of trash. It includes Compost and "E-Waste" but me and my juris doctorate cannot figure out where to put the Starbucks cup. I mean, the top is plastic (Mixed-Recycling) but the cup is paper (Compostable?) but the sleeve is cardboard (Recycling?) and there's a slight bit of food still inside.

Seriously, it could not be harder to decipher if it was written by Soviet-era Russian intelligence. Candy wrappers are "Waste" but waxed cardboard cups are "Compostable" but cardboard is "Recycling". The office needs a recycling czar.

Live By the Sword, Die By the Sword

(I really like that phrase, but I will stop using it after this. For awhile. A moratorium, if you will.)

Obama is overturning our luddite President's ban on new stem cell lines and the restrictions inherent therein.

I could go on about the science, but I am not a scientist. The "slippery slope to abortion" argument is lame, as stem cells and abortion are unrelated. Unless you're an idiot.

But Newt, in his seeming ever-presence prior to 2012, had this choice remark:

"It is dangerous for the Obama administration to pick a wide series of fights," said Gingrich. "Each of these fights simply drains energy away and increases the coalition which decides it has a collective interest in stopping everything."

Newt, you are aware that it's an executive order, right? That President Bush "picked this fight" through no act of Congress? I have no real problem with executive orders, but you can't go around claiming Obama is wrong to "fight" on this issue when all he has to do is have someone draw up a quick E.O. and be done with it.

If I were elected on a multifaceted platform, and I could achieve one of my stated campaign promises with no expenditure of political capital and no legislative whipping, you'd better believe I'd be on that like white on rice.

I think the GOP just wishes that Obama's reservoir of "political capital" were not as expansive as it seems. He has an extraordinarily strong mandate from the people--one that Bush did not have--and he is being as active as possible in his first few months as President.

I saw a headline the other day: "Will Americans Tire of Obama's Call for Responsibility?" it asked (I'm paraphrasing). It may have been an op/ed column, but I think it speaks volumes about our current political landscape. We actually have a President who is TOO GOOD for us. If he fails, it will be our (the collective American People's) fault for not living up to his expectations.

I cannot tell you how happy I am to be around to see such expectations made real.

"Well, allow me to retort."

The State of the Union was great. A+ for the President, although part of that grade may come from the fact that he can string sentences together and pronounce words correctly. I've missed that.

Then came Bobby Jindal, rising star of the Republican Party. Rising for some unknown reason, given his sad little rebuttal performance last night. Is it because he's "ethnic-looking"? Do the Republicans really think that if they just copy all the superficial aspects of Obama ("Weird name? Check. Dark skin? Check! Young guy? Check.") they can take the White House?

You heard it here first, folks: Jindal will never be President.

First, he has none of that charm that Obama has. He comes across as smarmy and lame, and that--I believe the proper term is "shit-eating"--grin he had plastered on his face as he approached the podium was just disturbing. Plus, what is he, 37? He graduated high school in 1990. That puts him in nearly my sphere of educational experience (Rhodes scholarship aside) which makes me think he has even less authority than the governor of a backwards-ass state more than $2 billion in debt.

But let's assume he can image himself up a little bit better. He remains a GOP talking point with no sense of personal responsibility, or party responsibility, whatsoever. Let's look at the "mea culpa" he delivered last night:

In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear -- our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust -- and rightly so.

The Republicans can't even take responsibility for what happened when they controlled all three branches of government. Republicans "went along with earmarks"? THEY PUT THEM THERE. He makes it sound as if they fell asleep at the switch, and some legislation gnomes slipped into Congress and loaded all the bills with pork.

Then, Jindal takes Obama to task for implying that we (America/Americans) won't persevere through this economic crisis. Let's note first that Obama said "we may not be able to reverse" our economic slide if the stimulus plan isn't passed. If we do nothing, and simply pray that things get better, then it is quite possible we will collapse. A fair point, but not what Jindal quoted:

You know, a few weeks ago, the president warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said "we may not be able to reverse." Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don't let anyone tell you that we cannot recover. Don't let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her. This is the nation that cast off the scourge of slavery, overcame the Great Depression, prevailed in two World Wars, won the struggle for civil rights, defeated the Soviet menace, and responded with determined courage to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The American spirit has triumphed over almost every form of adversity known to man, and the American spirit will triumph again.

