Welcome to My Colonies

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Intergenerational Dialogue

This is me in front of a church sign at my grandparents' congregation in Atchison, Kansas (taken in May 2005)


This past weekend, I participated in the Community of Christ's retreat that focused on the theme of "Blessing our Children and Future Generations." It was an intergenerational dialogue, with small group sessions. Thursday evening was an informal meeting where young adults were able to share our experiences in the church and with other churches with the older generation (the Boomers) and the world church's Young Adult Ministries Formation Specialist (I think that's her job title) Erica Nye.

For Saturday, the participants (120 or so people), were divided into circles of 6 to 8 people. There were more older generation participants than young adults and youth, but each circle was guaranteed at least one younger generation. We were paired up with someone else in which we had to select from a list of five questions which one we wanted to answer. We had fifteen minutes to share our experience with our partner, then spent the other fifteen minutes listening to our partner share his or her experience. Then we had to share our partner's experience to the rest of our circle. I thought this was a very effective idea because it forces you to listen to the other person so you can relate their experience accurately to the rest of the group.

I was paired with a lady I never met before who attends the Garden Grove congregation in Vancouver, Washington. She's a realtor, so I know who to contact if I ever have money to buy a house someday. I didn't ask her age, but I would say that she was in her 60s, maybe 70s. She related her experience of meeting her current husband, who was the complete opposite of her first husband. She had gone to college as a young lady and was a cheerleader who fell in love with the captain of the football team and dropped out of college as soon as they got married. I could tell by how attractive she is at her current age that she must have been really attractive as a young lady. She made her first marriage sound like it was one of those "Ken and Barbie perfection"--all image (cheerleader marries captain of the football team!) and little depth. What really intrigued me about this lady is that she had met her current husband when they were working at the same place. She went to him for consultation on how to deal with a difficult employee (he was a mental health counselor). Thus began a friendship that eventually evolved into a relationship. She doesn't remember when things progressed to the next level, but something that had a lot to do with it is that she was attracted to his compassion and spiritual depth!

When she related all this to me, I was truly touched for several reasons. I'm of the belief that I think the best relationships begin as friendships that evolve into a deeper romantic relationship. Unfortunately, everytime I've tried this, I've always been stuck in the friendship phase with the lady not wanting to possibly "ruin" the friendship, which is a laugh because when they become involved with someone else, the friendship died anyway. The other thing that touched me was the idea that this beautiful former cheerleader who married the "type" she was possibly "expected" to marry by 1950s society found that relationship to be shallow and sought something deeper and found it.

I've put out a couple personal ads on craigslist but get very few responses. I'm thinking that my spirituality scares ladies away, but if I want to attract the right person into my life, I have to be upfront about how important living a spiritually authentic life means to me. I've responded to ads where the woman presented herself as being spiritual only to discover to my horror that it was a "bait and switch." This happened to horrific effect two years ago when I learned that the woman who claimed to be spiritual was more interested in sadomasochistic and bondage/humiliation sexuality which is so not my thing. I hate bait and switch with a passion. Be who you say you are and don't waste people's time! Interesting enough about that situation is that the lady who put out the ad said that if she stated what she was really into, she was afraid she'd hear from the freaks! Duh. So, she thought she could find a spiritual guy who shares her kink. It was a major turnoff. I haven't given up hope though. I will find that special spiritually compatable lady once I get my career on track.

Anyhow, back to the small group session. This is the question I decided to answer:

Think about a person who has had a significant positive impact on your life. Describe a particular time when that person's influence helped you deal with difficult times in your life. Who was that person and why were they in your life? What was it about that person's way of being with you that helped you in that time?

Here's what I told my partner:

First, backstory. When I lived in West Germany as a teenager, the nearest church congregation met too far away to attend each week, so my dad made me attend the local protestant chapel and the youth program each Sunday. I hated going but my dad gave me a choice: go or forfeit my allowance for the week. So I went. The gatherings were pretty predictable, we would have fun and games first then move into the religious devotion. When we played games like kickball or basketball, the youth leader was a big guy, a GI who played to win. He would always knock me down or played rough and never apologized. I was mad about this because what I experienced at church camp and activities growing up is that people played in the spirit of fun without keeping track of who's winning. This guy didn't care who he hurt in his obsession with winning. And it was kind of odd that some grown adult was obsessed with beating a bunch of teenagers. When we got into the religious message about Jesus, I was further turned off because everything he said was already negated by his behaviour on the gym floor. The other thing that bothered me is that we would go to youth rallies where they would have fun and games. When the serious portion came, people would ask me "are you saved?" Growing up in this church, I didn't know what this meant. I would respond, "I'm baptized. Does that count?" To which the reply came, "but are you saved?" That they didn't consider my baptism as "being saved" really bothered me.

Flash forward to my senior year. I'm in a government class with a male teacher (Thomas Malone) who sparks my interest in government and international issues. I come to admire him because of his interest in his students opinions, his goofy sense of humour, and his overall trustworthiness. Then about a month into the school year came the shock when I open the newspaper on the day he was absent from school to read an article that he was a leader of a local atheist group that was sponsoring a conference in Atlanta for atheists nationwide. I was shocked and devastated by the news because at the time, I thought of atheists as immoral, evil, untrustworthy, and the equivalent of child molesters. After getting over the shock, I decided to spend the rest of my senior year devoted to "saving him for Christ." We had many after school dialogues about religion and sometimes I'd try to embarrass him in class by making snide jokes and comments about his atheism. He handled me like a pro, never losing his temper, often laughing along. He treated me with respect, kindness, and tolerance. In the process, I eventually accepted his atheism and his views had a greater impact on me, making me question God, religion, and the religious claims about God.

Because I was a student of his, I became a more tolerant person and to this day, I can still be defensive whenever I hear an evangelical rip into a minority religious group or an atheist. I also believe that it is possible for an atheist to be "spiritual" even if he or she won't admit it. And if I could admire an atheist and trust one, why wouldn't God? I am who I am today because I was a student of Tom Malone in 1989-1990. To this day, no other person has influenced my life as much as he has. The last time I talked with him was in 2006 (after not having contact for nearly six years) and I learned that he has moved in a Buddhist direction, though he still doesn't believe in God. I don't think he'll ever view God as a "person" because of his overly religious and intolerant mother and his scientific mind, but I don't believe God is offended either. If you've ever seen the film
Dead Poets Society, then you know how Tom Malone is. I saw that film after I had been in Malone's class for a few months and was shocked by how similar Robin Williams character was to Malone's personality and teaching style. To this day, I cannot see this film without thinking back to my senior year.

Anyhow, that's the story I shared. My partner shared it with the group. Then we had to vote which of the six people's stories to share with the larger group. I was hoping that they would want to share mine because my group found it funny that a 17 year old was just arrogant enough to try to convert a 30-something year old atheist teacher. Yeah, that was me back then. It represented the residue of the "brainwashing" I got from the evangelical group my father made me attend as a teenager.

For the afternoon session, we shared our ideas of what our church might look like in the future, what kind of things we would like to see more of in our worship service. My partner, even though she was of a different generation, surprised me by her similar desires to see more creativity in church. She hates the traditional "hymn sandwich" as some people call it. She'd love to hear more contemporary music, and even holding a "service" by helping to build a house one Sunday afternoon. After we shared our ideas with our circle, each circle shared their ideas with the larger group. It was an interesting session with common ideas.

By the end, I think I made a friend for life. And to think that I was mildly hesitant to this when I saw how they were pairing people up. I admit that I can sometimes be a "generationalist" where I prefer to be among my own generation than spend time talking with older people. I get trapped into thinking that the older generation is too much into maintaining the status quo to be open to the new ideas of the younger generation. My partner proved that view wrong! Now she's looking forward to the church service I volunteered the MAYA group for in February. I had mentioned to her "The Lord's Prayer" sung in the South African music style that I used in one of my sermons from ten years ago. Now, she wants to hear it in a church service. So, I'll be planning the worship service for Garden Grove Congregation in February.

The weekend turned out better than I thought it would. I'm even more enthused about the exciting changes our church is undergoing as people of our generation move into the leadership roles that will change the direction of our mission.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Music Video Monday: Wet Wet Wet




I've been on a serious 1988 nostalgia kick lately. I've been listening a lot to the music I loved from that year. It ranks among the best years of my life. For this week's music video selection, I decided on Wet Wet Wet's debut single, "Wishing I Was Lucky." I have no clue why this song never became a hit in the U.S. After all, it's way better than Frankie Goes to Hollywood's "Relax", which was a stateside hit in 1985. This song has soul. It's about searching for a job in the city and being conned by a "friend" with false job leads.

When it became a big hit in Europe, there was another "Lucky" song charting around the same time: Kylie Minogue's "I Should Be So Lucky." I thought of the songs as perfect companion pieces. Enjoy! This song always makes me happy.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

McCain vs. Obama, Round One



So, McCain decided to debate after all. I was hoping that he wouldn't show up, just to see what they would do with the debate. However, I think McCain's advisors rightly convinced him that not showing up would be a huge mistake. Not showing would essentially be conceding to Senator Obama and it would have resulted in charges that McCain is a chicken. In the past two weeks, he truly has been ALL OVER THE MAP! It started on September 15th, when he actually said that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." By week's end, he was singing a new tune, calling for the Treasury Secretary to be fired (I agree with him on that point).

Then he decided to "suspend" his campaign this week as he sought to work a deal between Congress and Wall Street financiers. The ploy backfired, as pundits had a field day reporting on his strange decision, especially when he wanted to reschedule the debate for next Thursday, displacing the much anticipated VP debate in Saint Louis. Seems like he only threw this idea out there in a sneaky way to save Palin from making a complete fool out of herself in next week's debate. After her interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and Katie Couric, we've seen her poll numbers drop as people are starting to realize just how dense and out of her depth this candidate is.

I was stoked to watch this first debate. For me, this is the Superbowl, Academy Awards, and the Olympics all rolled into one. Unfortunately for those on the West Coast, the debate started at 6 PM, which meant that I couldn't run errands after work like I wanted to. Instead, I rushed home to cook dinner and then settle in to watch the debate. What's interesting is that in 2000, I really liked Gore and disliked Bush; in 2004, I hated both Bush and Kerry; and in 2008, I like and admire both McCain and Obama. That's part of the reason why I was really excited to watch this debate.

After watching it, I was kind of bummed out. It was kind of dull, for the most part. Obama came off as presidential, which is vital for people to feel comfortable voting for him. However, at times, he seemed too cool, cerebral, and detached. That may or may not be a good quality for a president to have, but I was hoping to see more passion. There were so many moments where he could've truly ripped into McCain. He did get in some jabs, such as McCain singing about "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and for McCain acting as though the Iraq War began in 2007 (when the surge began).

McCain came off as someone who didn't seem like he wanted to be there. He appeared condescending towards Obama. The contempt was apparent. Some of his jokes bombed and my favourite moment was seeing him fumble the name of Ahmadinejad. I actually laughed when he put in a promo for his running mate as a true Maverick. I can't believe he's still harping on that harpy. He truly looked tired and in the wrong century. He would've been a good president...in 2001. My feeling is still...that Republicans had their chance to vote for McCain as President in 2000. They chose instead an incompetent and inexperienced son of a former one-term president. Why should Americans be asked to overlook that and now vote for McCain in 2008? Let's put him where he belongs: in the history books as a has been. He's history. Toast.

The media seems to have declared Obama "the winner." I hate it when the media treats these debates as a boxing match or something. I thought both candidates made good points in certain areas, not so good points in other areas. It's a contrast in style. In a Daily Kos diary that I read, one writer summed it up best: in the debate, Obama came across as the Alpha Male and it's the Alpha Male that generally gets elected. Why did he say this? He pointed out that when the candidates shook hands in the beginning, Obama had the upper hand and throughout the debate, Obama looked at his opponent and spoke directly to him, whereas McCain wouldn't even look at Obama and directed his comments towards the moderator, Jim Lehrer. Eye contact with your opponent is crucial. Maybe McCain is a bit insecure. After the two weeks he's had, it's easy to see why. His campaign is in panic mode, as it should be. His party got America into it's current mess overseas and economically so he inherits Bush's legacy the same way Gore inherited Clinton's sex problem. It might not be fair, but payback is a bitch.

Hopefully the next debates will be more lively with some good zingers. Maybe comparing the presidential debate to a boxing match is apt. However, for that to be true, we need to see blood. Obama should go for the jugular in the debate on domestic issues. My favourite debate format, though, has always been the Town Hall meeting. I remember in a 1992 debate when Papa Bush was caught looking at his watch. It was a simple gesture that symbolized his detachment from average Americans' concerns about economic issues. In the Town Hall meeting, we get to see what "average Americans" are interested in. In 2004, Baby Bush gushed about one woman having three jobs as being "uniquely American" (when the true "compassionate conservative" would ask WHY she had three jobs in the first place). The Town Hall debate is where the true character comes out, thus why they are the best. McCain is supposedly better at it than Obama is, which makes it all the more interesting.

In conclusion, I'll call this debate a draw. Obama came off looking presidential, which is what he needed to do to close the "foreign policy gap" with McCain.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Another Fun Friday Survey!

(See Question #66)

The following questions were taken from several surveys that Sean fills out daily on Myspace. This will be the last survey for awhile as I resume my Flashback Fridays next week.

1) What was the last concert you went to? The Retrofits, earlier this year.

2) Do you belie​ve in God? Yes. It's a tumultuous relationship sometimes

3) What'​s your favor​ite BBQ'​d food? Ribs

​4) How do you want to die? 11/22/2033. Oh, how not when. Um...a painless fadeout.

5) What cell phone​ servi​ce do you use? Sprint

6) Do you have an attit​ude?​ Not really. Want to make something of it?

7) Ever wanna​ be in love? Of course.​

8) How much do you text? Never anymore since I cancelled that part of my plan after I learned that I'm charged 60 cents per text when other people text me! I don't understand the appeal of text messaging. It's a quick way to send a message, but some people think it's IM and if it goes back and forth like that, why not call?

​9) Like readi​ng? Love it. So many books, so little time.

​10) Do you hate anyon​e at the momen​t?​ My job. It acts like an annoying person at times.

11) Twirl​,​ or cut your spagh​etti? Twirl

​12) How many siblings do you have? Two

13) When was your last famil​y reuni​on?​ May 2005 for cousin Michael's graduation in Atchison, Kansas.

14) How exact​ly are you feeli​ng now? Cautiously optimistic.

15) Ever ate food in a car while​ someo​ne or your self is drivi​ng? Of course.​

16) Are Barbi​e & Ken bad influ​ences​ on peopl​e? Only weak minded people who are plastic anyway.

​17) Do you regre​t anyth​ing from your past?​ Leaving D.C. in 2000, and accepting my current job instead of going to the other job interview the following week.

18) What are you liste​ning to? Awesome chanting meditation music.

19) Do you go to church? Not often enough. It can be dull...but some church officials are in town this weekend to talk to Young Adults to find out what it would take to make us more dedicated, committed and on fire. For me, it would take evening services, informal settings (I like chairs in a circle), some message-appropriate pop music, a nice cup of chai latte, and / or free flow dialogue / testimony sharing.

20) Do you type fast? 75 wpm!

​21) Do you have pierc​ings? No way.

​22) Can you spell​ well?​ Yes, ever since elementary school.

23) What do you miss the most about​ your past?​ How easy it was to make friends when you're a child. I also miss living in West Germany in the late 1980s.

24) What are you cravi​ng right​ now? A better paying job.

25) What are your favour​ite colour​s?​ Green and blue.

26) Do you have trust​ issue​s?​ Yes, to a degree. I have ways of testing people's trustworthiness, though.

27) Do you suppo​rt the war in Iraq? This is a difficult question to answer. I didn't support the invasion, but I think leaving now would be a mistake. Thus the need to punish Bush for getting us into an expensive, neverending quagmire.

​28) What was the last movie​ you saw in a theater? "The Dark Knight"

29) Have you ever walke​d outsi​de in the rain?​ This is Oregon...so from mid-October to May, yes of course!

30) Do you think​ you are a good perso​n? Most of the time. I have a mischievious side, though.

​31) Do you belie​ve every​thing​ happe​ns for a reaso​n? It's difficult to answer because I believe that a lot of things do, but some things are accidental (such as murder, suicide, plane crashes, dying in war). What that means is that I don't believe anyone wills themselves to be murdered. There might always be a "reason" but not always a "it was God's plan / it was meant to be" kind of reason that others are so quick to say. Sometimes, "shit happens and you're fucked." For example, I believe Princess Diana's and John F. Kennedy Jr's deaths were accidental and not "their time to die."

​32) What did you do last night​?​ Attend a special church gathering for Young Adults.

33) What brand​ of compu​ter do you use? Acer.

34) How do you feel about​ Wal-​Mart? Hate it with a passion. Wouldn't be caught dead there.

​35) Do you know where​ Tehra​n is? Duh! I am an international politics major. Besides, it's our next invasion target.

36) Who has inspi​red you the most?​ My U.S. government teacher Tom Malone in my senior year of high school. He was an atheist who taught me a lot about religion and tolerance as well as ignited my interest in politics and international affairs.

37) Are you mean? Only to those who deserve it. But I strive to be nice most of the time.

​38) Can you keep white​ shoes​ clean​? Yes.

​39) Do you belie​ve in true love?​ Yes.

40) Are you a lover​ or a fight​er? I love to fight. Nah. Nothing beats love.

​41) Are you proud​ of the perso​n you'​ve becom​e? I haven't become that person yet. I think it would take my own kid to transform me that way. I'm very interested to see what kind of father I'd be.

42) Who has helpe​d you, or convi​nced you to chang​e? Probably no one since Tom Malone (see question #36). He changed my views on religion, which was a big deal at the time. He broke me out of the evangelical brainwashing I received when I lived in Germany and my dad forced me to attend youth group meetings every Sunday.

​43) Who was the last perso​n to make you mad? Probably my supervisor at work and her OCD micro-managing style.

44) Do you like to be outsi​de? When it's gorgeous with temperatures in the 60s-70s.

​45) Are you easily bored​?​ No...too many things to do to ever be bored. Boredom is for people who lack imagination.

46) Favourite subject in school?​ History or Geography.

47) Ever faile​d a class​? Biology 101 in college. Probably one of the costliest mistakes of my life because it held up my bachelor's degree for six years!

​48) How many diffe​rent count​ries have you been to? 25 if you count Puerto Rico as a country and not a U.S. territory.