But actually, that's just the usual skewing of your opponents position. Weasely, for sure, but not all that out of the ordinary. I thought it was even worse that Jindal's litany of triumphs was so jumbled. We "cast off the scourge of slavery", did we? And who was it that put that scourge upon us in the first place? We had to fight a war with ourselves to get rid of slavery. And the Great Depression? Has he not read a history book? Again, a creation of our own selfishness and greed. The struggle for civil rights: fought, and won, by the liberals of this country against the conservatives.

The American spirit isn't a genetic by-product of being born in America. It is, more accurately, the human spirit. The freedoms given to us by our Constitution allow the human spirit to thrive, so it is understandable that we would begin equating the ingenuity and perseverance of Americans to some sort of nation-specific gift. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that it is something only Americans can do.

Notes

Whenever people are arguing politics, someone inevitably attempts to argue that a policy or action is okay by noting how "up-in-arms" the other side would be if the roles were reversed.

That is, the argument is not that Policy A is okay, it's that it's "not as bad as when the other side did Policy Z!"

This is dumb. It goes for all ideologies and parties--unless you have a direct 1:1 correspondence in policy, it's a stupid argument to make. It rarely has something to do with the policy, and is really just an ad hominem attack, without a specific... um, hominem.

You CAN make this argument where people are being hypocrites. Flip-flopping on issues and such is a perfectly acceptable target for criticism. But the less similar the situation--and as they become dissimilar, the drop-off is quick--the lamer your argument becomes.

(This is a vague response to the story that Sen. Judd Gregg, Republican, wants a GOP to replace him if he takes the job of Commerce Secretary in Obama's administration; I am not against him, or his demand/request, but I see Democrats saying "He's not allowed to make this demand! Can you imagine how Republicans would howl if a Dem made this demand?!"

Short answer: yes, I can imagine it. I can imagine a unicorn-powered spaceship too, but that's not really the point is it?)

.....

Chicago is a great city. A cold city, to be sure, but a pretty great town overall. I will go back.

.....

People at the Denver International Airport are not fans of the Steelers. I'm not sure they're fans of the Cardinals, but they were super jazzed when Arizona pulled ahead. And super depressed when the Steelers pulled out a win. That was a helluva 4th quarter, man. I'm glad my layover allowed me to see it.

.....

Today UPS delivered a package that was literally mailed LAST YEAR. Good work UPS. Way to keep up the quality of service in these demanding economic times.

...And This is Why Republicans Are Still Wrong

Yesterday, I extended a wee tiny olive branch towards the GOP because I believe, at first glance, that I am in agreement with them over this whole digital television roll-out thing.

Today, I'd like to correct that injustice by noting just how asinine the Republican Party remains.

Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law today, and for those of you not familiar with Mrs. Ledbetter, here's the deal: she worked at Goodyear as a supervisor for 19 years and made less than all her male colleagues -- including those with far, far less experience -- the entire time. But she didn't find out about it until she was about to retire.

In the legal world, your cause of action doesn't usually run until you discover you've been wronged. For many practical as well as ethical reasons, we don't reward people for keeping their misbehavior secret to outlast statutes of limitation. This used to be the case in pay discrimination cases until the boneheaded Supreme Court stepped in 2 years back and said people like Mrs. Ledbetter, who had been discriminated against for decades without their knowledge, only get (drumroll) 180 days worth of recompense.

Now, I respect the Supremes to a degree. I haven't read that particular opinion lately (I read it when it first came down) but if they want to jump on a perceived ambiguity in the law, so be it. Congress has now stepped up and amended the law to give the Ledbetters of the world a lot more options for recovery when their so blatantly discriminated against. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Of course, the Republicans still opposed the law. McCain, despite having been thoroughly trounced on this issue last fall, continued to vote against it. He used the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" to excuse his utterly wretched stance on this issue, and then blamed lack of education for women.

It is appalling to me that anybody can oppose this kind of course-correction legislation. I wish that I had more Republican-leaning readers, so that one could attempt to explain this thinking. But here's a hint: "it will lead to skyrocketing attorney costs and litigation" is not the right answer. You know what else leads to skyrocketing litigation? WHEN PEOPLE DISCRIMINATE. It's not Mrs. Ledbetter's lawyers that screwed her over repeatedly for nearly 2 decades. Goodyear deserves to be hammered, and hard, for their behavior.

For my part, I'm just not going to buy their tires.

I Told You So (Vol. One)

Obama has been all sorts of elected for a month now. He hasn't had much of a chance to do anything yet (what with not actually being President) but he has started picking the various members of his cabinet.

Do I whole-heartedly endorse every pick? Nah. But is he already proving to be a more capable and thoughtful leader than any we've had these past 8 years? Absolutely. His choices are diplomatic, nuanced, and by and large unarguably excellent. Well, maybe not "unarguably" but the argument is far above the arguments we've had about various Bush administration appointees.

Part of the argument for Obama during the campaign was, while he may be somewhat inexperienced, his thoughtfulness and ability to surround himself with people who both disagree and challenge his views more than make up for that perceived lack of experience.

And lo, it has come to pass.

Let's Go Crazy, Bullet-Point Style

Except, I'm not sure how to make bullet points in HTML. So you get a cheap facsimile.

* I have a big set of new cases at work. They have kept me on the phone listening to depositions for about 70% of my time the last 2 weeks. This is a marked increase from the 0% I had previously had going. I think I might actually like attending depositions better than being on the phone. Jury is still out on that one, though.

* It has now become all kinds of chilly here in the Bay Area. Perhaps Thanksgiving was some kind of marker, or the beginning of December, but last night I slept IN a fleece. With blankets. I wasn't actually cold, but I didn't overheat either, and that's saying something. This morning in the apartment, it was 57 degrees.

* When I sneeze while sitting at my desk, I have a tendency to shoot back in my rolling chair, ala some sort of cartoon character. Few coworkers have caught me doing this, but I am fearing the day when they do. It is perhaps 90% an unconscious reaction.

* No politics on here for ages! Chambliss won in Georgia, to the surprise of approximately nobody. I still find it hysterical that Republicans, the sole party governing our nation for 6 of the last 8 years, now argue the necessity of a more balanced Congress. Also that they seem to routinely fail at 8th grade civics by forgetting we have three branches of government, and the Supreme Court is still 5-4 conservative.

* I get to go home for more than a few days at Christmas, after all. I am stoked. Whirlwind trips are a pain in the ass for so many reasons, and this year it was possible that my 4 days trips would also include (beyond the flights) a 16 hour car ride to Florida. It still includes that, but now stretches 9 days. Hooray!

* Saw Blood Diamond finally. It was a decent movie, but pretty much screwed over any potential girlfriends I may have from here on out. Sorry ladies, but no diamonds for you. And not just because of the movie; I've done the independent research. I don't trust those diamond-shilling bastards. It's all burlap gifts from now on. Because everybody loves burlap!

* It's foggy as all get out. I have "Desire" by U2 stuck in my head. And I'm tired of coming in early to work, even if my "early" is later than the rest of you people's normal start times.

Armchair Quarterbacking the GOP

(Note: I am too pissed to write about Prop 8. It is a morally and legally indefensible ballot initiative that I am still hoping can be destroyed at the Federal level. But more on that when I've actually checked whether that's true.)

There is, by all accounts, going to be a lot of hand-wringing and "soul" (I used the term loosely) searching within the Republican party now that they've been so spectacularly defeated on so many levels. I would be remiss if I didn't offer my own 2 cents.

Forgetting Sarah Palin
It is said that Palin energized the GOP "base", but in reality, she energized only the very vocal, socially conservative minority. Many fiscally conservative Republicans were aghast at her selection, and eventually made their opinions known.

Now, the talk (and McCain's concession speech last night) is that Palin is a rising star in politics. I disagree. Not because she's not a good politician -- she clearly is -- but because her brand of politics is exactly what brings in less than half the country. Obama's win is a repudiation of the idea that America is socially conservative. Americans don't like being labeled one way or the other, but it is clear from last night that those who side with God and guns alone are not going to win. If Palin doesn't change her methods and viewpoint, then heralding her as the Next Big Thing will only mean continual defeats.