49) What makes​ you happy​?​ Traveling, writing, and being with close friends.

50) What is your favourite name for a boy? Patrick or Jeremy.

51) What is your favour​ite name for a girl? Natalie or Rebecca.

​52) Are you paran​oid? No. I generally don't worry about that strange person in a trenchcoat following me. (Ha. I'm only kidding about that, of course!)

​53) Do you watch​ the news?​ Only the national or international news. I have a low tolerance for the local news and their obsessions with creating fear.

54) What is your zodia​c sign? Capricorn.

​55) Do you like Subwa​y? Yes, great fast food place.

​56) Who were the last 3 different peopl​e you texte​d? I don't text, remember?​

57) Initials: NNC

58) Name someone with the same birthday as you: Tiger Woods was born the same day, four years after me.

59) For or against same sex marriage? Who am I to deny anyone the right of marriage?

60) Are you homophobic? The Navy cured me of that. I saw homophobia up close and didn't want to be like that, so it has been a long process to not freak out if I happen to see two guys holding hands and/or making out.

61) Do you still watch cartoons on Saturday mornings? No, they are annoying. But then again, you're assuming that I'm up early enough on Saturday mornings to turn on the TV.

62) How many of the U.S states have you lived in? Eight. Nine, if you count my 7 weeks at the Navy "A" School in Meridian, Mississippi.

63) Have you ever lived outside the US? Yes: Taiwan, the Philippines, West Germany, and Italy

64) Name something you like physically about yourself? My teeth.

65) Something non-physical you like about your self? My intellect.

66) What is your dream car? Scion tC (see photo above).

67) If you could go anywhere in the world, where would you go? Australia has been my top choice since I was 11 years old. It's the vacation of a lifetime...and the first place I'd travel if I won the lottery or came into some major money.

68) Favourite type of food? Italian. Any pasta or lasagna dish.

69) Favourite holiday? Thanksgiving and Christmas (the whole season)

70) Where would you want to go on a first date? It would be hard to beat the first two dates I had in D.C. when Jenet went with me to a Gore Super Tuesday primary party and then to the White House Garden Tour for the second one. How do I top that?!?

71) Do you like president Bush? Hell NO!

72) Have you ever bungee jumped? No.

73) Have you ever white-water rafted? Does that ride at amusement parks count?

74) Has anyone ten years older than you ever hit on you? Not that I can recall.

75) Last person you hugged? The fellow Young Adults at the retreat.

76) Have you met a real redneck? Too many and they are way overrated. Rednecks and I don't get along for obvious reasons.

77) How is the weather right now? Cooling down for fall with rainy season upon us.

78) What song are you listening to right now? "Anywhere Is" by Enya (love that song!)

79) What is your current favourite song? "Forever" by Chris Brown

80) What was the last DVD you watched? "The Color of Night"

81) Do you wear contacts? I did in college. Need to buy some again.

82) Any pets? No, but I still want a Golden Retriever someday.

83) What really turns you on? An intelligent woman with a political opinion. Someone like Tina Fey doing a Sarah Palin impersonation. So sexy!

84) What do you usually order from Starbucks? Chai Latte.

85) Have you ever fired a gun? Yes. I'm terrible at it.

86) Do you have an iPod? No, I heard they break down too much.

87) Has anyone ever said you look like a celebrity? Yes...but they flatter me. A few thought I looked like Tom Hanks when I was much younger but I knew that wasn't true. The most eerie "lookalike", though, was Andrew Cunanan...the guy who killed Gianni Versace in 1997. I'll have to do a special post on that with comparative photos. Very scary!

88) Are you comfortable with your height? It is what it is. Sure, I'd love to be over 6 feet tall, but that won't change. There are advantages to not being so tall (shorter people live longer, as Japan proves in statistics).

89) Dogs or cats? Dogs.

90) Favourite flower? Don't really have one but I love the smell of lavender the best.

91) Butter, plain, or salted popcorn? Butter.

92) What books are you reading? Credible biographies on Obama and McCain, plus "Faith of My Fathers", "Bangkok Haunts" and some spiritual books.

93) Have you ever ridden in a limo? No, never had an interest.

94) Has anyone you were really close to passed away? My grandmother in 2005.

95) What's something that really annoys you? Willfully ignorant people

96) What are some things you really like? Music, traveling, Portland.

97) Do you like the color brown? It looks good as clothing, but not as a car color.

98) Favourite basketball team? Don't have one.

99) Favourite breakfast food? Don't get up early enough to enjoy any.

100) Do you drive? When I had a car. I love stick shift.

101) Last time you went bowling? October 2007 with the Young Adult group. Total blast!

102) Were you ever rushed by an ambulance into the emergency room? No but my brother has. Ambulance rides are EXPENSIVE!!!

103) Prefer black or blue pens? Black.

104) Dress up on Halloween? Maybe this year. Would love to dress up as a Colonial patriot with a McCain mask. Hey, it's not that much of a stretch...considering how old the dude is!

105) Like to travel? Of course! It's when I feel most alive and happy.

106) Like Someone? Yes.

107) Do they know? If she's smart, she does.

108) Want to get married? Of course.

109) To who? To an intelligent woman who equally finds me a catch.

110) Are you currently happy? Depending on if I'm at work or away from work. I'm happy when I'm away from the office, miserable at the office.

111) Do you like Dr.Pepper? Yes.

112) Christmas or Halloween? Christmas.

113) Colored or black-and-white photo? Both serve their purpose.

114) Do long distance relationships work? Not really. I wouldn't be in one.

115) Do you believe in love at first sight? Yes, it's possible.

116) Do you consider yourself the life of the party? No, nor would I want to be.

117) Do you drink? Sometimes. I love Amaretto and Coke.

118) Do you make fun of people? No. But that's not the same as talking about them, which I will do if they've done something worth talking about.

119) Do you think dreams eventually come true? Depends on the dream and how much you desire it. Some of mine have.

120) Favourite fictional character? Probably Thai Detective Sonchai Jitpleecheep in the "Bangkok" detective series by John Burdett. He's a Buddhist cop who doesn't accept bribes, his mother was a Thai prostitute who runs a brothel, and his father was a white American G.I. he had never met. It's the only crime novel series that I read because of its setting in Thailand with Buddhist overtones.

121) Go to the movies or rent? Rarely go to the movies these days. Too expensive, but I most certainly will for Oliver Stone's "W" and might for Bill Maher's "Religulous."

122) Have you ever moved? Too many times.

123) Loud or soft music? In between. I don't like Metallica loud nor do I like Barry Manilow soft.

124) McDonalds or Burger King? Burger King.

125) Night or day? Night.

126) Number of pillows? Two.

127) Piano or guitar? Used to play piano. Wish I could play the guitar.

128) Future job? Political aide to a politician I admire. Or Novelist. Or both.

129) Current job? Yuck. Moving on...

130) Current thought? It's the weekend!

131) Current annoyance? Too much to do this weekend, not enough time.

132) Last thing you bought? Besides food, probably the novel "the 19th Wife."

133) Plans for the weekend? The Young Adult dialogue with church people on Saturday, canvassing for Charles Lewis on Sunday.

134) Pick a lyric, any lyric or song: "My breath smells of a thousand fags and when I'm drunk, I dance like me dad..." from Robbie Williams' "Strong" (that's what came to mind first).

135) Ever been to California? Yes, of course. I love it! I should've re-upped in the Navy for orders to San Diego back in 1996! But, I don't regret most of the choices I've made since 1996.

136) What is your middle name? Noel.

137) Are you single or taken? Single.

138) Do you like to travel by plane? I used to love it before the post 9/11 stupidity of stripping at the metal detector. Nothing beats train travel for me. It's relaxing with no harassing overzealous TSA employees.

139) Right or left handed? Left handed.

140) Do you have any tattoos? No. Don't plan to get any.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Clueless Theocrats and the Impending A-mock-alypse


I remember telling people a few years ago that even though I believe Bush is the worst president in American history, my fear was that we would have a president that will be even worse. Who can possibly be worse than Bush? Sarah Palin, that's who.

Bush might be the ne'er-do-well son of a former president, but he has, at least, some experience in the training ground of the elite class that ends up ruling our country: Andover, Yale, and Harvard Business School. Palin? Five schools in six years. She eventually got her degree in sports broadcasting at the University of Idaho. I don't know about you, but I have serious doubts that this public university in a small western state (especially a state known for anti-government isolationists) has the credentials to train future leaders of our country.

In another comparison, Bush was raised in his father's mainline faith tradition (Presbyterian, I think) but joined his wife's Methodist Church. From my understanding, the Methodists is a mainline Christian church that is probably the protestant church closest theologically to the Community of Christ. It's pretty moderate and mainstream. By comparison, Sarah Palin has belonged for many years to the Assemblies of God, which is a charismatic religion that also claims John Ashcroft as a member. They believe in speaking in tongues, being "slain in the spirit" and are obsessed with end times prophecy.

In my first post-college job, I shared a cubicle with a lady who was a member of the Assemblies of God. It was a year in hell as she sought every day to preach to me her "truth." In our conversations, I was continually amazed how ignorant she was about a lot of things. For example, her definition of "communism" was "people deceived by Satan." Her definition of "capitalism" was "people blessed by God." She cheered when the Taliban blew up 1,000 year old statues of the Buddha. I reminded her of this when she was terrified with the 9/11 attacks (she had called me at my new job to talk about it). I had told her when the Buddha carvings were annihilated that she shouldn't be so happy about the destruction of sacred icons of other faiths, because they might do it to us and I didn't think she'd be happy if they did.

What I learned in the year that I worked with this lady is how scary it truly is that some people have no basis in reality. She lived in a fundamentalist world and watched her news on the Christian Broadcasting Network (Pat Robertson's propaganda channel) and the Trinity Channel (Jan Crouch's propaganda channel). She "knew" a lot about Israel, or at least the rightwing view of the situation there. Her whole obsession was with end times prophecy because she believed that it would prove the literal truth of the Bible to everyone who doubted, or who got a college education, or who had a different belief than she did. I couldn't believe how one could prefer to live in lies that was so far removed from reality. She had no problem labeling people like Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela as evil. She admired Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and even Jimmy Swaggart. I have no doubt that she would find a soulmate sister in Sarah Palin.


I've read that conservatives who love Sarah Palin are proud of the fact that she "scares" liberals. But if they were smart, they would be afraid of her too. Her ignorance is so blatant and blinding, it's baffling why they'd even support her. Voting for her is committing treason against the United States. It's certainly not in our national best interest to see her anywhere near the White House. She's ideologically blind and so ignorant that she is still being sequestered from the media, even as she meets with the war criminal Henry Kissinger and the presidents of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Georgia.

The reason for her sequestering is because she's not "ready" to face media questions. They are hiding her ignorance from the American public. She is so shallow and vapid that they are worried that anytime she opens her mouth, gaffes will fall out. I've read somewhere that if you make a point to be honest in everything you say and do, you have nothing to worry about. If you lie a lot, you have to be more careful what you say because any utterance could reveal a contradiction and expose you for the liar you are. That's why she's not talking to the media, and I'm glad that a CNN reporter has called the McCain campaign out on the carpet for their "sexism" in shielding her from media questions in a way that no male candidate for political office has ever been. What are they afraid of? Maybe Palin is afraid of Virginia Wolfe! One "gaffe" was revealed recently when Palin referred to a "Palin and McCain Administration."

Arianna Huffington calls her the "Trojan Moose", which is a perfect term for what I suspect might happen if McCain wins in November. Palin's slip in referring to herself first in talking about their administration indicates to me what I suspected since her selection as VP. I believe that McCain will not live long in the new administration. It's no secret that evangelicals don't trust him and if he can conveniently die, they'll get their wish of a Palin Administration. She will pick up where Bush floundered and deliver on the broken promises. They want a Christofascist police state, where women are forced to give birth to babies conceived in rape or incest, where truth can be hidden and anyone asking questions will be sent off to Guantanamo Bay to be water boarded, where police can search our homes, confiscate our books, violate the Constitution, and commit all kinds of acts of treason. Make no mistake, Palin will be much worse than Bush has ever been. She's fascism with a pretty face. She'll do a better con job on the American people than Bush has been able to.

The news has shown interviews with quite a few women on their support of Palin because "she knows what it likes to be a mom." That might be the most asinine reason ever to vote for someone (it's even worse than voting for the person you'd rather have a beer with). Not to disparage mothers, but what does being a mother have to do with fixing a broken economy, staring down the likes of Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad or Medvedev, or waging a more successful war in Afghanistan and Iraq? I hate to say it, but if she's president, who would take care of her special needs baby Trig? Or would she finally reveal to all that Trig is really her grandson, and Bristol will take care of Trig along with her second child (due in December)? Lest anyone forget, Magda Goebbels was also a mother. Watch the excellent German film "Downfall" about the last days of the Third Reich. Magda Goebbels was so aligned with the Nazi cause that she didn't blink an eyelash when she forced her children to take pills when the end was coming. Probably to save them from a future of knowing just how evil their parents really were. Palin is an empty headed ideologue who is undergoing a neoconservative brainwash. She will emerge as a fembot who can stick to the talking points in the upcoming VP debate. Do we really want a Stepford Vice President?

People who like her religiousity should really think deeper about it. What is so Christian about end times prophecy? The whole thing reeks of Nazi-esque genocide. The thing that most outrages me about the obsession with the apocalypse is that these people vote for the worst candidates to lead us. They don't care if we ruin the environment, the economy, other countries. It doesn't matter how many innocent people we kill. They look at the strife in the world and smile because they believe we are closer to the time when Jesus will return to rapture the true believers from the hell they created on earth. What that means is that they believe they will be spared from their own actions and the people who pay for it will be the "nonbelievers" (which includes minority Christian religions like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses). What kind of warped theology would cheerlead a presidential administration enacting policies designed to speed up Christ's return and then hope to be raptured to be spared from their own evil unleashing upon a much suffering world? That would be like a child molester and wife abuser claiming that he does such acts in the hope that Jesus would come back to save him while the people he abused will have to deal with the result of his actions without his being there. It's psychotic and I don't believe that reflects true Christian values.

Progressive evangelical minister Jim Wallis pointed it out best in a recent editorial. He offered the following quote regarding the current financial meltdown on Wall Street. It's great to have an evangelical who knows which Bible verses to quote back at the conservative evangelicals who think they have a lock on God. Maybe if we become more Biblically literate, we can quote Bible verses back at the people who dare to abuse the Bible for their own hatred, lies, bigotry and violence.


Micah 2:1-4 - God's message to Wall Street:
Woe to those who plan iniquity, to those who plot evil on their beds! At morning's light they carry it out because it is in their power to do it. They covet fields and seize them, and houses, and take them. They defraud a man of his home, a fellowman of his inheritance. Therefore, the Lord says: "I am planning disaster against this people, from which you cannot save yourselves. You will no longer walk proudly, for it will be a time of calamity. In that day men will ridicule you; they will taunt you with this mournful song: 'We are utterly ruined; my people's possession is divided up. He takes it from me! He assigns our fields to traitors.'"

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The Zeitgeist Movie

After several people recommended "Zeitgeist the Movie" to me, I decided to watch it this week (on YouTube). It's recommended by the same people who recommend "Loose Change" (about 9/11). I found the "documentary" to be an interesting and intriguing look at the world, though I do have my critiques.

"Zeitgeist" is a German word that literally translates as "times" + "spirit". Loosely translated, it basically means the spirit of the times. You know...like when slavery finally came to be seen as immoral, or when the American Revolution was inevitable. It's the spirit of the age, when an idea has achieved "critical mass." This film hopes to be that kind of influence on humanity. However, we're still too new in this century to know its impact.

The film is divided into three sections. The first section is about Christianity, which the documentarians have decided is based on astrology and rips off other religions. I also watched what the film's detractors had to say about it and all the ones I've found on YouTube aim most of their criticism at the first section of the film. I don't know enough about ancient Egyptian religion or the others to know how much of it resembles the Christ mythology. I'll have to research it further. What did intrigue me about the first section was the astrological parallels, with the "Son" representing / replacing the "Sun." I knew since a teenager about the move to make Jesus' birthday fall near the Winter Solstice to convert pagans. In my faith tradition, many believe Jesus' birthday was more likely in April (which also happens to be the birth date of the Latter Day Saints movement). What really intrigued me about this section was that Jesus supposedly represents the Age of Pisces (which is symbolized by a fish). Each astrological Age is approximately 2,500 years and the next age is of Aquarius. Historically, there is some sort of upheaval associated during the transition from one age into another. Thus why some feel like we are entering the "end times" of Revelations.

The thesis of the documentarians is that the Christ myth is the first lie to con people into a sort of complacent mental slavery. However, that's only one way of looking at it. The people who made this film make it seem like Jesus didn't exist, that he was entirely made up. However, while I have my own beef with the way the Christ story has been misused and abused, the example I get from his life story is that he showed us how to live, which might upset the powerful people in the church institution and their strict obedience to following "the letter of the law." He showed us that how we act towards one another, by seeking forgiveness and peace in our interactions, that we can transform society. So, I don't agree that Jesus was a con job. He is a worthy example of how to live life. It's the people who created a church in his name that have caused a lot of problem, especially when they made salvation dependent upon a person's acceptance of Jesus as a personal saviour by professing to believe literally in the resurrection and the reason behind the resurrection (that he died for our sins). I don't accept that view of Jesus at all. But I'm not going to throw Jesus out just because evil men have manipulated his life story to control the mass of ignorant people.

The second part of the film deals with 9/11. I won't go into detail here, because I already shared my views about 9/11 on 9/11's post. This part of the film is like a condensed version of "Loose Change" and worth watching because once you look at the events through the lens of logic and science (particularly the laws of physics and chemistry), there's only one conclusion to make: 9/11 was committed by evil men in our government to shock the people with fear and obedience so we can go along with pre-emptive wars for oil, the stripping away of our Constitutional rights, and the slippery slope all of it leads to (unlawful detentions, torture, and inability to speak to a lawyer). Very chilling, but even skeptics should see this part of the film and ponder the meaning, even if they don't quite believe it to be true.

The third and final part of the film deals with the financiers who supposedly manipulate market crashes to have greater control over the economy and wealth. It was most interesting watching this segment on the heels of our latest financial disaster. I have no problem believing that something is afoot and it can't be good. Someone has benefitted financially from this mess and I wouldn't be surprised if it was planned all along. Fascism is easy to enact when economic times are uncertain. We've seen too many strange things happen during Bush's presidency that I believe elements of our government have nothing but evil designs for our nation if they continue to have their lizard-like claws on the real power of our country.