Few voters were brought into the GOP because of Palin. Far more were pushed out. The math is pretty simple.

Return to Your Non-Whackjob Roots
That doesn't mean that the GOP can't be "big tent" and include the fundamentalists and social conservatives. Democrats certainly don't want them (for the most part). But you can't let them control your party. You can't let them dictate a platform of backwards-looking social ideals. They can't be the most vocal wing. They have to shut up, sit down, and realize that they are far better off with a GOP government anyhow.

Democrats have done the same thing, for many years, with minorities. Yesterday's election notwithstanding, African-Americans have long been "assumed" Democrats because honestly, are they going to vote Republican? Not in meaningful numbers. It is not a policy of the Democratic party to do this, but rather laziness and a sense of entitlement by party leaders. I'm not endorsing it as a Democratic strategy, but Republicans might want to look at how it has worked out.

Fiscal Conservatism Isn't Terrible
I may have differences of opinion with conservatives about the role and size of the U.S. government, but I respect those opinions. I would like to argue those ideas with Republicans, but they seem far more focused on God, abortion, and gays. That isn't to say people shouldn't disagree with me on those issues, but if you put fiscal conservatism up front, you have a much stabler platform.

The GOP hasn't done that of late, because their "base" won't let them. That's why I said above that you have to make fiscal conservatism your base, and social conservatism your fringe. Argue economics and big government, and FAR more Americans will join up. Argue that all gays will burn in hell, and you're in for a long, cold political winter.

End Note: This may be the last political post for awhile. No promises, but I'm sort of exhausted. I am still angry about Prop 8, so I may have to tear Californians a new one, but overall I'm spent.

A Few Thoughts on This Historic Day

First, and most obviously, you should go vote. Whether it's for Obama or the other guy, you should vote. The only caveat is if you would vote for Obama, but won't because he's not white, just don't vote at all. We'll look for you and your enlightened self in 2012, but for now, go ahead and stay home. It's the least you can do.

Everyone else--conservatives and liberals alike--should be at the polls. Or, if you did the whole early voting thing, at home laughing at those who are standing in line today. My voting experience was quick and painless, though it cost me 35 cents for a meter because the parking lot was jammed.

Second, if Obama wins (and he better--see below) and then wins again in 2012, I was thinking that perhaps in 2016 when he is done with politics, somebody should nominate him to the Supreme Court. He's clearly a smart guy, and a good lawyer, and it's not without precedent (Taft did this way back in the early 20th century).

And finally, my usual party-pooper finale. I wrote about this a few months back, but it bears repeating today because my predictions at that time are on the mark: every shred of evidence, except for the actual vote tally, points to a major Obama win tonight. It is inconceivable that every single poll--not just the outliers but all of the national and state polling--would be wrong.

So if McCain wins, what does that mean? I gotta say, it means this election was stolen (which is unlikely) or that Americans are a racist bunch of assclowns. Not, as I said before, because a vote for McCain is a racist act. It's not. But the only way that every single poll could be that far off would be if the dreaded Bradley effect really occurs, and Americans have been lying to pollsters. If people will theoretically vote for Obama, but when actually making their choice, cannot do so.

It would be shameful. A stain on our country, and as I said before, possibly the moment that historians point to when they discuss the decline of the American empire. I am hoping that in a few short hours, the Bradley effect will be put to bed once and for all. But I ain't celebrating yet.

McCain's Catch-22?

People argue that McCain wouldn't be attacking Obama so much if he were winning. He has to go after him, they say, because Obama's out front!

But he can't be out front by attacking. Part of the reason, in my humblest of opinions, that Obama has done so well is that he doesn't go after McCain specifically. When he does, the two of them slug it out over a specific issue or attack, but the majority (the large majority) of Obama's speeches are focused on changing America. The attacks, when they do happen, are just as much against Bush as they are McCain.

McCain, on the other hand, hasn't spoken at length about his desire to change the country. He does now, at the 11th hour, because he has nothing left to lose. But "back in the day" (early September, when he was ahead) he didn't take the high ground. He stayed in the trenches and promptly lost his bounce-inspired lead. And unleashing Palin--who simply can't make positive remarks because she hasn't the ability--has driven this home.