The problem I have with the final segment is that it goes into the "One World Government" conspiracy that I heard so much about since the 1980s. I just don't see it as possible because our world is too diverse. There is a such thing as a spiritual force at work that can undermine those in power. Empires over extend and collapse. It happened to Rome, to the Ottoman Empire, to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, to Prussia and the Soviet Union, and to the United Kingdom. France and Spain had their glory days of empire as well. Now America's empirical ambitions are collapsing under the weight of debt. I have a hard time believing that these global financiers with an ambition towards a one world government could succeed because there's such a thing as old age and death. And betrayal. For example, if Dick Cheney were the evil mastermind behind it all (the stolen election, 9/11, war in Iraq, and the financial crisis) and wanted to be a leader of this so called "one world government", well...he has a weak heart, he's old, and the fucker is going to die someday (soon, we can all hope!). No human being can escape that fate God gives all living beings of planet earth. People who crave absolute power always have to watch their back because there are other men who want that power for themselves.

Another difficulty I see in establishing a "one world government" is that the narrator of "Zeitgeist" said that there are plans underway to form a "North American Union", an "African Union" and an "Asian Union" to rival the European Union. This is supposedly a step towards "one world government" (as was the United Nations, which has proven itself to be more a chamber of hot air and rhetoric than an effective enforcer of resolutions on violating nations). For one thing, Africa is so technologically behind the times and impoverished that I don't see global financiers bothering with such a continential union. There are too many tribal differences with ethnic clashes and guerilla warfare and corrupt leaders. We've seen time and again (with Ethiopia, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, Darfur and Zaire...to name but a few) that the world pretty much doesn't care about the plight of poor Africans. Starvation, disease, chronic poverty, violence, genocide. The world doesn't care about that continent to spend time or money forming an "African Union" on the European model.

The "Asian Union" is equally absurd because it's the world's largest continent and the most diverse. The Chinese and Japanese don't trust one another, and neither does Pakistan and India. Then there's the diverse Arab and Muslim nations, some of which stretch across North Africa. Would Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt be part of the Asia Union or the Africa Union? And what about the much talked about Pan-Arab nation-state? They've never been able to form one because those countries don't like or trust each other. What about the Iranians, who aren't Arabs, but Persian? And then there's Israel? Would it agree to be part of some Asian Union? I highly doubt that. They'd rather be the 51st state.

We don't hear any talk about a North American Union. While I agree that Canada and the U.S. should form one country (I know that Canadians would oppose such a deal), Americans would be against Mexico becoming part of the North American Union. There's still too much nationalism in many nations for things to progress towards these continental unions as a step closer towards "one world government." So, that's my major beef with this documentary. It's a bit alarmist, but it does get you to think. Everyone should watch it and think about these issues because we need to be aware of attempts to manipulate us through fear of terrorism that is designed to get us to give up our freedom and liberty. No where is this more critical than the idea of implanting a microchip inside our bodies. That should absolutely not be allowed to happen. It would be a new form of slavery and we would all be less secure (watch "Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace" for an idea of how a microchip can be used. Anakin Skywalker spells it out perfectly).

All in all, an interesting film and worth watching. I'm more optimistic than the producers of the film because I believe that the spirituality of the age will defeat the totalitarian designs of manichean and authoritarian technocrats. Jesus showed the way and it's up to anyone who considers themselves "Christian" to join this fight against any move towards a totalitarian society. Unfortunately, too many of them have authoritarian impulses and want to establish a Christofascist society as it fits in with their perverse view of apocalyptic theology. It's time to join the zeitgeist and awaken to our power as spiritual beings so we can prevent this future from becoming reality.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Music Video Monday: France Gall



This week's selection is a French pop song by France Gall. It was a big hit in 1988 from a great album (I love most of the songs), Babacar, which I bought when I went on a vacation to Paris with my dad (our second time there).

This song is a homage to Ella Fitzgerald and what I like most about it is that when I first heard it, I thought France Gall was singing "Ella Ella." The cool thing about French is that you can play with words because of how they don't often pronounce the end letter in many words. For critics I knew in the Navy who didn't listen to songs if they weren't in English (for fear that they might be saying "anti-American" things, which I found laughably absurd, not to mention narcissistic. As if every foreign language song was all about how much they hate us and want to kill us!), I give them this example. The song is "Ella, Elle l'a" (though it sounds like "Ella Ella"). The English translation is "Ella, She Has It." It doesn't have the cool echo effect that the French language offers, thus why it works much better in French. Who needs a translation? Sometimes it works better in the original language.

I'm dedicating today's music video selection to my friend Janell Fluckiger. She was the first person I met who loved Ella Fitzgerald. Though I didn't care for that kind of jazz, I learned to appreciate Ella through Janell's enthusiasm. It was refreshing to see someone of our generation love an icon of another era and music style not popular with most people in our age group.

Below are the lyrics in French (with my spotty college French translation--without a dictionary present):

C'est comme une gaiete
It's like a happiness
Comme un sourire
Like a smile
Quelque chose dans la voix
Something in the voice
Qui parait nous dire "viens"
Who speaks to us saying "come"
Qui nous fait sentir etrangement bien
Who senses us oddly well
C'est comme toute l'histoire
It is like all the history
Du peuple noir
of black people
Qui se balance
who balance
Entre l'amour et l'desespoir
between love and despair
Quelque chose qui danse en toi
Something that dances in you

Si tu l'as, tu l'as
If you have it, you have it
Ella, elle l'a
Ella, she has it
Ce je ne sais quoi
This, I don't know what
Que d'autres n'ont pas
that others don't have
Qui nous met dans un drole d'etat
Who puts us in a strange state

Ella, elle l'a Ella, elle l'a (Ou ou ou ou ou ou ou)
Ella, she has it, Ella, she has it
Elle a (ou ou ou ou ou ou ou) cette drole de voix
She has this strange voice
Elle a (ou ou ou ou ou ou ou) cette drole de joie
She has this strange joy
Ce don du ciel qui la rend belle
This gift of the sky who returns beauty

Ella, elle l'a Ella, elle l'a
Elle a, ou ou ou ou ou ou ou
Ella, elle l'a Elle a, ou ou ou ou ou ou ou

Elle a ce tout petit supplement d'ame
She has this small extra bit of soul
Cet indefinissable charme
this indefinable charm
Cette petite flamme
this small flame
Tape sur des tonneaux
Slap on the barrels
Sur des pianos
On the pianos
Sur tout ce que dieu peut te mettre entre les mains
On all that God can put between his hands

Montre ton rire ou ton chagrin
Show your laugh or your chagrin
Mais que tu n'aies rien, que tu sois roi
But that you have nothing, that you are king
Que tu cherches encore les pouvoirs qui dorment en toi
That you seek again the ability that who sleeps in you
Tu vois ca ne s'achete pas
You see this buys nothing

Quand tu l'as tu l'as
When you have it, you have it
Ella, elle l'a
Ella, she has it
Ce je ne sais quoi
This, I don't know what
Que d'autres n'ont pas
That others don't have
Qui nous met dans un drole d'etat
Who puts us in a serious state
Ella, elle l'a Ella, elle l'a ...
Ella, she has it, Ella, she has it...

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Capitalist Meltdown

There should be no doubt that Bush's place as the Worst President Ever is assured. Has any good news ever happened during his eight years in office? He came into office under a cloud of doubt over the stolen election in Florida. His limo was pelted with eggs during the Inauguration Day parade and the weather was cloudy and rainy. Then 9/11 happened, the collapse of Enron, Global Crossing, and other companies early on. Two massive tax cuts wiped out Clinton's surplus and didn't provide the economic boost our country needed. Then we had two wars, one a complete disaster, while the first one is getting worse through neglect. Muslim extremist groups came to power in Palestine and Lebanon. Iran elected a crazy leader who was one of the student hostage takers during our 1979 crisis. Hurricane Katrina destroyed a great American city and two more this year (Gustav and Ike) have caused considerable damage in Louisiana and Texas. To top it off, we've seen financial institutions falter...Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, and now AIG, and possibly Washington Mutual, which would destroy the FDIC that was put into place because of the 1929 crash that resulted in the Great Depression as people made a run on the banks.

How did all this come to a head? And when has another president had so many blows during his administration? I can't recall any. Should Bush be blamed? Does he really bear responsibility? I think the answer is obvious. He believes that he'll be redeemed by history because he believes that our sacrifice in Iraq will result in good down the line. True, the Iraqis are without a brutal dictator like Saddam. They might eventually become a functioning democracy or theocracy. But even if that happens, it still wouldn't redeem Bush's place in history. Why not? Because historians need to focus on what he promised he would do as president in speeches given in 2000 and to match his words with his deeds. It was a complete reversal. He dissed "nation building." He promised a more humble foreign policy. Most damning of all...he swore that he would "restore honour and dignity in the White House." He hasn't. Torture. Lies. Sycophantic blindness. Incompetence. Graft. Greed. And disasters of every kind: financial, economic, natural, terrorist, and military. To top it all off, he hasn't been above 50% approval rating since before Katrina hit New Orleans over three years ago.

But this post isn't exclusively about Bush. It's about what I feel is only the beginning of the end of unfettered capitalism. Why the collapse? Corporate capitalism is kleptocratic. It's theft of government funds that go towards infrastructure, services, and programs that help the poor. It's the corporate kickbacks given to CEOs, with annual bonuses that are more than a lot of Americans' annual salaries, even if the company's stock went down that year! And when a CEO is fired by the stockholders, they get multi-million dollar severance packages. Talk about golden parachutes! Who needs to retire? Just lie and thieve your way to the top of the corporate ladder, fleece the company for all you can, then get a severance package when the corporation realizes you're an incompetent stooge. No accountability! Just a bunch of low wage earning worker-bees who are saps with disappearing pensions. See you in hell, bucko!

As a teenager, when I watched with fascination as one communist regime after another collapsed in Eastern Europe in late 1989 culminating with the Soviet Union in 1991, I believed that someday, capitalism would go the same way. The reason why the Soviet Union collapsed is because party leaders were blinded by ideology that they couldn't see that the planned economy of communism simply wasn't working. Scarcity was a reality. Communism couldn't compete with capitalism. Capitalism, by its nature, is corrosive. It destroys everything that touches against it: communism, religion, and even democracy. That's because the root is "capital." The -ism indicates that it's an ideology. An ideology about money. We've made it our national religion. In our country, despite people talking about how much freedom we have, any time a person criticizes capitalism, they always get the "communist label" placed on them to discredit their critiques. It's the exact same thing that Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia and other dissidents in communist countries faced. By pointing out the truth to people blinded by ideology, they are accused of being in another ideology that is unacceptable to the ruling class.

It's not "communist" to say: Look...capitalism doesn't work in the long run. Greed eventually destroys because there's no stopping point unless government imposes a cap on greed. Does it makes sense that a person like Carly Fiorina of Hewlett Packard should get a $40 million severance package (especially when she was accused of spying on board members)? Where does that money come from? Why does a person need that much money? It's no longer keeping up with the Joneses, but keeping up with the Gates.

If anyone truly wants to understand our political system, all you have to do is look at the history of our country for the past 130 years or so. In the late 1800s, our country had a bunch of Republican presidents who let corporations do what they wanted. The greed became known as "the Gilded Age" and President Theodore Roosevelt cracked down on the corruption. Then in the post Wilson years, it was the hands-off economic policies of Republican presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover that led to the stock market crash of 1929. It took another Roosevelt (a Democratic one, this time) to "save capitalism from itself." After a twenty year lock on the White House, Democrats had a great era in which sweeping policies were introduced. This created the great middle class. Reagan came in vowing to chip away at the popular programs instituted by Roosevelt and Truman. Debt was amassed and by the end of Bush's term, we were in a recession. Once again, it took another Democratic president to turn around the debt and get the economy moving again, in which he left his successor a nice surplus.

Now, we have in one administration, a devastating economic crisis that might become the undoing of capitalism and lead our nation into complete economic collapse. And yes, Bush does bear responsibility because he was the one who wiped out the surplus with two tax cuts that went to the wealthy class; started two wars on credit card with money from Japanese and Chinese banks; and by bailing out AIG, he's adding even more debt onto the shoulders of the unborn grandchildren of Generation Y (those born between 1982 and 2000). Now we know the real reason why Republicans are so against abortion. Someone has to pay off our debts!

That's what blind ideology gets you: complete collapse. Cheney had the audacity to say "deficits don't matter." Maybe not to him because he'll long be in hell when his grandchildren have to pay taxes on our current debt. As far as the corporate executives of all these companies our government is bailing out...I believe that the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty. This is where I disagree with my liberal friends who are against it in every case. My view is a little different because I'm against it in cases of murder because most of those happen in the heat of the moment. When it comes to the death penalty, I support it only for three scenarios: mass or serial murder; an elected official committing treason against the U.S.; or corporate executives taking huge salaries, perks and bonuses while their company goes broke or bankrupt. The condition our government should make for bailing out AIG and others is: we will bail out the company but the chief executives will be tried, with the possibility of being sentenced the death penalty. Harsh? Not really. Like other proponents of the death penalty claim...it would be a deterrent in the case of corporate crime (I believe wealthy people fear death more than those in poverty because they have more to lose).

Eat, drink and be merry! We are living in the last days of capitalistic tyranny. Unlimited growth is unrealistic because our planet's ability to sustain the average American lifestyle will continue to wreak havoc on our illogical distribution and consumption patterns.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Those Anti-Social Socialists!

Thursday evening, I went to an info session and discussion on Afghanistan at Portland State University. The question posed by the flyer was: "Is Afghanistan the Good War?"

It wasn't what I expected. I thought it was an official lecture by a guest speaker or political science professor, not a meeting of the International Socialists on campus. But, I didn't bail when I found out what it was, because I know little about Afghanistan and I'm thinking more and more that I will probably end up there next year if I cannot find a better job.

My despair continues to get worse as I keep sending my resume to job listings and getting no response in return. I'm losing all hope that I'll ever find another job in Portland and the thought of working another six months or more at my current job is simply unbearable...especially when my favourite co-worker had turned in her two week notice a week ago. She'll be gone next week and I'll have no one there who always puts a smile on my face by her radiant personality. My growing boredom, depression, and desire for adventure...if not channeled into a new job that matches my passion and interest...will lead me to Afghanistan if I'm still working where I work after Inauguration Day.

Anyhow, back to this socialist gathering. There was about 12 people present, probably all of them students at Portland State University. They weren't a friendly bunch at all. At least not to me, the stranger in their midst. I was actually surprised. Only one guy was friendly enough to talk to me and ask me questions. I know it sounds kind of lame that I expect people to approach me and talk to me first...but when you're a stranger to a group that obviously knows each other and probably want to increase membership, why wouldn't they talk to the new person and make him feel welcome? Earlier this year, I went to a special film showing about Vladmir Lenin. I didn't know at the time that it was sponsored by the Communist Party. And those people were also unfriendly towards me. Even more strange, I was sick the next day. In my mind, I believe that I got sick because I went to that place and felt really unpleasant about it.

I've been accused of being a commie all my life by rightwingers who love to label people without getting to know them. I admit that I do love wearing some "communist"-type logos, medals, red stars, uniform items like hats, etc...but the truth is (as I told the only friendly guy at Thursday's PSU Socialist group), "I'm a loyal Democrat." I might agree with some ideas Socialists work and fight for (just as I agree with the Green Party on a lot of issues), I have a hard time accepting the party as legitimate or seeing it ever rise to major party status. It's essentially a minority party without a strong tradition rooted in American culture. While our Congress does have one Senator of the Socialist Party (from Vermont, of all places), it's not mainstream enough to ever have the kind of success necessary to really influence our government.

The honest truth is, I'm a pragmatic guy with the occasional radical idea...but despite its flaws, I truly love the Democratic Party because of it's history (founded by Thomas Jefferson, who is my favourite President) and it's long tradition in American history. It's considered the world's oldest political party and I'm certain that it's not going anywhere. Granted, it doesn't have a perfect history (Andrew Jackson's disgraceful presidency; the Dixiecrats; and it's current losing strategy of trying to be Republican-lite instead of being the true progressive party)...but I'm a loyal guy and when most of the politicians I admire are Democrats, why would I be a Socialist?

These PSU Socialists seemed a bit fringe to me. One guy basically read from a sheet about Afghanistan. I was disappointed, because I expected a guest speaker from Afghanistan or a college professor who studied it and maybe even been there, not some college student reading from his research notes! After he gave a basic rundown of Afghanistan history, most of which I knew about already, they opened it up for question and discussions.

Basically, everyone there seemed to agree that the war in Afghanistan is equally immoral as Iraq and that the Anti-War coalition should be talking more about getting out troops out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq. They also believe that Afghanistan is merely a distraction from the real prize of Iraq. It's all about controlling the oil in that volatile region. With the claim that "the surge is working" in Iraq, our government wants to send troops over to Afghanistan to bring it back under control, which will probably cause the violence in Iraq to increase. It'll go on back and forth like that, between our two colonies.

I haven't done a lot of thinking or reading about Afghanistan. Though I was against the invasion in October 2001, it was mostly for historical reasons (I didn't see the U.S. succeeding where Britain and the USSR failed before us). However, now that we're there, I am against the U.S. leaving because of what happened in 1989 when the Soviets left in defeat and the U.S. discarding our mujahadeen allies when we didn't need them anymore. That created what the CIA calls "blowback" and what I learned in Political Science: "the law of unintended consequences." The Taliban moved in and if the U.S. leaves, the Taliban will come back. We've invested too much of our money, energy, and lives to just abandon Afghanistan. I believe we have a moral obligation to get it right there, thus why my views wouldn't cut it with the Socialists. Afghanistan is a fascinating country to me and who knows? I might be there next year as a private contractor if all else fails in Portland. With an International Politics degree that I'm not using, I really want to do something with an international focus. Contrary to what Bush said in 2000, I happen to be a believer in "nation-building." But with stipulations. It has to be a multinational effort, none of this "coalition of the willing" crap.

So, who knows what my future will be? I'm trying my hardest to find a better job in Portland but my patience is running out and the call to adventure will be too much to resist early in the new year when we have a new president. Here's a hint...if McCain is president and I haven't found a job in Portland, I will be more likely to go to Afghanistan (or even Iraq) than if Obama is president. You might ask why, and my reasons might sound kind of loopy, but here it is... I believe that if McCain is president, our economy will completely tank and who wants to be around for that? With all the money being thrown to private contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will be my ticket out of debt and after a year, I'll have zero debt and money in the bank in which to go to grad school if I want. Sure beats the hell out of continuing to work in a poverty wage job in an organization that does not share my values.