McCain is an entirely negative campaign. There's no "here's what we will do for you" anymore; it's only "here's what Obama will do to you." And people aren't responding, because that's not the mood of the electorate.

Too bad for him. I am about 48 to 72 hours from actually being excited about this election, instead of worried. It will be a strange feeling if Obama wins.

Also of note: do you hear anything about Hillary supporters voting for McCain anymore these days? I've no doubt there are a few nutjobs left that are doing so, but the furor over their quisling movement has completely dropped off the radar. And I've been reading a LOT of political stories lately.

Tipping Point

Notwithstanding some colossal polling error or a very, very late October surprise, Obama should win this thing next week.

What's most interesting to me is that, by and large, the commentary by people who are still in favor of John McCain are not actually voting for him. They're voting against Barack Obama.

I don't criticize this as inherently wrong. The questions about Obama's experience are somewhat valid (though, in my mind, such questions are easily negated by his intelligence and the strength under pressure he has shown during this campaign).

But I question the wisdom in voting for a ticket that includes the least experienced vice-presidential candidate in modern history. Palin has nothing--nothing--to offer this country. It is an embarrassment and a joke that we would even consider putting someone with such little ability in the nation's second-highest office.

It is, flat out, unpatriotic. You can't love this country, and then hand it over to someone who has no ability to lead it whatsoever. I cannot say this about any other candidate I can remember--even George W. Bush, though he comes close--but I will say it here: I would make a better Vice President.

So say what you will about Obama's lack of executive experience, but the man is smart. Smarter than you, and smarter than me. He has nuanced and strong opinions, he is steady, and his "on-the-job training" will take a fraction of the time that Palin's would.

I don't envy you Republicans this year. Those GOPers who still admire intelligence and wisdom are in a bind. Because the intelligence and wisdom lies entirely with the Democratic ticket this year.

Let's Clear This Up

I've been trapped in deposition hell for a few days, but am now finally free. The Lions are still awful, the last debate went well, and I'm going to Mexico in 2 days.

But let's talk about voter fraud.

That bastion of community activism, ACORN, has been fraudulently registering voters for the general election this year. That's not cool, but let's review the different between registration fraud and voter fraud.

So far, nobody besides ACORN has been defrauded. They (improperly) paid volunteers for registrations, and thus got screwed when it turned out the registrations they paid for were not valid. But none of the fake registrants--including Bugs Bunny and Indiana Jones--will be showing up to vote on election day.

You see, registration fraud only becomes actual voter fraud when those persons who have filed false registrations show up to vote (multiple times, in theory). Since it's going to be tough to convince a poll worker that your name really is "Mickey Mouse" it is unlikely that that will happen with any of these registrations. No voter fraud.

Voter fraud is a big boogeyman in politics, especially in right wing circles. It preys on the "us and them" mentality that super conservatives often embrace. It conjures visions of a horde of liberals and minorities roaming the countryside come election day, voting dozens of times and pushing the Democrats into power.

But in the last few decades, despite the cries of "fraud" by BOTH parties, there has been little evidence that it has actually occurred. And when they do arise--Ohio in 2004, for example--it's not the liberals or minorities that are accused of perpetrating the fraud.

ACORN acted stupidly. But they haven't damaged our democracy, as a clearly out-of-his-mind McCain stated last night. They've damaged themselves and their credibility. But they can't really touch Obama on this, as even McCain was as recently as 2006 a supporter of the organization. Obama's legal work in the 90's is grasping at... well not even straws. Air.

The Inevitable VP Debate Post

"This was supposed to be a no rough stuff type deal!"

I don't know about the rest of you, but after last night I've got a hankerin' for some Fargo.

But putting that aside for a moment, we have the debate. The best that can be said for Sarah Palin is that she didn't turn into a Tina Fey caricature live on stage. She also didn't really answer any of the questions, at all, and at a few points took wildly disconnected tangents. I appreciate her thoughts on education, for instance, but did she even remember that the question was on how she differed from McCain? Granted, it was 3 or 4 responses in, but Biden simply included the word "education" in a laundry list of important topics, and Palin took it and ran.