About those anti-social Socialists...America has nothing to worry about. They are fringe and unfriendly fringe at that. Only the Communists I met earlier this year were more unfriendly. Not a winning way to "win friends and influence people"!

Friday, September 19, 2008

Fun Friday is Back with a Questionnaire

That's me in the pod-like elevator inside Saint Louis' Gateway Arch in November 2005. And yes, that is a USS John S. McCain jacket that I bought on eBay back when McCain was cool, honest, and likeable.


1) Where was I - 10 years ago?

In September 1998, I was a Junior at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. I remember little about that year beyond my obsession with every new detail in the Monica Lewinsky scandal because I thought Clinton was toast. I was taking a full load of political science classes and loving it. However, the toll of being a minority in the Mormon universe began to wear on me as I hoped and prayed for time to speed up so I could get out of there and get on with my life and career in Washington, D.C.

2) What's on my 'to do' list for today ?

I don't have a daily "to do" list or even a weekly one. I should, I suppose. But here are a few things I have in mind: finish the final details in my Washington Seminar scrapbook so that can be complete finally; finish reading "Bangkok Haunts"; catch up in my journal; pay some bills; go grocery shopping; organize my photo negatives into an easier filing system; start a new scrapbook (a photo-biography); and resume sending out query letters on my novel (again).

3) What if I were a Billionaire ?

That would be fantastic! I'd pay off all of my debts and quit my job with a very critical letter of resignation. Next, I would spend the next two months volunteering full time on various political campaigns. After election day, I would head back to Georgia to finish sorting through my things and having everything I want to keep shipped to Oregon. I would stay on the east coast through Thanksgiving, Christmas, my birthday, New Year's, and Inauguration Day, where I would visit D.C. to see President Obama sworn in as the 44th president and visit my friends there. After a week in D.C., I would ride Amtrak back to Portland and begin house hunting. I would either get a three level townhouse in NW Portland or a cozy stand-alone near St. John's / University of Portland area (under 3,000 square feet). Once I found a place, I'd move all my things into it, buy furniture, organize everything, buy my dream car (Scion tC), and after everything is settled, I would take my long deferred dream vacation to Australia for a month followed by 10 days in New Zealand and 5 days in Tahiti.

Once I returned from that vacation, I would go about forming my own Foundation dedicated to establishing a Truth Commission, modeled after South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. My mission in life would be devoted to promoting authentic honesty in our professional, personal, and spiritual relationships. I would also set up a trust fund for my brother, give a lot of money to my family, close friends, and various co-workers I've known over the years who need their debts paid off so they can actually live on the poverty wages they are paid.

I would still seek an agent and publisher for my novel, and if I failed to find one, I'd self publish. I would continue to write full time, alongside my foundation work. Once I felt "established" enough, I would run for political office (preferrably against a rightwing and fanatical evangelical Republican because it would just be way too much fun) in the kind of campaign that I'd like to set the standard for how a campaign should be run. Since I wouldn't care about the outcome (after all, I have a foundation to run), a campaign would allow me the freedom to debate issues in an honest way we don't expect in the current climate.

Yeah, being a billionaire would be awesome. It would be interesting to see how many people from my past come crawling back, wanting to renew friendships and such. My response would be: "if I didn't get a Christmas card from you in the last three years, don't bother." Cold, I know...but I don't do fake friendships.

4) Places I have lived ?

Taipei, Taiwan (1971-1972)
Eglin AFB, Florida (1972-1974)
Clark AFB, the Philippines (1974-1976)
Lawrence, Kansas (1976-1979)
State College, Pennsylvania (1979-1980)
Hill AFB, Utah (1980-1982)
Bellevue, Nebraska (1982-1985)
Fulda, West Germany (1985-1988)
Stone Mountain, Georgia (1988-1991)
RTC Orlando, Florida (March-May 1991)
NTTC Meridian, Mississippi (June-August 1991)
La Maddalena, Sardinia, Italy (1991-1994)
Norfolk, Virginia (1994-1996)
Stone Mountain, Georgia (1996-1997)
Provo, Utah (1997-1999)
Alexandria/Arlington/Vienna, Virginia (January-July 2000)
Stone Mountain, Georgia (2000-2001)
Atlanta, Georgia (2001-2004)
Smyrna, Georgia (2004-2006)
Portland, Oregon (2006-current)

5) Bad Habits ?

Procrastination and going to bed late.

6) Snacks I like ?

What do they call it? Chex mix or something like that?

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Why Conservatives Hate So Much

Last weekend on Bill Moyers' weekly show, he had a segment on the continuing popularity of rightwing radio and television commentators, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and Michael Reagan. This past July, a person who listened to this garbage was so enraged that he went into a Unitarian-Universalist Church in Tennessee and opened fired. He believed that liberals were the source of all his problems, thus he went and did something about it.

Should these rightwingers who sprout hatred on their shows be held liable? I think so. Bill Moyers pointed out that in Rwanda, it was radio talkshow hosts constantly referring to Tutsis as "cockroaches" that incited what became a massive genocide committed by the Hutus in 1994. In our country, we aren't there yet but the shooting at a liberal church might be considered a warning sign.

What baffles me the most is why so many conservatives continue to hate liberals. Their people have controlled the three branches of the government from January 2001 through January 2007. They've held the majority in Congress from January 1995 through January 2007. They have the votes of five Supreme Court Justices. And they have their beloved president in the White House. They should be happy, right? When Clinton was president, I was happy. I basically ignored the opinions of the rightwing as jealousy and mindless rants. I certainly didn't hate the Republican party like I do now. I know hate is a negative emotion that doesn't really solve the issue. In all honesty, I don't really "hate" conservative people as much as I hate their willful ignorance and warped sense of logic. They remind me all too clearly of the scene in the novel "1984" where the ruling party decides to switch allies and enemies. Before the mantra was: "we've always been at war with East Asia." When they switched the mantra to "we've always been at war with Eurasia", the followers went right along with it without stopping to say, "wait a minute! How can that be true?" That's what mindless allegiance to an ideology gets you.

Bill Moyers showed clips of various rightwing commentators and their angry talk. Most disturbing was Michael Reagan, the adopted son of Ronald Reagan. He actually said that people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job should be executed! Wow. Really? He was truly angry about it and his reaction didn't make sense to me. When "my people" were in the White House, I heard all sorts of conservative conspiracy theories accusing the Clintons of murder (both of Vince Foster and of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas). Never once did their accusations anger me or make me think that they should be killed for thinking that. I guess I'm just more tolerant of other people's opinions and don't get threatened by it. For someone to be so threatened by the idea that there are people out there who believe that 9/11 was an inside job is very telling in a psychological standpoint. It reminds me of an idea I read in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." The idea is that when you know something, you aren't fanatical about trying to prove it. You just accept it as it is. For example...nearly everyone knows that the sun is going to come up the next morning, so you don't see people walking around trying to convince other people that the sun is going to come up the next morning. It is only when you DOUBT something that you become fanatical about proving your beliefs are true. That explains all the religious proselytizing. Getting people to believe the same thing you do is little more than silencing the doubts in your mind. People who are truly secure in their beliefs tend not to go around trying to convert everyone else to their way of thinking.

With the Republicans being in power for most of this decade, you would think that they would be happy and celebratory. Instead, they continue to project their hatred of liberals in books and on the radio and TV talkshows. Michael Savage is one who wrote about how liberals are betraying America and you get the impression that they actually hate liberals more than they do of Islamic terrorists. The amount of invective spewed towards liberals is just bizarre. Liberals truly haven't been in power since the 1960s. We've been in a pretty conservative society all of my life. Maybe their anger is from the fact that after these last seven years of Bush rule, their policies have been a dismal failure. I can see why they are angry, but they are blaming the wrong group. It would be like an abusive husband kicking the dog because his wife finally left him. The dog didn't cause the divorce. It was his own abusive actions.

I believe that extreme conservative ideology is a sign of mental illness. I owe this belief to the crazy roommate I had in college. He was so ideologically conservative that he often said nonsensical things that had no basis in fact or logic. He would get angry when I questioned his logic. One of the oddest things about him was that he would read the Daily Universe (BYU's student newspaper) and if he saw a letter to the editor he disagreed with, he would send hate mail to the writer! Hate mail! Just because someone expressed an opinion that differed from his. I tried to understand his behaviour. I asked him what would be the purpose to send someone hate mail. It simply boggles the mind. I eventually learned that he probably was mentally ill. He was bi-polar (manic-depressive), which made living in the same apartment a living hell. The fanatical devotion to rightwing ideology was the worst, though. No amount of reasoned argument, logic or facts would moderate his views at all. Near the end, I began to fear for my safety and reported him to the Honour Code office and even wrote a 12 page letter to his bishop outlining every crazy remark he ever made that called into question his mental stability. It's truly amazing re-reading the copy of that letter, nearly a decade later. I put up with a lot of abuse from that guy. I never hated him, though. I always felt sorry for him because he was so delusional about reality and fanatical in his ultra conservative ideology.

Here's what I know about the emotion of hate. It does make you feel powerful and righteous. But it's a short term fix. In actuality, it will eat away at you. I've seen this in the woman my uncle married. She's the most hateful and abusive person I've ever known. She used to look normal. But a few years ago at a family reunion, I was shocked how shriveled up she was. The transformation reminds me of the witch in "Snow White" who was young and somewhat beautiful yet turned into an old hag with a hunch back. We've all seen old people who look healthy, happy, and somewhat young for their age. I'm certain that their positive nature keeps them in good physical condition. My Great Uncle Jim is such a person. He's the funniest, happiest, and most loving member of our family and he's still riding a bicycle around town at age 83. On the flip side, my angry, hateful aunt has shriveled up into this tiny, bony woman who has nothing but bitterness and caustic things to say to people. I was shocked by the transformation between what I saw of her in 1991 and the person she shrank to in 2005. I have to believe that its the holding on to hatred for all those years which has weakened and diminished her body.

Here's what I know about love. It might seem like a weak emotion to those obsessed with physical power and domination. However, it truly is a transforming and powerful feeling that no drug-induced high could ever match. When I experienced the ecstatic bliss of love that lasted with great intensity for two weeks back in August 2001, I knew why people took drugs. They want to feel what I was feeling, which happened through my own spiritual search for answers to some tough questions about the purpose of my life. What I felt in those two weeks doesn't compare to anything you can get through drugs, sex, or power over others. It is a result of an internal awareness and tapping into your own power. When you feel this intensity of love, you experience a oneness with the entire universe and know no enemies. Everything was right in the universe. No obstacle could stand in my way. No adversary could ever defeat me. It's a power that is quiet, internal, and doesn't boast. No wonder why the rightwing fears it. It has the power to transform our planet into something far greater than our limited minds can imagine.

When we look at these rightwingers like Rush and Coulter and their ilk, one thing comes to mind. Why can't they stay married or find marriage partners? They are all wealthy and part of the ruling elite. I read an interview with Ann Coulter awhile back that was very enlightening. She expressed a fear of her own conservative male fans. They were scary to her. Why? She panders to their rabid intensity. She helped create these people with her propaganda lies. Why wouldn't she appreciate her fan base?

I think it says something when these purveyors of hate can't even stand their own fans. They look down on them, disdain them, perhaps even mock them. On the flip side, the liberal talkshow hosts seem to appreciate their fans and instead of spreading hate, they focus on the issues. While liberalism has its flaws in that people tend not to be loyal due to their independent natures, you rarely hear hatred being espoused. The focus is where it should be: on the issues.

It's sad to me that these rightwing radio talkshow hosts continue to have a huge listening audience. They solve nothing for their listeners lives. However, I know a few guys who have told me that they once listened to Rush regularly as young men and agreed with his views. None of them listen to him now. They grew up and grew tired of the same old hate. Maybe they realized that Rush has no credibility. People change. People get better. Life teaches you how to love. It's easy to hate. Loving is a lot harder. That's how God set it up and it's brilliant that way. Too bad Rush and his ilk haven't found it out for themselves. I have a feeling that Rush will hate until his death. I would not want to be in an afterlife experience that was created by a lifetime of hate.

Conservatives might hate liberals, but I try to remember that the hatred is based on ignorance and not let it bother me. You can't fault them really. They are constantly lied to by their leaders and talkshow hosts, their ideology hasn't made our country better or won any wars or improved the economy or created new jobs. The hatred directed at liberals is a misplaced hatred of self. They hate the freedoms that liberals enjoy, so we're the scapegoats. Rather than wage a war with them, I say...let them go on hating. They are only destroying their physical bodies in the long run and they are missing out on the greatest drug of all: the ecstasy that comes from an authentic love.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

True Motives Behind "Drill, Baby, Drill"

I apologize in advance if any of you find the above cartoon offensive. Honestly, I can't help it. When I heard that mindless chant at the Republican Convention, the first thought that came to my mind was an orgiastic cry you'd expect in a porn film rather than a political convention. Now one can buy a T-shirt with the above image. Capitalistic ingenuity at its crassest best! Considering McCain's wandering eye and Palin's attractiveness, you really do have to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. McCain has already proven that he'd dump one wife in favour of younger and prettier. We've seen too many powerful men constantly trading in their wives when a younger, prettier lady enters the picture.

The reason why I find the chant "drill, baby, drill" vulgar is twofold: (1) it seems like it was taken from the old expression "burn, baby, burn" which wasn't an indication that the person chanting that was up to any good. If I'm not mistaken, that phrase originated with the inner city race riots during the 1960s. It might have even been used in the Vietnam War when villages like My Lai were burned down "in order to save it." (2) The Republicans think that if we start drilling now, gas prices will be cheaper next week or next month or by election day. WRONG! Don't they know that it's a long process that won't see an effect on our energy for at least a decade? Drilling is not the "quick fix solution" to an energy problem that first appeared on the national scene in the Nixon/Ford years.

Carter's advice that we conserve energy through responsible habits was laughed at by conservatives who don't believe we should sacrifice any luxury for the national good. When Reagan came into office, he reversed Carter's energy plans and that's why we're in the mess we're in today...because our leaders in the 1970s and 1980s didn't have the foresight to see where the 1970s Oil Shocks would lead us thirty years later. Peak oil is here and "drill, baby, drill" is a mindless phrase more suited to a porno film than government policy.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

American Wife vs. The 19th Wife


Last week, I went to Powells City of Books for...(you guessed it!)...a booksigning and lecture. The author was David Ebershoff, whom I never heard of, with his latest novel "The 19th Wife." I went to hear his lecture, not thinking I'd buy his book because I'm trying to be good and not buy hardback (I prefer paperback for all books except political memoirs / biographies).

Besides, the book I really want to read has just been released ("American Wife," a roman a clef about a Laura Bush character and how she deals with the man she loves versus his policies that she abhors).

Anyhow, you might have guessed already that "The 19th Wife" is about polygamy and I'm a sucker for anything related to the entire Latter Day Saints tradition and history. As a fifth generation member of the branch formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter Day Saints (now Community of Christ since 2001), I take great pride that my ancestors chose the correct branch ... those who believed polygamy was false doctrine and refused to trek west with the majority who followed Brigham Young. We are the church of Emma Smith and purged from our doctrines the oddest revelations of the martyred prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. Though some in my church believe it was Brigham Young who brought polygamy into the church, I'm of the view that it originated with Joseph Smith, who most likely kept Emma in the dark about it. I haven't investigated it fully, though.

Anyhow, the book is quite timely considering what occurred earlier this year in Texas regarding the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. When that news story broke, you have no idea how glad I was that we changed our church name earlier this decade. It would've been too embarrassing to tell people the church name because people might think I belonged to this group, which is absurd but I know how ignorant people tend to be about obscure religions. The Fundamentalists are the complete opposite to the Reorganites (I think that was an old term once used). In the Latter Day Saint spectrum, we're the most liberal of the branches while the Fundamentalists represent the far right. The Mormons, who retained the original name (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), stand to the right of center. I don't know how many different branches currently exist in our heritage, but it's telling that at a membership of 250,000, we're the second largest (compared to over 10 million for the LDS Church).

In 1984, a large group of about 50,000 members split away from our church over the revelation that women were allowed to be called and hold priesthood offices. They formed "The Restorationist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and have their headquarters in an old school near our church headquarters in Independence, Missouri. I don't expect much to come of them, because it's supposedly a dying group with a strict policy that virtually guarantees their extinction in a few generations. They currently operate without a prophet because of the belief that the prophet can only be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr. Since our church expanded the leadership pool outside of the Smith family (it was the right thing to do, even though I was like many in appreciating our unbroken link to the founding prophet), it's unlikely that there will ever be a reconciliation with them.

For those who know little about the Latter Day Saints, these doctrinal differences must seem odd and it might be easier if they just lump us all into one church. However, as one who has often been mistaken for a Mormon and having to clarify what my church believes (and then further, clarifying my own beliefs which are even more radical than my church's doctrines), the differences matter and nothing matters more to me than the doctrine of polygamy. It's simply indefensible and I even wrote my view about it in a bold paper for a New Testament class at BYU.

Basically, my view of polygamy is that it was necessary in ancient times (I'm talking Biblical time, not the late 1800s America) because women had little rights. Their entire livelihoods depended upon the man. With so many men dying in battle, that left a lopsided ratio of women to men. So, I believe that out of that reality, polygamy was seen as the perfect solution. Widows would be provided for by joining the family of a married man. Only rich men could afford multiple wives. In another way, a man with multiple wives could reproduce quicker and have large families. Our world was far less populated in ancient times and I'm not one to enforce our twenty-first century morality on ancient peoples.

The problem with the revelation of polygamy in 1830s America is that Joseph Smith publically denied that polygamy was practiced. That tells me that he knew it was wrong, but he did it anyway despite public denials. When the polygamy revelation was revealed, he said that it was "the new and everlasting covenant" and if it was ever done away with, it would be a sign that the church was in apostasy. That statement put the church into a bind. If you accept that the revelation was from God, then it's hard to back away from it. If you don't accept that doctrine as being from God (as the Community of Christ believes), then your moral standing is on more secure ground. That's what caused the initial split (there were other issues, but polygamy was the major one that split the two branches). In 1890, the Mormon Prophet Woodruff revealed a declaration that basically says that polygamy would no longer be practiced. This happened because the federal government wouldn't allow Utah to be accepted into the Union until polygamy was done away with. The Republican Party was effective in forcing this issue (the irony of ironies! Today, Mormons are overwhelmingly Republican). Who would've thought back in 1890 that the party that was instrumental in forcing the Mormons to abandon the practice of polygamy would end up receiving their loyal devotion in the 20th century?

The 1890 Declaration, however, didn't sit well with some people. A splinter group formed and continued practicing polygamy on compounds in southern Utah and northern Arizona, eventually expanding to other communities in Mexico, British Columbia, and most famously in Texas. That's not all. They retained the "Little House on the Prairie" look and lifestyle (thus why they are often confused with the Amish). What I find most interesting is that polygamy was the issue that caused the initial split between the LDS and RLDS factions at the beginning (in Nauvoo, Illinois in the 1840s) and then again at the end of its open practice in the 1890s, in which a new group was formed, the FLDS. It makes me wonder if Joseph Smith Jr. had the foresight to know how badly this issue would fracture the movement, would he still have introduced the practice? I know, I know...some people will say that God revealed it to Joseph, so he was only passing on God's will to his people. But I think that's false.

As I often argued at BYU with polygamy defenders, from a scientific standpoint...how can polygamy be a revelation from God? If God truly wanted polygamy to be practiced, why is the male-female birth ratio close to 1:1 world wide? If God wanted polygamy as the natural order of things, you'd think that He'd make it so that there was a birth ratio of 4 to 1 or more, skewed towards a higher population of females.

So that's what the novel "The 19th Wife" covers. It has two stories, interwoven. The modern story is about a young man who was kicked out of his polygamous community as a teenager because that's how they keep the artificial ratio of more girls than boys. He returns home to find out who killed his father after learning that his mother was arrested for the crime. The historical story covers Brigham Young's 19th wife, Ann Eliza, who left the lifestyle and spoke out about it. That part is based on historical facts.

I decided to buy the novel (which means that I didn't buy "American Wife", which I'll probably wait until it's in paperback) and I look forward to reading it. During the Q & A part of the lecture, there were a few "former Mormons" in the audience. I was the only Community Christian and I mentioned my church and my experiences at BYU to the author. What's interesting is that the author is not a Mormon at all. In fact, he only immersed himself for two years in Mormon culture to research this novel. A part of me is a little envious and peeved that a non-Latter Day Saints heritage writer wrote the kind of novel that I would've written someday. Based on his last name and biography, I'm thinking he's Jewish. Thus, to see a Jewish author write a novel about polygamy and the Latter Day Saints history (in the novel there's an interview segment between Joseph Smith and a New York Herald writer, which I don't know if it's an actual historic document or the writer's invention) is a little off putting to me. However, out of fairness, I think it's interesting that someone who knew very little about this heritage tradition would be interested enough to write a novel about it and he seems like a nice enough guy. The novel looks very well researched and I like the writing style of what I've read so far. I just wish I had thought of it first so that I could've written it. But, I have my own novel to find an agent and publisher for, so I hope I don't see a book coming out that covers the same ideas that my unsold novel does. I worked too long and hard on it for someone to "steal my thunder."

I'd love to read the thoughts of my LDS and RLDS friends about the topics of our shared heritage, polygamy, or this novel. Please share!

Monday, September 15, 2008

Crazy Dream

Last night I had a nightmare. I dreamed that McCain won the presidency in a close election result. I was close enough to him to watch him celebrate with a "Thriller" dance, which was hilarious to watch. However, in the dream, his running mate was John Edwards.

After the election, Obama disappeared and his wife and daughters were concerned about it. When he resurfaced, it was to leave his Senate seat early (his first term is up in 2010). He claimed that "the system was broken beyond repair" as his rationale for giving up political office.

I woke up immediately afterwards with my heart racing as I kept saying over and over: "tell me it's not true! Tell me it's not true!" When I realized I was awake, I was a little bit relieved. However, I truly believe it will be a nightmare if he wins because if Palin is still his running mate, I will not rest easy over the next four years.

I will say this, though. If McCain does win...I would bet serious money that he won't live to celebrate his first Christmas in the White House. I'm worried that Palin is the evangelical right's "trojan moose" (as Arianna Huffington put it). They dislike and distrust McCain but they love Palin. Who's to say that some "accident" won't occur where McCain dies of "natural causes due to his age." Palin will assume the presidency and possibly appoint Jeb Bush as her Vice President without having to face the voters until she runs in 2012. By that point, we'll be at war against Iran, Pakistan, and Russia in the evangelical's wet dream of a fantasy that by ushering in a nuclear war, they will speed up armaggedon so Jesus can come back and rapture their asses out of the singed world they brought upon us.

Nightmarish fantasy? You bet. But McCain was a fool. Selecting Palin for VP was not putting country first or his own self interest. Remember, you read it here first.

Music Video Monday: Ofra Haza



For this week's Music Video Monday, I'm selecting a song that was a HUGE hit in the summer of 1988 when I lived in West Germany. I can't believe that was twenty years ago. The song is "Im Nin' Alu" by Ofra Haza. It was the first Middle Eastern song that I heard and I loved it. When I introduced the song to classmates in the fall when we were back in the USA, I was surprised that no one else seemed to like it as much as me. It was the beginning of what I would learn about how different I was from my fellow "white bread" Americans...as my experience in the Navy showed. When it comes to music, I have no hang ups about language and style. I love all things foreign and exotic. All I ask is that the song has catchy rhythms and a unique sound.

I never tire of this song. I don't know much about Ofra Haza, other than I think she died a few years back. I don't own any of her albums, though. That's probably due to the fact that I didn't think she could possibly top "Im Nin' Alu." That song was absolutely perfect.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Comparing the Spin


I found the following comparison on a Daily Kos diary. I'm not sure who the wrote it, as there was a dispute about it. Someone attributed it to a blogger named Tim Wise, but he might have gotten it from a circulated email. Whoever wrote it, I think the comparisons are interesting. It points out the inconsistency in how the candidates are judged. I wish the media would just have one standard and criteria for making comparisons.

The problem is, we've been spun so much that we can't seem to keep track of making consistent judgments. It explains why the Clintons got scrutinized for every little flaw but the Bush family got a free ride with most of their flaws minimized or ignored altogether. There's no indication that the media plans to give McCain and Palin the same easy ride they gave Bush. Maybe eight years of disasterous policies is simply too much to allow another politician to get away with blatant lies.

Enjoy and pass it along to everyone you know who plans to vote this November!

COMPARE THE SPIN:


If you use your ivy league education to help Americans whose jobs have been outsourced, you are a failure.

If you use your ivy league education to help outsource American jobs, you are a success.

If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more “qualified” candidates you're a "token hire."

If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "game changer."

If you live in an Urban area and you get a girl pregnant you're a "baby daddy."
If you're the same in Alaska you're a "teen father."

If you grow up in Hawaii you're "exotic."
If you grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you're the "quintessential American story."

If you name your kid Barack you're "unpatriotic."
If you name your kid Track, you're "colorful."

If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you're "reckless."
If you're a Republican who doesn't fully vet, you're a "maverick."

If you're a man and you decide to run for office despite your wife's recurrence of cancer you're a "questionable spouse."
If you're a woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a newborn... Well, we don't know what that is 'cause "THAT'S NOT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK."

If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you're a "phony."
If you get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you're "well loved."

If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to "get to know you."
If you're white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you're "one of us."

If you're a black man and you use a scholarship to get into college, then work your way up to being the president of the Harvard Law Review, you're "uppity."
If you're a conservative and your parents pay your way to Hawaii Pacific University . . . you only have four more schools to attend over the next five years before you somehow manage to graduate.

If you are a liberal and your unwed daughter gets pregnant, it's "immoral."
If you are a conservative, it's called "family values."

If a Democrat uses his children for photo opportunities, he's exploiting them.
If Republican uses her children for photo opportunities, she's a "proud hockey mom."

If you are a Democrat and the media digs into your past and prints it, it is called "good journalism and getting to the truth."
If you are a Republican and they do the same thing, it is called a "smear campaign."

If you have studied international affairs for several decades, you're "inexperienced at foreign affairs."
If you live in a state that is geographically near a foreign country, you have "foreign policy expertise."

If you're a young American serviceman abused by enemy captors on a daily basis, you're a hero who stoically endured inhumane torture and put country first.
If you're a young Arab or Pakistani grabbed in a battle zone, shipped to an American military prison by way of a third country, and held indefinitely without trial, you're a vicious Islamic terrorist who doesn't deserve to be treated like a human being.

If you're a Republican, you swear Jesus is a registered member of your party.
If you're a Democrat, you appreciate that Jesus was a community organizer.

If you chant 'Drill, Baby, Drill" you are positing an effective and responsible energy plan, science and logic be damned.
If you chant "Yes, We Can" you are a mindless automaton.

If you're a Republican with a questionable academic background, you're a champion of American education.
If you're a Democrat who was editor of the Harvard Law Review, you want to destroy America's schools.

If you're a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls you "First Dog."
If you're a 17-year old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the right-wing press calls you "beautiful" and "courageous."

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, left your disfigured wife, and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years and raised 2 beautiful daughters, you're "risky."

If you're a Democrat and you prefer wine over beer, you are an "elitist."
If you're a Republican and you prefer a beer heiress over your first wife, you are a "committed family man."

If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of "Change," it's just "empty rhetoric."
If one week before your party's national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about "Change," that's "red meat."

If you're black and never served in the military, but fight for veterans benefits and were right in predicting the disastrous Iraq war would be a mistake, you don't care about the troops.
If you're a white former POW and spend 26 years in the Senate while voting against virtually every bill put forward to help veterans, and want to stay in Iraq indefinitely, you're a hero.

If you're a Republican president and you engage in illegal war costing 4000+ lives, bankrupt the country, and legalize torture and spy on US citizens, that's okay, because Jesus is your favorite political thinker.
If you're a Democratic president and you generate the largest increases in wealth for all economic classes, preside over a balanced budget, and create an unprecedented surplus, you get impeached.

Suddenly, I'm Scared

At the end of August, there was a military exercise which included black helicopters flying fast and low in the downtown area. As I was watching the speeches of the Democratic National Convention, I was actually scared that a plane would hit my apartment building. It was loud and sounded so close that I had an instinctive impulse to jump down on the floor and lie flat, certain that a wayward plane was going to crash into my building. It sounded more like a plane than a helicopter to me and I couldn't see anything. All I know is that it was LOUD and TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT.

When the noise wouldn't let up, I did an online search to see if there might be an explanation about what was going on. Apparently, our city was one of several that was selected for a military exercise regarding some possible emergency crisis. I didn't think much about it after nothing disasterous happened...until last week, when I did a Google search about that military exercise. It just struck me as odd that they would do something like that in a city. The newspaper article in the Oregonian said that many people freaked out, including one lady staying in an upper level hotel room at a downtown Hilton who looked out the window and was shocked to see a helicopter outside, close enough to see the teeth of the men riding in it. Another woman in the hotel started crying uncontrollably. 9-1-1 received many calls regarding the noise, the fear that we were under attack, and whatever else people might be thinking.

In my Google search, I was shocked to discover that a retired military member who knows about these exercises claimed that Portland is on the top three list of American cities likely to be hit by a terrorist attack. That simply didn't make sense to me, because when I was a Naval Reservist in 1997, I had to take a training course on terrorism and counter-terrorism. What I learned is that terrorists are limited in resources and their aims are to make the largest impact that they can. They look at symbolic targets, so that would mean the Statue of Liberty, the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Space Needle, the Sears Tower, and maybe even the Empire State Building would all be high risk for a terrorist attack. Portland has no remarkable landmarks or monuments. The other point is that terrorist want to kill as many people as possible, so a dirty bomb in Times Square would be more likely to happen than what I read online, that our government supposedly has a threat assessment that Portland might be targeted with a dirty bomb. What?!? Portland is a small city and I simply cannot see a foreign terrorist using their limited resources and many years of planning to target a city like ours.

In the late 1990s, the media reported that terrorists had planned to hijack 11 planes and crash them into the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). For the Millennium celebrations, the Space Needle in Seattle was supposedly targeted (and thwarted) for an attack. Terrorists in the 1990s also wanted to destroy the Eiffel Tower and the Pyramids. So, as I read online about Portland being named as a likely city for a dirty bomb, I got really, really scared. No...not scared because I believe terrorists are actually planning it. I'm scared because I believe certain shadowy figures in our government are evil and desperate enough to do something like this in order for McCain to win the election so our country can have the rationale to invade Iran, which Bush might do before he leaves office. Think that's far fetched? Well, what did his father do after losing the election in 1992? That's right, he committed troops to Somalia, knowing full well that president-elect Clinton had little foreign policy experience. That's quite immoral to commit your country to a war when you're leaving office because that puts the pressure for success on the next president who has other plans. I can totally see this Bush leaving office the same way. But he knows that Americans are war weary and won't support an unprovoked invasion of another country, thus the need for a new 9/11 event to increase American bloodlust for revenge.

The more I read about this military exercise, the more fearful I became. The reason is because I read that on 9/11/2001 and in London on 7/7/2005 (when they had a terrorist attack)...the military had exercise drills going on for the kind of scenario that happened "live." In the terminology of what I've read online, it's called "false flag" events. Having an exercise going on is a perfect cover for pulling off an act of terrorism. Because the city government didn't let Portland residents know in advance that such an exercise was going on (for the usual reasons of security), the worry is that we're kept in the dark in case they decide to "go live" by turning the exercise drill into an actual emergency crisis.

I know this might sound a bit paranoid, but when you've seen our society and government act in ways you never expected it to (stolen elections, pre-emptive attacks on sovereign nations, trying to prevent investigation into the worst act of terrorism our country ever experienced, torture, offshore prisons without due process, the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA, lack of accountability, increase in secrecy, character assassinations of anyone who goes against the administration, etc.), it's enough to make you distrust the federal government.

From what I read, Houston is the number one target of terrorists because of NASA and the connection to the Bush family. I can actually believe that claim, because terrorists would strike at our space program and would probably also like to get revenge on the Bush family.

The second city on the list that I read was Chicago. Specifically the Sears Tower. I can also believe that. There was a fear on 9/11 that the former "world's tallest building" would be hit. At number three was Portland, which I simply don't see as being a target for the main reason that we're not a large populated city. We're just a medium sized, progressive city of small businesses, environmentalists and anti-war liberals. Bush supposedly calls Portland "little Beirut." So, if you ever hear about a dirty bomb going off in Portland...you can probably correctly guess that it would be the doing of our own federal government than some foreign terrorists.

From what I know about dirty bombs or nukes...I'd prefer to die in the initial blast than suffer radiation fallout and the sickness that follows. But you can bet that I'll be praying every night that the information I read is just the paranoid speculations of some pot smoking conspiracy theorist. Portland is a great American city. It's an exciting place to be as our country moves towards environmentally sustainable technologies and policies. It just doesn't make any sense that our city would be targeted by foreign terrorists when there are so many symbolic and higher population targets. I'm not saying that I hope anything happens to another city, but I'm a little bit scared that our government is looking for an excuse to expand the war into Iran and with all this talk about Iran wanting nuclear power, and reading about our government having military exercises in Portland about how to handle an emergency crisis...you just never know.

If you're interested to learn more, do a Google search on "Topoff 4", "Vigilant Shield 08" (those exercises happened in Portland last October), or "helicopters in downtown Portland August 2008." If you don't get nightmares from that, you're a lot braver than I am. I really hope that the information is wrong on this and that there is no secret ulterior motive for the recent military exercise in downtown Portland. I won't rest easy until after election day, or maybe until after Bush leaves the presidency. It seems like the neo-conservatives want a day worse than 9/11 to happen so they can get their war against Iran. If Portland is targeted, it's only because they hate our liberal politics and need to sacrifice a city to further their aims of eternal war and the Fourth Reich.

May God protect our city from evil men.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Palin or Stalin?


I can't remember the last time I absolutely had to see an interview. ABC World News Tonight's Charles Gibson landed the coveted "first interview" with the elusive Sarah Palin, who has refused to speak to the media since being selected as McCain's Vice Presidential candidate. I thought it was interesting how the Repugs "rolled out" their latest product. It reminded me of a scam. They knew they had a shitty product but didn't care because the packaging was attractive. They hid her because they knew that beyond the surface, she lacked any kind of depth that even our corporatized media would be able to see through quickly.

So, what did the Alaska governor do during her nearly two week "media blackout"? I don't think it's a stretch by any means to say that she enrolled in "Neo-Conservative University's Foreign Policy 101." There, she got indoctrinated into their simple view of the world that foreign policy is all about energy and it is our "God-given" right to invade any country we damn well please to get our oil, which inconveniently happens to be under foreign soil. Her handlers said that "she's a quick study" as if she's a college freshman cramming for an exam in Intro to International Politics. This might satisfy the cultural conservatives who hate sophistication, intelligence, and internationalism, but it doesn't cut it on a global scale, especially when our country is in a dire situation internationally due to the incompetence and inexperience of another intellectually vacant politician who had just six years of experience as a ceremonial governor before assuming the mantle of presidential leadership.

The first question about whether Palin could look people in the eye and say that she has the experience to become president if such an event were to occur, she said with an odd confidence that she could. She also had no hesitation when McCain asked her to be his Vice President. I wish Charlie Gibson would have pressed her further on this point. I would have. It's quite obvious to me that the reason why she had no hesitation at all is because she wants to go down in history as the first female Vice President (and possibly first female president). If she doesn't know internally that she isn't qualified, then she truly is as dense as we all suspect of a beauty pageant contestant. Her responses to questions often sounded like the bland spiel that beauty queens recite during the interview section of a pageant. This woman is truly vacant and it's no surprise that Republicans love her. She follows the tradition of intellectually vacant presidents and vice presidents: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Dan Quayle, and George W. Bush. When Bush beat McCain for the Republican nomination in 2000, it confirmed for me what I suspected of the Republican Party. They aren't interested in an intelligent and independent candidate to lead their party. They want someone who will follow the script handed to them and not be smart enough to figure out things on their own. Mitt Romney also falls into this category and will most likely be a future nominee of the Republican Party (2012 or 2016).