She clearly can't think of true, coherent answers on the spot. She has canned responses and when somebody triggers the right word ("education") her internal sensors switch on and she tosses out a heap a' folksiness!

So she managed to string some coherent responses together. She didn't actually answer the questions, but at least her answers weren't gibberish. Biden, on the other hand, has a clear command of the issues, and managed to keep from making any significant mistakes or gaffes.

I think this will result in a slight bump for Obama/Biden, but not much for McCain because all it has done is reinforce the Palin fans' opinions. Independents probably won't consider this a terribly successful debate on her part. She's just not a gibbering idiot, and let me just say I'm glad that's where McCain has set the bar for VP candidates.

More Political Rhetoric From Me!

Sometimes, I just post things because I need to get it straight in my own head. I am aware that very few of this blog's readers will disagree on most of these ideas--but by all means, if you do, speak up. Tell me where the fallacy lies.

The biggest, and in my opinion most effective, criticism of Sarah Palin is that she's unqualified to hold the position for which she was nominated, and as such was a "stunt" selection. Conservatives disagree, saying she has executive experience (more on that later) and that she energized the Republican base like no one else.

To get to the heart of this issue, I think the question to ask is this: is there someone else, with more qualifications, who could do the same thing for the GOP?

Somebody Better?
When it comes to Sarah Palin, the answer is a resounding yes. There are plenty of conservative governors (22!) and frankly, if we're trying to beat 2 years as governor of one of the least populated states, I think you can look towards mayors of any metropolitan area as well. And while not all of these executives may have Palin's mind-bending social conservatism, enough of them do that it wouldn't be hard to find a really experienced right-winger to fill the position. Hell, Mitt Romney has everything Palin has but twice over. Except, of course, for that double-X chromosome.

The Myth of "Executive Experience"
Instead, we have Palin, who has no real experience that is applicable to the position of Vice President. "Executive experience!" you may cry, but the Vice President is only a part of the executive branch; he/she doesn't govern unless the President goes down. The Veep position is largely diplomatic, legislative (breaking ties in the Senate), and policy oriented. Cheney, the most empowered VP in modern history, does not have any executive experience. But even if I disagree with his politics and methods intensely, I admit he could ascend to the Presidency if called to do so. He has the professional experience to take that role, and so did Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, and even Jack Kemp (What up class of '96!).

Palin cannot be handed this responsibility. She has demonstrated time and time again that she has not even the slightest idea of what being President means, other than the fact that it's a culmination of her political dreams. She lacks everything a President should have, across the board.

So conservatives can argue this executive experience thing breathlessly, but it only really applies if McCain dies in office. Until then, she has no diplomatic, legislative, or policy experience whatsoever. She is a placeholder, a token lifted from obscurity for the sole purpose of sticking it to Obama.

But More Experienced Than Obama, Right?
Wrong! Obama was in the Illinois legislature for 8 years, and has been in the U.S. Senate for 3 more. Critics can argue about what he did during those years, but if we're comparing Palin and Obama's experience, you have to examine her achievements as well. And her 6 years as mayor of a tiny Alaska town are not more distinguished than Obama's "present" votes in Illinois.

But the real experience lies in the campaign. Obama has been running for President for over a year, and has been tested repeatedly by the press, by fellow Democrats, and by Republicans. He has weathered that storm well, and has formulated nuanced and intelligent policy opinions on every imaginable topic.

Palin was governor of Alaska until a month ago. She was not at all involved in the Republican primaries, and still has yet to make a single intelligent policy point on her own. You can chop off the careers of BOTH candidates, and Obama still wins by a mile in the experience department.

Bullet-Point Summary Time!
* Sarah Palin seems like a nice person. She has the least experience of almost every single VP candidate in the history of our country. This includes Dan Quayle.
* "Executive experience" means nothing in the VP position. It is as useful as knowing how to make snow cones.
* Obama has proven his ability to work above his experience level, by simple virtue of the fact that's he been campaigning for President for more than a year.