The next thing that alarmed me was on the question about how her experience as governor prepared her for foreign policy. She incredibly didn't bat an eyelash when she claimed that because one could see Russia from an island in Alaska, that qualifies her! So, since I can see the moon at night, does that mean I can become an astronaut? Several people at work had defended this view that Alaska's proximity to Russia automatically qualifies her for foreign policy. This is insulting on so many levels, especially since I majored in International Politics and have been seeking a job in that field for several years now. I've lived overseas for 8 years of my life, been to 25 countries, have foreign friends, and generally have a tolerant view of different cultures and religions, often incorporating the best ideas into my own life and worldview. I have more "foreign policy credentials" than Palin, but I know I am not experienced enough for Vice President or to be a diplomat. The second reason why her argument doesn't wash is because Alaska is close to Siberia, which is so far from Moscow that the Soviets sent their dissidents there to endure the brutal winters and isolation. There's nothing there and nothing that would prepare her to deal with the likes of Putin and his underling Medvedev. They'd eat her for breakfast.

Speaking of Russia, she seemed to give her approval that going to war against Russia to protect Georgia is perfectly okay with her. In fact, she thinks Georgia should be allowed to join NATO, which is absurd. I've read somewhere that NATO has never admitted for membership any nation with border disputes, for obvious reasons. A nation with border disputes might expect member nations to help out in it's domestic conflicts with another nation, which is not what NATO was set up for. The problem with Georgia is that the people who live in South Ossetia identify themselves as Russian and are split off from their counterparts on the Russian side of the border (Ossetia). I learned about this in a Political Geography class at BYU nearly a decade ago. If I can know this, why doesn't Palin? After all, she attended five universities / colleges in six years or something like that.

Other shockers in the Gibson interview is that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. Granted, most Americans probably don't, but then again, most Americans won't be Vice President or President. I was pleased to see Gibson go after her when she was evasive about it. She wouldn't answer a simply yes or no about whether the U.S. has the right to invade a sovereign country in our war on terror. She hemmed and hawwed like a true filibustering politician trying to cover her ignorance.

If that weren't enough, Gibson asked her about a speech she gave at church where she called the Iraq War as part of God's work. She totally tried to spin it in a favourable light by quoting Lincoln, saying that she wouldn't presume to know the mind of God. Gibson, once again, called her out on the b.s. by pointing out what she actually said. In another example, he went after her on the claim that she was against the Bridge to Nowhere and earmarks.

I had doubts about Gibson after his dismal performance as a moderator at the last Democratic debate when he pressed Obama for answers on fluff issues. Maybe he received so much negative feedback that he felt the need to make it up and regain his integrity. Or maybe the mask is coming off on Palin. The knives are out. The wheels are off the Straight Talk Express bus (to nowhere). Even McCain couldn't catch a break on the gossipy women's show "The View" as the ladies didn't flinch in using the word "lies" regarding his recent ads against Obama. I think that McCain's selection of Palin has truly set something off in the otherwise complacent mainstream media. Maybe after seeing the disasterous trainwreck that was Bush, the media feels a renewed loyalty to the founding ideals of our republic and they won't allow this shallow, inexperienced political hack the easy ride they gave to Bush in 2000.

In case you're wondering about my post title, I couldn't help it. The similarities in the spelling (after all, Republicans did the whole Osama/Obama bit) first caught my attention a couple weeks ago. Then as we learn more about her, she does come across as an American Stalin: seeking to ban books, threatening to fire people who aren't loyal to her, the preference in hiring people who share her extremist religious views, her inability to face questions of the media for two weeks, her policy change of charging victims for rape kits, and her pride in being a pitbull personality who finds humour in a radio dj calling a cancer-survivor opponent "a bitch" and a "cancer." In another article that I read, she had supposedly reported with glee when the Democratic nomination was sealed up: "so Sambo beat the bitch!" A pattern emerges regarding Palin. She's one of those high school "mean girls" who knows she's pretty and in the right clique, sleeps with the captain of the football team while talking trash about anyone not in her group. She's authoritarian in her religious and worldview and that makes her too dangerous and untested to be trusted with the reigns of our government. Someone needs to sink her nomination soon so McCain can pick a more qualified running mate. I don't see it happening, though. The cultural conservatives march in lockstep to one of their own, like lemmings running towards the cliff. We're watching a spectacular train wreck and I hope this is a sign of the Republican Party in its death throes.

May God save our Republic!

Friday, September 12, 2008

When Pigs Fly Without Lipstick...

...the poo lands on you!



You have to hand it to the Repugnant Party...they know how to fabricate phony scandals and sanctimonious outrage that reeks of hypocrisy and ignorance.

I wasn't going to write about the latest war over expressions, but when I thought about all the phrases used in our language that disparage pigs, I had to respond. I'm especially glad that the media is doing their job by reporting on McCain's phony outrage over Obama's statement "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." CBS with Katie Couric has been the best I've seen about pointing out on their nightly newscast the lies of the McCain campaign in the segment called "Fact Check." I loved it when they showed John McCain himself referring to Hillary Clinton's health care plan as "lipstick on a pig." Did anyone think he was calling Hillary a pig? Then they showed Dick Cheney using the expression. Another newscast showed even John Edwards using it. Come on, Repugs! Americans might be gullible, but even that phony outrage backfired and hurt McCain's credibility even more. Everyone knows Obama wasn't referring to Sarah Palin. Why? Because she's HOT. If she was a frumpy looking, overweight lady, I can see how people might feel like it was a veiled insult, but when pigs like Rush Limbaugh is openly gushing about how babelicious Palin is, everyone who isn't blind knows that Palin is not a "pig." She even has young Repugnant fans calling her a MILF.

So why the phony outrage? Maybe it hit too close to home in another way. Palin is supposedly a "reformer with results", who said "thanks but no thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere when she realized that her previous support for it was going nowhere. As Mayor of Wasilla, she hired a lobbyist to work in D.C. to bring tens of millions of pork barrel earmarks to her town of 6,000 people. Now she claims to be against such earmarks. Who's porking who, here?

As a person who was born in the year of the pig, I feel a need to stand up for the pigs. If anyone should be insulted by the whole faux scandal, it's the pigs. Governor Palin wishes that she could be as smart as a pig, lipstick or not. Better to be a pig than a pitbull.

Unless you happen to be a "male chauvinist pig." Is McCain one? I'm still wondering about the real reason he picked an inexperienced political neophyte to take the reigns of presidential power in the unfortunate event should he be incapable of continuing his duties as president. As a runner up in the Miss Alaska pageant, Sarah Palin might think the Vice Presidency is the same thing...but we're talking about the oldest man to be elected president here with a history of cancer in the most stressful job in the world. From that YouTube video of the VP announcement, with him staring at Palin's behind and playing with his wedding ring, you have to wonder if he was thinking with his "little brain." If he wanted a woman, Kay Bailey Hutchinson is probably the most qualified in the Republican Party. But McCain, like a lot of men, has a preference for younger and prettier. He picked Palin the way an adulterous man picks a mistress. Maybe that's the reason for the phony outrage. He knows he's a male chauvinist pig and the statement hit too close to home. He's the pig and Sarah Palin is the lipstick, but they can't fool me. They are Bush clones in a more attractive disguise. We'd be fools to fall for it.

Flashback Friday: Bob Roberts


For this week's Flashback Friday movie spotlight, I'm recommending one of my favourite films from 1992: "Bob Roberts." It's one of the most dead-on accurate portrayals of our political process and conservative dishonesty that has ever been made.

The film is done in documentary style, as we follow conservative businessman and folk singer Bob Roberts in his 1990 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania against a stereotypical bow-tie wearing liberal incumbent Senator (played awesomely well by Gore Vidal). Throughout the film, we're given musical treats as Bob Roberts sings his folk songs, which includes an ode to Wall Street, a "drugs stink" ditty that would make Nancy Reagan proud, and a timely one presenting himself as a patriot who wants to live (you'll see why when you watch this).

The songs are pretty catchy. Writer/director/actor Tim Robbins didn't release a soundtrack because he was afraid that conservative politicians would actually use them as campaign theme songs (considering how Republicans have a habit of using songs without permission, it was probably a smart move). Anyone who can't catch the irony in his songs are too ideologically blind to appreciate this film.

As I re-watched it recently, I couldn't believe how timeless the film is. Though set in 1990 and released in 1992, the values that Bob Roberts campaigns on is still the main message of the Republican Party. They harp on the same theme election after election that you wonder why Americans haven't grown tired of it or have learned to see through the lies. It's all sideshow distractions with cultural issues while he robs you blind as a corporate crony. The scandal being pursued in the film deals with the Savings and Loan debacle of the late 1980s (which John McCain was involved in), drug running, Iran-Contra, and an assassination attempt that might be faked. The liberal Senator gets accused of sexual mischief with a teenage girl young enough to be his granddaughter. Like I said, it's the same old story in election after election that you wonder if Americans will ever wake up to the facts and vote for their economic interests.

When a Republican lady at my former congregation in Atlanta asked why I'm not a Republican, I loved telling her that "I never vote against my own economic interest. EVER." The Republicans have nothing to offer me and I don't like being lied to. I have no qualms saying this either: there's not a chance in hell that Jesus would ever side with the Republicans. We're talking about a man who lost his temper when he saw money changers in the Temple and really trashed the place! He also saved an adulterous woman from being stoned to death. I don't get how any Christian could read their Bibles and ever think that Jesus would be a Republican. It's illogical in the absurd! As you might have heard recently, Jesus was the original "community organizer" while Pontius Pilate was the Governor who, through the political pressure of the ruling religious elite, sentenced Jesus to be crucified. In American political translation, think of Governor George Bush presiding over 150 executions in the 1990s, including that of a reborn Christian woman that even the Pope had pleaded to be spared. What did Bush do? Mock her in an interview by saying in a weird voice: "please, don't kill me." Who's Jesus and who's the Governor/executioner?

Watch this film and you'll see just how blind people are. Like a true classic, it's timeless and could very well have been made this year. Lord knows, the same issues are being talked about in 2008 (16 years later). Nothing ever changes, it seems.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Remembering 9/11 Through the Lens of Logic

Once again, the anniversary of that tragic day has arrived. Remember when the Republicans wanted to make it a national holiday? At the time, I thought it was outrageous because we know what becomes of holidays. The word holiday comes from "holy day", but in our society where capitalism is the official state religion, a 9/11 holiday would mean department store sales and cheesy greeting cards. To top it off, we would be "honouring" a tragedy instead of commemorating it. We didn't make a holiday out of Pearl Harbour or the Oklahoma City bombing. It's highly doubtful that anyone alive would ever forget 9/11 anyway. It has surpassed the Kennedy assassination as the point of reference where people remember what they were doing when they heard the news or saw the images.

I'm the only one in my office who actually remembers the day by wearing my special Red, White, and Blue ribbon with a USA lapel pin. Colleagues in the mostly conservative, Bush-loving office don't wear any commemorative ribbons or lapel pins on 9/11. I'm not one to take issue with what people wear or don't wear, for that's a personal choice, but it's just an interesting observation to me that I'm the only one to do this in my office and I'm one of the few liberals on staff. No one can accuse me of being "unpatriotic." Even if I believe that 9/11 is an inside job (which I most certainly do).

I can't remember when I came around to this view. It might have been 2004 when something clicked in me that the official story didn't wash with my logic. And for those who question my logic, I have to say that my sense of logic has kept me from being duped by con artists, shucksters, liars, phonies pretending to be a friend but wanting something from me, and even the various religious proselytizers trying to convince me of "the absolute truth" of their belief systems (these include Mormons, Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, Hare Krishnas, Pentacostals and Scientologists). If something doesn't pass my consistency and logic test, then I reject it. If you happen to be a member in one of those religions, I apologize. I don't mean any disrespect...because I think all religions are illogical to some degree, but the ones I've mentioned are the most visible proselytizers that have approached me at some point in my life and sought my blind devotion even when they failed to answer my questions in a satisfactory way. I use the Socratic Method when I ask questions of people pushing a religion or a product or scheme on me, because that's the best way to detect inconsistency and deception. And oh how I love to catch people making contradictory claims, as I once did with a Jehovah's Witness co-worker (her religious views were in direct contradiction with her political views and I trapped her into discrediting her religious views. She never proselytized me again!).

I know that most reasonable Americans still believe the official story regarding 9/11. It's understandable because it truly is terrifying to imagine that our own government might even do such a thing to it's own citizens. Most people just don't want to go there, but those who've known me for years know that I love going to places most people won't go. So, I will go there.

We have historical precedence. Most notable is that the burning of the Reichstag in Germany was blamed on communists. History has shown that it was actually planned by the Nazi party to scare the Germans and whip up support against the communist threat. Hitler had to do something, for he came into power illegally. He didn't win a majority vote either. Okay, so you might be saying, "but that's Germany. Our government would never do that!"

As an international politics major, I learned the ugly history of our country's post-World War II foreign policy. We overthrew a lot of legitimately elected governments around the world (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, the Philippines to name a few). Our government trained Latin American despots at the School of the Americas in Columbus, Georgia (Manuel Noriega of Panama was a famous alumni). Many of its graduates went to fight against the commies in Central America and committed atrocities against innocent people. This is ugly history, folks. If our government can do it to other people, why would they stop there? Especially when the neo-conservative organization Project for a New American Century published a document in the late 1990s that Americans would not support an invasion of Iraq. The document actually said that "it would take a Pearl Harbour-type event" to get Americans on board.

On 9/11, they had their Pearl Harbour.
One of the two unexplainable items of 9/11 remain the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by any airplane at all. It had small fires on two floors. It was still standing when a reporter on the BBC announced that WTC 7 had just collapsed (even though the building was visible behind the reporter). How does that fit with logic? Was the reporter "psychic"? Or how about this fact: never in the history of modern architecture has any steel framed building collapsed because of fire. On 9/11, three such buildings collapsed...all of them in NYC. WTC 7 fell in three seconds flat, like a controlled demolition. Even curiouser, the building had files relating to Enron, the Bush-connected energy company that went bust around the same time and manipulated the energy crisis in California, which led to a recall effort a couple years later to oust Democratic Governor Gray Davis.

As Alice would say, "curiouser and curiouser!"

The second baffling event of 9/11 reminds me of the joke: "who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?" This is what my eyes tell me about the Pentagon:

How can that "tiny" hole make an entire passenger jet disappear? Where are the plane's wings and tail? All we see is a hole that's smaller than the passenger jet, and no plane parts. And no video footage. The one released two years ago only shows a fireball. We don't see an airplane hitting the Pentagon. The damage looks more like a cruise missile attack than a passenger jet.

So, it was those two events in conjunction with the Anthrax attacks that followed which made me realize that the official story of 9/11 was too illogical to be believed. With the Anthrax attacks, the investigative trail went cold when it was traced to a government lab in Maryland. Back in July of this year, investigators finally pinned it on a guy who supposedly committed suicide. That's suspiciously convenient. Dead men tell no tales, right? Considering that the Anthrax attacks focused on Democrats and the National Enquirer, it just doesn't make sense that some Arab terrorist would've done it. After seven years, our government blames it on a dead American guy who will never be able to explain himself or proclaim his innocence (if he didn't do it). Weird.

I'm not a guy easily fascinated by conspiracy theories. I'm not interested if aliens are in cahoots with our government or if Dick Cheney is really a reptilian "visitor" who eats live guinea pigs when no one is looking. I also find it hard to believe the stories about the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, the Trilaterial Commission and the Illuminati, and all other sordid tales of some controlling minority group of Jews that own all the wealth in the world and wage wars for profit. I don't even buy or read the materials about 9/11. My extent is based on what I saw in "Loose Change" and what I've read online at some sites. Because of my spiritual views, I believe that whoever is doing this evil will be punished someday by the universal law of karma. It's not my problem to deal with. But I will not allow myself be duped by dishonest people in our government who hold contempt for the principles our Founding Fathers believed in as they dream of establishing a Fourth Reich with sheeple who love being lied to by the Faux News Channel and it's obsessions with white damsels in distress.

What I'm getting at is that when I hear people express irrational fear of terrorists attacking their favourite shopping mall, I just have to laugh at their ignorance. We have more reason to be afraid of car accidents and crazy American shooters who were bullied in high school than we do of a terrorist popping out of a bush to bomb our favourite Walmart. People need to think more logically about stuff.

I don't credit Bush with saving us from another terrorist attack, because there wasn't any real threat. Sure, there are threats out there...but he benefitted from 9/11. He used that tragedy to run to the far right. His presidency is a failure today because he abandoned logic in favour of radical conservative ideology that has no grounding in reality. I still shake my head when I think about all the yahoos I used to work with in Atlanta believing Bush when he vowed to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" by "smoking him out of his hole." The only "hole" Osama is hiding in is the one up Bush's ass. He'll most likely leave the White House with Osama out there somewhere. Watch for an Osama video to make an appearance again in October, endorsing Obama for President and calling him a Muslim brother. Americans are gullible like that. Give me my logic any day. I base my spirituality on what Jesus advised his followers: when words and deed don't match, ignore the words and believe the deeds. It tells you all you need to know about people.
This is a computer generated picture I found online that shows how it would look if an actual passenger jet did come in towards the Pentagon for a hit. We would see the wing span and the tail at a very minimum, but the Pentagon supposedly has magical powers to make things disappear. What can we an expect from an administration that knows how to make the surplus and jobs disappear?

Believe your "lyin' eyes" people! Our government isn't as noble as it likes to pretend itself to be. It's up to us to call the government out on the b.s. it continues to feed us. Otherwise, we'll wake up one day in an Orwellian nightmare that our beloved country is a theocratic police state. Who wants that?

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Recount (Remembering the Day Democracy Died)

Last weekend, I watched "Recount" which is now available on DVD. This is a motion picture quality film that was aired on HBO in May rather than released in theaters. I would've seen it in theaters if they had gone that route, but my guess is that they felt it might not have done as well on the big screen (people had criticized the film "The Queen" as being a made-for-cable TV movie at best, though it did well in theaters and won a Best Actress Oscar for Helen Mirren). At any rate, even though we all know the outcome of the 2000 election, the back and forth drama between the two parties over that crucial election makes for an intense film.

The makers had the good sense to know when the time was right for a movie about this subject. We are far enough away from that election to not be as emotional about it. As a former Gore intern who had hoped to work in his administration, I was depressed about the outcome for about six years. I didn't think I could ever "get over it" until I saw Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in theaters in the summer of 2006. I achieved a perfect catharsis after seeing that documentary, because I felt that Gore no longer needed the presidency and its constraints to achieve his true destiny: that of global statesman who crusades to bring about planetary awareness for how our consumption habits are wrecking havoc on the earth's ability to sustain life...particularly as it relates to climate change.

Because of the "letting go" I finally felt upon watching "An Inconvenient Truth" (which I saw twice in theaters that summer, then attended his live presentation in the fall of 2006, and received its DVD as a Christmas gift from my best friend that year), I was relieved that Gore decided not to run for president in 2008. Part of that was personal, because I had made the decision to move to Portland with no desire to live in D.C. again, yet with my personal loyalty to Gore and the long-held desire to work in his administration (it was a dream I had since 1993), had he run, I would've sent him my resume to work on his campaign. Had he run, he most likely would've won the nomination. However, I think the reason why he didn't run is partly because of Hillary Clinton and partly because he has been out of government long enough to feel the kind of freedom a politician bound by the desire to win the next election does not feel. He's free to be Al Gore and it's hard to give up personal freedom to return to the world of focus groups, polls, advisors with competing agendas, and the inability to be completely honest about what you really believe.

So, with that, I knew I would have no problem revisiting the events of 2000. There was no fear of unresolved anger coming to the surface, because I have truly let it go. That doesn't make the election un-stolen or exonerate Bush, but it does mean that I accept what happened and have focused on the future to see that it doesn't happen again. As much as I want to see Obama as our next president, I'm not as emotionally attached to the outcome as I was with Gore. Of course, it helps when I admire Obama's opponent. I never liked the Bush family so I hope they will disappear into obscurity and I hope historians will write about the disaster of the Bush years.

The movie "Recount" is very well-acted by an impressive group: Kevin Spacey as Ron Klain, Denis Leary as the foul-mouthed Michael Whouley, Tom Wilkinson as James Baker, and John Hurt as Warren Christopher (he was dead-on, too!). However, the Emmy Award should most certainly go to Laura Dern who perfectly captured Katherine Harris, right down to her twitching eye and other strange facial expressions. The physical resemblance was already pretty amazing, but she simply nailed it. I think Katharine Harris (derided by Democrats as "Cruella de Vil") should be flattered that she was portrayed by a beautiful and talented lady as Laura Dern. She doesn't deserve such good fortune as that (I still think Katharine Harris looks like a transgendered man, which is to say "hideously ugly" and scary).

Though the film is well researched and pretty much sticks to the facts of those 36 days in November and early December 2000, striving to be fair to both sides, I can see why Republicans wouldn't like it because it makes them look like re-Thug-licans. However, it's hard to deny the facts. A group of young guys who worked for Republican members of Congress were indeed dispatched down to South Florida to stage a protest and intimidate the people doing their civic duty by handcounting each ballot. These people knew what was at stake and they performed well. Democrats had no effective counter-protest. It was baffling that the Gore team selected former Secretary of State Warren Christopher to lead the efforts, because he was so ineffectual (as Secretary of State and in the role to represent Gore's interest in having all the ballots counted). It furthured the stereotype of Democrats being weak and more concerned for how their actions would be seen around the world than winning whereas the Republicans don't care if the world thinks of them as brutes and bullies. They know how to fight and win.

Both sides showed their hypocrisy in how they acted regarding the Florida vote, but I thought it was most telling that as Governor of Texas, Bush had signed into a law that in the case of recounts, handcounts were more accurate than machine recounts, and that dimpled CHADs should be counted. When it came to Florida, he reversed himself. Now he wanted none of the ballots with hanging or dimpled CHADs to be counted. On the Gore side of the equation, he should've asked for a full statewide recount instead of the four heavily Democratic counties that included West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami-Dade. He also had an ineffectual Vice Presidential nominee in Joseph Lieberman who said that votes from overseas ballots that weren't signed or dated and didn't have a postmark should be included in the count. The Gore camp was rightfully worried that Republicans might turn up with a bunch of overseas ballots that were filled out after election day. But it was seen as the Gore camp wanting to deny military members overseas their right to vote. However, let's be real...the Republicans didn't want actual ballots with dimpled or hanging CHADs from heavily Democratic counties to be counted but unsigned, undated, and unpostmarked ballots from overseas were okay?

In the end, the Bush team ran to the Supreme Court which was packed by Republican presidential appointees to make the final ruling decision over the Florida Supreme Court. The result of which was one of the worst decisions in history. In Bush v. Gore, they admitted that their decision in favour of Bush only applies in this case and cannot be used in future election decisions. Our legal system is about precedence, so that any Supreme Court decision will serve as the basis for future decisions. It was also inconsistent with the constant message of Republicans for States' Rights. They went to a Federal Court to overrule a State Court's decision. This from a party that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow each state to determine the law regarding abortion.

The biggest tragedy, however (besides Gore being denied the presidency he won), is that even though he won the popular vote by half a million more people than Bush, our country still has not fixed that major flaw in our electoral system. The electoral college is an antiquated system that should be thrown out in favour of a strict popular vote. Small states like the electoral college system because their votes weigh more than the votes in the larger states. This system also plays well for the so-called "battleground states" that could go either way in an election, because they get swamped by campaign visits and money for commercials. But as we've seen three times in our nation's history, sometimes the person who lost the popular vote gets to be president. The previous two times (one of them was between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson), the loser of the popular vote lost reelection four years later. In 2004, Bush ensured that would not happen to him, so he got to defy history.

Here's my unvarnished opinion about the 2000 election:

The Republicans knew it was absolutely vital for Bush to win the White House. In the late 1990s, a rightwing think tank (Project for a New American Century) had sent a letter to President Clinton asking that he overthrow Saddam Hussein. The letter was signed by such Republican stalwarts as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gingrich, Wolfowitz, Perle, and a whole cast of neo-conservatives. In their document about how they saw the future, they wrote that Americans would not support an invasion of Iraq. It would take a "Pearl Harbour-type event" to turn American opinion around.

The neo-conservatives were called "the crazies in the basement" by the elder President George H.W. Bush. He ignored their desires to invade Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait. Bush was the stateman who cared about global cooperation and knew that our country would lose major allies if we had continued the march to Baghdad after Iraqi troops vacated Kuwait in 1991. Throughout the 1990s, as Saddam acted up and played a game of hide and seek with U.N. weapons inspectors, it became more obvious that he should not have been left to rule Iraq. The boycott of Iraqi oil resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. With China and India's energy needs increasing every year, neo-conservatives knew something had to be done. Clinton wouldn't do it. In fact, the whole Monica scandal and conservative cries of "Wag the Dog" made it virtually impossible for Clinton to enact their vision of overthrowing the tyrant once and for all. They also knew that Gore was unlikely to commit troops to the Middle East. Thus why Cheney was sent to Texas to urge the ignorant and incurious young Bush that he must run for president in 2000. With his brother safely installed as Governor of the battleground state Florida and the scandals of Clinton offending so many people, Bush was seen as the best person to do their bidding. Who else but the son of the president who failed to finish the job in 1991 to complete that task?

That's why the 2000 election was stolen: so Bush could become president, their nefarious 9/11 plans could be enacted, and they'd get their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We'd have control of the Iraqi oil supply and be in a powerful position to prevent the Chinese from getting access to it. The scariest thing about neo-conservative political philosophy is that they have adopted and distorted Plato's ideal of rule by the Philosopher Kings. The basic ruling philosophy is that leaders answer to no one, because they are wiser than the masses. This entitles them to lie, if they have to, in order to achieve an agenda that's for "the best interest of our country's future." Control of energy is considered vital to our nation's security, even if it means that our energy consumption far exceeds our energy production. That's why the neo-conservatives are happy to distract their followers with sideshow "cultural issues." Religion is the opiate of the masses (neo-conservatives are not religious...most happen to be secular Jews with fascist tendencies. It would probably amuse Hitler in hell that the group he tried to exterminate have bought into his dream of authoritarian power, corporate control of government and media, and mass genocide of a hated religious group through wars of choice).

What does the Bush presidency mean from a spiritual standpoint? Well, because of the result of the 2000 election, I never viewed Bush as my president. I believed then (as I do now) that he didn't earn the right to lead America. He was petty and vindictive. After losing the popular vote, he basically said "screw you!" to everyone who voted for his opponent. Instead of reaching out to Gore voters and seeking a government of unity and bipartisanship, he ran to the far right and set about dismantling everything Clinton put in place. We should not be surprised that his presidency has been an abject failure. The karmic seeds of his destruction were set in place the moment he stole the election. Had he been gracious, governed from the middle, and sought to win over those who didn't vote for him...indeed, had he been as humble as he claimed he would be in his 2000 convention speech, he would've had more success and possibly have achieved something notable. But his divisive presidency only sank his standing as our country marched on the path to economic ruin. If there is a hell, no one in our country deserves it more than Bush and Cheney, because they have been pathologically dishonest from the start and haved used religion to con the masses into backing an evil agenda. I'm glad their presidency is considered a failure. It is my hope that ultimate justice will be delivered to them shortly after they leave the White House.

Gore didn't get to be president of our country, but he has shown that one can achieve greatness beyond the mere White House. In the battle between power of the gun versus power of inspiration, Bush's failures and Gore's success since the 2000 election prove once again that inspiration is far more powerful than bullets ever could be. May God continue to bless Gore, and may Bush get a karmic bill most appropriate for running the most deceitful presidential administration our nation has ever seen. One day in heaven, the soul that was Bush will have one of the most painful life reviews ever. To be so hated by the majority of the planet's inhabitants is no easy feat. He, in fact, joins Hitler in that regard. Better to experience the kind of life review that Princess Diana probably had: to know how much her life has inspired and touched millions of people.

I kind of feel sorry for Bush, but he brought it upon himself. In the end, he has no one to blame but himself. After all, his father wasn't as divisive as he was. I think the verdict of history will be that Bush stole the election and he was too inexperienced to deal with the disasters that occured on his watch: 9/11, Katrina, and the Iraq War. He handed over too many decisions to neo-conservatives, that his father had the good sense to keep away from critical government decisions. We should not be surprised that his presidency was a failure. It's the result of the dishonest way he came into office and he'll leave office the most hated person on earth. The entire world will celebrate on January 20th in a way that will remind us of New Year's 2000.

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

The Debate About Experience


All this debate about who has more experience to lead America in a post 9/11 world is crazy and I'm tired of it. After all, the party that has made issue of Obama's relative lack of "experience" pretty much negated their argument when McCain picked one of the least experienced Republican politicians to possibly succeed him should he die in office.

But, even more incredible...Republicans were silent on the experience issue in 2000. Remember? The Democrats nominated a candidate who had sixteen years of legislative experience and eight years as the most actively involved Vice President our country ever had (at that point, anyway). Who did the Republicans pick as their nominee? They rejected the more experienced McCain in favour of a man whose only criteria was that he shared the same name and looked a lot like the last Republican president. Oh, and he had just six years in the governor's office in Texas, which is the least powerful governorship in the country (the office is largely ceremonial and odd enough, the Lieutenant Governor is actually considered more powerful. That's Texas for you! Ass backwards). Bush had only traveled to three countries in his entire life when he ran for president in 2000: China, Israel, and England. But there was no talk from the Republican party about "experience", even when a terrorist attack occurred in the middle of the fall campaign. Remember the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen?

So, let's be real here about experience. One of the pundit class's favourite talking points is that a president should have "executive experience", which means a mayor, governor, general, or CEO would be the best qualified for leading our nation. Really? How about the CEO of Enron? Or any other corporation where a CEO can earn annual bonuses greater than the annual salaries of a lot of people, even as the company's stock value has declined?

Is the media going to seriously examine Sarah Palin's record as mayor and governor? I already see a Bush-like pattern with her. She fires anyone who doesn't agree with her political philosophy, she politicizes her office in divisive ways, and even more absurd, there's a story that she had promoted a guy to head the entire state's police bureau who was reprimanded for sexual harassment of an underling at his previous post. When he resigned due to public pressure, he mentioned his faith in Christianity and she defended him, criticizing the personal attacks against a good Christian man. What this illustrates is an ideological blindness. Instead of hiring the best and the most competent, she, like Bush, has a hiring preference for people who share her conservative Christian worldview and if any unsavory event from a person's past comes out, it's seen as a personal attack on a good Christian rather than a sign of a wrong choice.

I hate our country's obsession with "leadership" and "executive experience." The truth is, we are a nation of followers, not leaders. Instead of promoting "leadership" in our youth (because not everyone can be a leader, but they make it seem like if you don't possess leadership qualities, there's something wrong with you), we should promote critical and independent thinking. Since adolescence, I knew that I was neither a leader nor a follower. I never had a desire to lead anything, as I prefer what is now coming into vogue...establishing a network that is not based on the pyramid scheme that corporations prefer, but on diverse professionals with various skills who can work together to achieve something together. I've been in enough organizations where I saw the leadership doing things I considered immoral, unethical, and outright criminal, but because of my low status on the office totem pole, I had no power to make positive changes. Because of that, I don't hold executive leadership in high regard. The ones I've known were assholes with serious dysfunction going on and I wouldn't follow their lead to cross the street. I've seen too many people take the fall for those truly responsible. Everyone wants to be a leader, no one wants accountability. I do not prefer to lead nor will I follow. I am an independent agent who desires to work with others as equals and with mutual respect.

When I was in the Navy, a sailor I worked with was fascinated that I didn't like telling people what to do. That's just not my nature. Neither do I like people telling me what to do. Micromanagers are the worst people to work for (and I unfortunately work for one right now, who is "obsessive/compulsive" to boot). When I read about the new trend among professionals that involves a network rather than a ladder hierarchy, I'm hoping that it will be the new way of doing business. After all, we are seeing now that the old leadership model isn't working. When those in executive positions want the extravagent pay and perks, but deny responsibility when things go wrong, why should anyone respect them? In the Navy, if a ship sinks, the Commanding Officer is required to go down with the ship if the entire crew is not able to be saved. That's leadership. What we have in corporate America is cowardice and greed. They have no moral authority to lead, so we would be fools to follow leaders who are only looking out for themselves.

I'll be honest here. Do I wish Obama had more experience? Yes, of course. But will it affect my vote? No, because I believe that the Republican party lost all moral authority and credibility. They failed to follow what they promised in 2000 and therefore forfeit the right to lead America for a generation or more. Besides, with John McCain voting 90% of the time with what Bush wanted and his first major decision was to select a VP who is not prepared to lead our nation in case he buys the farm before his term is up...he has shown that he'll be no different than Bush as president. He truly will be a third Bush term. At least with Obama, he'll bring major changes by the simple fact that there are no neo-conservatives in the Democratic party. They left in 1968 when the anti-war faction fractured the Democratic party and joined the Nixon team. Obama is a smart guy. He knows that he'll be held to a higher standard and that the eye of history will bear down on him like no other president for the simple fact of his skin colour.

There is a general consensus that Abraham Lincoln is the greatest of our presidents, yet he had the same amount of experience as Obama does now. Perhaps we ought to consider that the ability to inspire people the world over goes a long way in establishing credible leadership. He, more than McCain or Palin, has the ability to end the self-destructive cultural war that the conservatives are intent on waging. Our nation cannot continue on the current path of divisive politics at home and costly war overseas with potential for another major terrorist attack.


The two photos of Bush I found online and what I find most interesting about them is how tired and sad he looks. Some liberal bloggers think he might take advantage of an October surprise to call off the election and become president for life. I don't believe that because I truly think he is so ready to get out of there. In 2004 debates, he kept complaining that being president was "hard work." He used that term many times. He's probably looking forward to vegging on his ranch for the rest of his life, awaiting history's judgment.

In the latest issue of Time magazine, there is a lengthy review of the roman a clef "American Wife" by Curtis Sittenfield (out now). It's the writer's fictional take on a Laura Bush character and how she deals with the strange dichotomy between the man she loves and his policies that she supposedly abhors. In the closing paragraph, the reviewer (Joe Klein, who wrote "Primary Colors" and "The Running Mate") wrote: "the abdication of personal responsibility--on torture, on the war in Iraq, on the regulation of major economic institutions, and of course, after Hurricane Katrina--will come to be seen, I suspect, as the defining failure of George W. Bush as President. One hundred years from now, historians will scratch their heads and ask themselves...how did this amiable but feckless man ever get to be president?"

My answer is simple: in 2000, the media and American voters were distracted by shallow issues like who they'd rather have a beer with rather than who was ready to lead. One candidate's fibs were elevated to outright lies, while the other candidate's inconsistencies were ignored. Given the history of the past eight years, we've seen who the biggest liar has been. Clinton may have lied about his personal life, but he told the truth where it counted: on policies and governance. Facts match his record regarding job creation and economic growth. With Bush, we've seen the warnings of Orwell and the use of "doublespeak" and "doublethink" come true. If America makes the same mistake in this election (ignoring the record of McCain and Palin while buying their personal narratives), our country will not get better. Four more years of the last eight years is simply too much to endure. Experience has to be tempered with judgement and McCain simply fails in that regard. I'm tired of failed leadership. Aren't you?

Monday, September 08, 2008

Music Video Monday: McCain Gets Rick Rolled



Once again, I'm preempting my video choice for a timely, humourous video on YouTube. I don't know if you're aware of an online phenomenon called "Rick Rolled." I don't know how it started, who started it, or why it was started, but I think it's hilarious. It has put late-1980s British pop star Rick Astley back into popularity. I loved his debut album back in 1987/1988 and especially his huge hit, "Never Gonna Give You Up." To "Rick Roll" someone, you basically send them an email link that will play that song.

Enjoy!

Don't Be a Book Banning Bee-Yatch!

The Palin Soap Opera continues...

One of the things that has come out about Alaska's Governor is that as Mayor of Wasilla, she had sought to ban books from the town's library and when the library refused, she tried to fire the librarian. This pattern of behaviour is alarming to me. Palin has a habit of firing people who are not loyal to her, who disagree with her, or who are involved in her family's dysfunctional dramas (the troopergate scandal). This echoes Bush's need to be surrounded with sycophantic "yes-men and women." The more I learn about Palin, the more she resembles Bush in a dress.

The Daily Kos last week provided a link to a letter put out by the current Mayor of Wasilla's office regarding banned books. The letter claimed that no books were actually banned or removed from the Wasilla Public Library. It also included the procedures to recommend a book be removed and stated that the official policy is to remind people that they have a right to not check out books they find offensive, but they have no right to deny another person his or her right to view the same material that he or she finds offensive. This is in keeping with most libraries in our country. With Alaska being a very libertarian state, it's not surprising that the library will stand up for the rights of individuals to check out materials that others might find offensive.