Epic Conclusion
A vote for the Republican ticket in 2008 is unpatriotic. It is a slap in the face of every person who expects more out of the President. It puts naked political ambition before the safety and prosperity of this country. Republicans, and all Americans, should be ashamed of McCain for acting with such reckless disregard for our nation.

You Know You're Boned When...

...running as a conservative, even George Will thinks you're a crackpot.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

(from The Post)

I will confess to not having the business know-how to completely grapple with the current economic crazytimes. I am glad that I'm not in a financial-sector job, though am fully aware that it's all interrelated and that eventually my own profession will suffer if the economic outlook isn't improved.

That being said, why bailouts? I'm pretty damn liberal, and hold many case-specific opinions that socialism is not a universally bad idea, but this seems completely unnecessary. I mean, when you have a liberal telling you to let the capitalist market correct itself, aren't you being more than a little reactionary?

I realize it has a trickle-down effect, and it sucks that poorer folks are getting screwed out of their housing loans. I am on-board with assistance programs to try and stem this tide of foreclosures. I am not on-board with bailouts of massive Wall Street firms that should have known better. Joe Homeowner may have as much fiscal smarts as me; Jim Stockbroker is a damn professional. This is like the government giving my firm a pass for committing insurance law violations. It's our job to know that stuff.

I know this is all fluff, even more so than usual because I really, really don't know much about the markets. But it's nice to see that smarter men than I (George Will is very, very smart) feel the same way.

Funny

I may be seizure-inducing angry with politics lately, but I still find humor when it pops up.

Regarding Sarah Palin, on Slate:

"The smell of my daughter’s clean laundry makes me feel warm and wonderful about families, but I’m not electing a pile of it vice president of the United States."

Indeed, son. Indeed.

I Know I'm a Broken Record

Unfortunately for you all, my daily life does not allow me much room to vent about politics. My job is not remotely political, I live in a city full of people who think along the same lines, and my friends don't need any convincing.

So when I read--and maybe I should stop doing that--about all the fantastically stupid "white women" who are giving McCain a big jump, I have nowhere to release my anger. Anger at how as a group, almost any demographic can be insipidly short-sighted. I just expected better from women.

But I suppose that's equality. Men don't have a monopoly on being morons. We're all on the stupidity ship together, sometimes.

This election is shaping up to be one of the first times in memory that I'm in danger of being really disappointed in my country. Kerry in '04 was sad, but he lacked a number of important qualities that could have pushed the election in his favor. Obama just has everything going for him--he wins on the issues, on the politics, and on personality--except that we are, collectively, morons. Call me an elitist, but I'm really starting to question the very sanity and morality of those who side with the GOP on this stuff.

So I'm sorry that I keep using this space for going-nowhere political rants. I should talk more about my visit back home this past week (it was great!) or non-political issues I like to ramble on about. Class warfare, chicks, why the Tigers are so very disappointing, etc. The stuff that sells newspapers.

A Radical Idea

"We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us."
- John McCain's acceptance speech

It has always been popular to bash Washington, DC, as a kind of shorthand for "politics". People seem to like the idea of "Washington outsiders" even though those who work in DC know just how useless most so-called "outsiders" actually are. Aside from getting lost repeatedly, they don't know how the system works.

McCain is a doofus, but this is at first glance a more honest line than most others. At second glance, it's full of crap. Because Washington is also just a city. It doesn't change anybody. Politics might change people, but politics IS people.

If you were elected decades ago to "change Washington," then maybe it's time to consider your epic failure. McCain hasn't changed politics, or his party, and now he's trying to get another go-around at it?

Here's the headline: Washington didn't change you. Nothing changed you. You're the same party that was elected into power 8 years ago, and the same party that held sway in Washington for 6 of those years. What does it take to make people realize that this was as golden an opportunity as a political party could ask for, and yet they've failed miserably? By McCain's own account, they've failed. He attributes the cause of the failure to the mystical energy imbued in the various monuments, museums and other buildings of DC, but he still admits failure.

Frankly, Obama could be the "emptiest suit" in the history of politics, and he would be better. He could be a scary black panther, or a Marxist, and I'd be more comfortable with him in charge.

That is how you change Washington. You give someone else a turn at the wheel, and you hope they do a better job.