The letter included a list of books that were recommended for removal while Palin was Mayor. I've never heard of three of them, but one of them I own (and was pleased to see the same book on the shelves of my friends in Utah when I visited them last year). It's:

That's right! Jon Stewart's satirical look at our country and it's politics was deemed "offensive" by Mayor Palin and recommended to be removed from the Wasilla Public Library!!! Proves that she can't take a joke. However, this book was not sold in Walmart because of one simple page. While I agree that Stewart went a bit too far with that page, I still didn't think it was enough to ban or censor the book. What page am I referring to? Well, for anyone who owns the book, you probably know what I'm referring to. It's the page in which a drawing shows all nine Supreme Court Justices completely naked. Yeah, it's pretty disgusting to look at, but I got the point of the exercise. Too often, we think of the Nine as gods from on high and that their rulings should be carved in stone. But underneath their black robes, they are just like us. Or not. Who wants to see old people naked, anyway?

I think it's telling, however. The picture it paints of Palin is a little more complete. Here we have a woman who seems squeemish about nudity and sexuality. She believes that the only sex education you should teach in schools is abstinence. In her absence as she ran the state government of Alaska, her teenage daughter got pregnant (with the guy being older than 18 and the daughter being under 18, why aren't statutory rape charges being pursued? My cousin who was 18 at the time was charged with statutory rape for having consensual sex with an under-18 girlfriend whose parents didn't like him thus he became a registered sex offender for life until he committed suicide a couple years ago). When she revealled this information to the public, she said that she was proud that her daughter CHOSE to continue the pregnancy (her daughter gets a choice but she wants to deny other women the right to make a choice?) and indicated that the father of the baby WILL marry her daughter (a shotgun wedding? Fun, fun!).

The inconsistencies, the moral prudeness, and the easy ability to get offended reminds me of a difficult Navy wife I had to deal with once. She was always looking for something to be offended by and would rant in a tempest you'd stereotypically expect from someone with her gorgeous red hair. In my worst job in the Navy, I was assigned to run the Palau Community Center during my last year in Sardinia. This was a place for sailors and dependents to relax, watch movies on one of four television sets, play pool, do laundry, and just hang out and unwind (we sold beer as well as snack food items). One sailor wanted to watch a video we had on Sturgis. I had never seen the video and didn't watch most of them (sailors had such bad taste in movies!). He watched it in another room, caused no problems. Whatever.

Well, this fiery redheaded dependent wife happened to walk into the room, saw some nudity in the Sturgis video and just went ballistic on my ass. She threatened to have me written up, removed from my assignment and sent back to ship's company. I tried to explain to her that I had no idea what the video was about, never watched it, and I didn't have the right to deny a sailor what he wanted to watch in a room where no children were hanging out (especially since we offered that video for rental or viewing). She was uptight and unreasonable. Fortunately for me, my supervisor sided with me. The Palau Community Center was created primarily for sailors, not unsupervised children. I didn't select the videos, my supervisor did and he was the one that had bought the Sturgis video. If you're like me and you don't know what Sturgis is, the video was about the annual motorcycle rally that occurs in Sturgis, South Dakota. In 1983, my family had the interesting fortune of vacationing in the Dakotas while Sturgis was going on. All the Harley Davidson enthusiasts made driving the Interstate, the Black Hills, and the Badlands quite entertaining.

Additionally, the lady was known to be a trouble maker who looked everywhere for things to be offended about. She was disliked by most of the Palau Community Center regulars. Later on, she had come in to rent an R-Rated movie and I foolishly made a comment that she better watch it at home, lest someone got offended. She let it rip into me again for that comment. I was shocked. For a woman who got easily offended, she had no problems cussing me out while children were present. Unfortunately, to this day, I can't watch a film with the actress who played the mom in "Home Alone" without thinking of the lady who abused me with her tirades, because she looked a lot like that actress (Maureen O'Hara?).

Speaking of movies, one of my favourite movie scenes is from "the Field of Dreams" when Kevin Costner's wife in the film goes ballistic about the PTA wanting to ban books. She says, "who wants to ban books, you fascist..." (or words to that effect). Yes, if there's anything to rant about...it should be about the people who are easily offended and want to restrict the books, movies, and whatever else from someone else. It may start innocently (against things we dislike, such as nudie magazines for adults), but ultimately, it will lead to the kind of Nazi book burnings and censorship of materials that criticize or point out the lies and distortions of politicians. That's the kind of banning we should all be worried about. So, someone should tell that Alaskan mooseburger prude to stop being such a book banning bitch. You can't talk about freedom if you want to deny people the right to read Jon Stewart's "America: The Book".

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Why Celebrities Tend to be Liberal

A friend of mine, Riaz, had requested in an email more than a week ago if I'd write my opinion about why Hollywood celebrities tend to be liberal. I promised him that I would, but I didn't count on John McCain giving us such a wild choice for Vice President. I've been hooked on the Palin soap opera for a week, anxiously awaiting the latest word on the Huffington Post and the DailyKos regarding the skeletons in the Palin Family closet. But, I haven't forgotten his request (and if you have any requests, you can email them to me and I'll see about posting on my blog).

I figured now was a good time as any to post about this topic because I just read an article online Friday night that the music group Heart had sent a cease and desist letter to the Republicans for their playing of "Barracuda" at the Convention. The Repugs have quickly found a theme song for Sarah "Barracuda" Palin (that was her nickname in high school) and apparently didn't ask for permission to utilize that song. What's amusing about the whole thing is that like Reagan's unauthorized use of Springsteen's "Born in the USA" in 1984, the Republicans have proved once again that they don't listen to the lyrics. "Barracuda" is most appropriate for Palin, but not in a way they'd like. Here's a sample verse:

If the real thing don't do the trick
You better make up something quick
You gonna burn burn burn burn it to the wick
Ooooooh, barracuda
Sounds like McCain's vetting process of Palin, doesn't it?

There was another article I read in which Van Halen and Jackson Browne also sent a cease and desist letter to the Republicans for their use of "Right Now" and "Running on Empty", respectively. Though McCain meant to refer to Obama as "Running on Empty", after his convention's lack of ideas and issues as they focused on biographical narrative, the song is perfect for his campaign. The problem is, the Republicans have a hard time getting permission to use classic songs that most people have heard, with soaring anthems and energizing baselines. Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, and Tom Petty songs are about as all-American heartland as you can get, but all three of them prefer Democrats over Republican. For a Republican to use a country song would only reinforce the negative stereotypes, thus why I think the reason why they don't use them. Besides, Garth Brooks, Tim McGraw, and the Dixie Chicks prefer the Democrats. What's a good Republican to do?

During the Democratic convention, Sheryl Crow got to rouse the audience at Invesco Field as one of Obama's opening acts. Half of the songs on her latest album "Detours" are political (the other half personal) and it's the best one of her career. When the camera panned the audience, I saw quite a few celebrities, including one of my favourite actresses Rosario Dawson (pictured below. She played in film that was set during the protest chaos of the 2004 RNC in NYC). She was just one among many.

So, Riaz asked me if I thought the Hollywood bias towards liberals and Democrats was more indicative of their altruism in wanting the government to increase taxes on rich people in order to help out the poor, or if it indicated something more (such as the way high school cliques form, with jocks tending to be conservative while Drama club members were generally liberal).

One thing that got me into trouble with the radical feminists on the alternate church webboard was my use of "generalities" in describing certain types of people. But I can't help it. When I majored in Political Science at BYU, I learned that the reason why polling had become such an accurate measure of how people will vote is because they use statistics and generalities. Basically, what I learned in polling is that pollsters can run a sample, asking a variety of questions that will reveal their lifestyle preferences and then use this small sample to speak for the larger demographic group. Don't shoot me because I'm pointing out the obvious!

What that means is that pollsters can pretty much wisely guess that a lower income, high school educated, Walmart shopper who listens to Country music, hunts, and watches the 700 Club is more likely to vote Republican than a latte-drinking, NPR listener, who is college educated, drives a Volvo, has a passport, and watches "The West Wing."

We've all met types and the ones you remember the most are the ones that defy stereotypes. But how often does that happen? The reason you remember them is because they go against how you pegged them to be. Granted, we shouldn't put people into boxes and stereotype them, but when generalities reinforce themselves, it's just easy to guess where they stand on issues without having to discover it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't strive to be friends with people who are different from us, but in my desire to recognize patterns, I did notice after I got out of the Navy that most of the closest friends I made were all from Midwestern states (like me) and the ones I got along least with were white Southern guys who listened only to country music. There were exceptions, but they were rare.

After my internship experience in D.C., I learned that the Mormons I got along the best with were Democrats or liberals, have traveled outside of the country on their own (besides a mission, in other words) and read a lot of the same books that I have. The ones I had the most problems with were absolutist in their thinking, conservative politically and religiously, and provincial in their worldview (America first!).

One interesting observation I noticed at BYU was that many of the small minority of liberals on campus were in the Political Science or creative arts departments. It also shouldn't surprise anyone that the business department was conservative. You see it deeper in academia as well. Many of the political science professors at BYU were Democrats, and this was a very Republican school in what many call the most Republican county in the entire country. Conservatives complain that grad schools are overrun by liberals, yet they don't complain that Wall Street is overwhelmingly conservative.

On a cultural standpoint, Hollywood often gets blamed by Republicans for its liberal values that go against the grain of "mainstream, heartland America." Whenever a celebrity like Leonardo DiCaprio speaks about climate change, or Sean Penn dares traveling to Iraq before the 2003 invasion, or George Clooney speaks out about the genocide in Darfur, conservatives tell them to shut up and marginalize their opinions just because they happen to be famous. Yet these same people are silent when conservatives run for political office (Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the guy from the Love Boat who was Congressman in Iowa awhile back). What qualified them to run for public office? Why are their opinions more important than the Democratic ones (who don't run for office)? I thought this was America, where every American has the right to express their opinion and to run for public office. A law degree isn't the only path to elective office. In fact, our government might be better if we had more elected officials who came from a diverse range of occupations besides law or business school.

Anyhow, getting back to the original question, I believe that anyone in a creative endeavor tends to be more liberal. For an actor to convince an audience, he or she has to get inside the head of different characters. They have to understand and relate to the person they are playing, even if such character is Hannibal Lecter or the Zodiac Killer. A lot of conservative people want to put people into boxes, labeling them as immoral and such without getting to know what they believe and why. We see this trait most clearly when it comes to religion. Because they "know" their beliefs are "the absolute truth," they don't have to understand why the other person believes something completely different. This closed mind is not effective in creating believable characters. What you end up with is an actor like Kirk Cameron, who effectively killed his career when he went evangelical and refused to go along with whatever the writers wanted to make of his most famous character (Mike Seaver in "Growing Pains"). He will only play characters that match his values, thus why we don't see him act in anything except evangelical informercials. On the flip side, there's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who is socially liberal even though he's a Republican. He couldn't win in a Republican primary, thus why the recall effort in 2003 was tailor made for his coming into power. He wouldn't have won the governorship of California if he was a right-wing evangelical.

Whenever conservatives rant about Hollywood being liberal, it only shows me how much they don't understand. What we're dealing with in this election is the group of people who pride themselves on being ig'nant and wanting to elect someone they can have a beer with versus people who understand the complexity of our world, value education and diversity, and want to elect the best person to lead us, even if they are much smarter than we could ever hope of being. The person we elect to the most powerful office in the world should represent the best of us, our hopes and desires. This leader, after all, has to deal with problems most of us will never encounter in our lives. To think that some narrow-minded redneck from a small town is the person best equipped for that is dangerously ignorant.

So, don't fault Hollywood for being liberal. It's in their DNA. The writers have to be able to create complex drama. As a writer myself, I've had to explore ideas that my conservative friends dare not think about. I have to get into the mind and motives of each of my characters, some of whom are liberal and some conservative. I have to be able to relate to each one to make them real. I simply can't see a conservative person doing this, because many aren't interested in understanding someone different from themselves and they tend to be moralistic. Because of this, conservatives would make great propaganda writers, but you truly want liberals to write the screenplays and novels.

However, just because they are liberal doesn't mean that they truly care about the poor and the middle class. Many buy mega mansions and indulge in a lifestyle of luxury. Sure, they start up a charity and try to raise awareness for their cause by holding lavish fundraising parties. It's easy to get cynical about it and perhaps that's part of the celebrity culture the rest of the country despises. But at the root level of their being, you can't fault them for being more liberal than conservative. That's just the nature of humanity and general stereotypes. Certain professions attract certain people. Most don't fault the military for being conservative. As a liberal in the Navy, life was difficult but I learned a lot about what it is that "makes" a person liberal or conservative. It's deeply inherent and no one should be faulted for their natural inclinations. But Republicans wanting to see Hollywood become conservative are truly ignorant. It'll never happen...because the pattern is consistent throughout the world. All you have to do is look at police states where they suppress and control their citizens. The ones who speak out against their government tend to be musicians, writers, and actors. It's not a phenomenon unique to the U.S. It happened in Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.

If the Republicans want to focus their outrage on something, they should focus their outrage on why their politicians pretend to be conservative while doing things that go against their values. Liberals in Hollywood are the least of their concerns. It's the neo-conservatives that should be the focus of their rants. Let the liberals make the movies we watch and let the conservatives run our financial world.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

Wrapping Up the Repugnant Convention

John McCain, playing with his wedding ring on the day he announced his VP choice was Governor Sarah Palin, a week ago. You can watch it on YouTube, and see for yourself that McCain was definitely leering at her frequently, while playing with his wedding band...with wife Cindy McCain sitting right behind them. So started one of the craziest weeks in politics. Sarah Palin has become my favourite show of the fall season. Each new day brings more revelations about this woman's life and career. It's like an ongoing soap opera. "Northern Exposure" meets "the Osbournes". In fact, if McCain loses, I think the telegenic Palin family (and their dysfunctional family values) would make a great subject for a reality show.

Though I didn't watch all of the speeches aired on Public Television, from what I saw, this convention wasn't as mean-spirited and hateful as the 1992 and 2004 Republican National Conventions. Those two were the worst. But, in comparison to the positive message and forward looking Democrats, the Republicans are never going to have an inspiring convention that presents the kind of America I want to live in. Seeing the jingoistic chanting "USA! USA! USA!" and the long narratives about the past, I wondered when they'd mention their plan for the future. They have none. The most galling inconsistency is that they started their convention by cancelling the opening night and urged delegates and supporters to donate time and money to relief efforts in the Gulf Coast as Hurricane Gustav threatened to go Katrina on their incompetent asses. Two nights later, Governor Sarah Palin is knocking community organizers for not having responsibilities like a small-town mayor. It didn't take long for the phony mask of "compassionate conservativism" to be stripped away. Republicans just aren't nice people. They are bullies who hate anyone who isn't rich, white, and evangelical.

The most baffling speech I heard was Mitt Romney's. Pundits said that he was definitely trying to set himself up for a future run. God, I hope not. The way he ranted on about all those big government liberals in Washington D.C. that need to be sent packing...uh, what decade are you in, dude?!? It's weird that a Bush-family friend like Romney would rip into failures like the mortgage crisis and a growing government as though we had a Democrat in the White House. I can't believe I used to like this guy. I'll never trust him again because with his amnesiac speech, he has no credibility. He's such a phony, he makes John Edwards look authentic. I hope he doesn't entertain another run for the presidency. He should seek to win the Olympic Games for Boston in 2024 (if the IOC doesn't select Chicago for the 2016 Games). He did a good job turning around the Salt Lake Winter Olympics from the bribery scandal.

I wanted to listen to Rudy Giuliani's speech, but the way he was laughing as he made lame jokes about Obama, I just tuned him out. I don't know who's more insane...the Joker or Giuliani. He, also, has no credibility. His own daughter endorsed Obama and his son hates him. His whole strategy for winning the Republican nomination was pinned to the banana republic of Florida, where people don't seem to know how to vote. But I think his failure was secured when Senator Joe Biden said the best dismissal of this political season: a Giuliani speech consists of "a noun, a verb, and 9/11." Hopefully Biden will be able to create a buzz-worthy dismissal of Sarah Palin when they debate.

According to the Huffington Post, Cindy McCain's Monday night outfit supposedly totalled $300,000. $280,000 of that amount was on her diamond earrings alone. Wow...that's a mortgage for a lot of people. Interesting how during a time of economic crisis and the housing market going bust with a high default rate on subprime loans, the candidate's wife dresses like a queen. How very Marie Antoinettish of her. Maybe her mantra to the people defaulting on their mortgages will be: "let them wear diamond earrings!" Yes, she's attractive, but I have to wonder...is she now threatened by Sarah Palin? I hope she watched her husband's wandering eye on YouTube. Rumour has it, she had made him sign a prenup (just like Teresa Heinz did to John Kerry). Who said rich Republican women weren't smart?

This is a photo of some Republican delegates. I don't get the alligator hats (Florida delegation?). However, notice that one guy put an Obama figure in the mouth of his gator. I don't know if they do such things at the Democratic Convention, but I highly doubt it. Democrats are excited about the issues and have plans for what they want to accomplish. Republicans have no plan to speak of, so they can only attack. They aren't interested in governing, just looting the public treasury to award their rich backers and entrench an aristocracy in our country where only a small group will be rich while the rest are relegated to poverty.

When Governor Palin criticized Obama for saying one thing to voters in Scranton, then making fun of them to voters in San Francisco, she was being disingenuous. It is the Republicans who laugh at their idiotic base for voting against their economic interests in favor of cultural issues that they have no interest in changing. Until the working class wakes up to the con job they've gotten from Republicans, we're always going to run the risk that an election might be too close to call and close enough for them to steal.

I hope that those who watched the speeches of both conventions, that their verdict will be set. The Democrats offer ideas, the Republicans offer personal attacks. One party knows how to manipulate voters to win elections, the other knows how to govern competently. I hope Americans are fed up with Republicans for the rest of our lifetime. My dream is a country where Republicans are a minority party that will never occupy the White House again or be the majority in Congress. If it happened in the United Kingdom, it could happen here.

I'm glad the farce of a convention is over. May the Sarah Palin show continue with more good, scandalous dramas that will ultimately undermine the McCain trainwreck.

Friday, September 05, 2008

Why Jon Stewart Rocks!



You gotta love Jon Stewart for calling it as he sees it. He truly is one of the best things to emerge in the Bush era. When the mainstream media often acted as Bush's lapdog instead of reporting the news and investigating the lies and corruption, Jon Stewart saw his comedy show become hugely popular among the progressive set.

This video clip shows just how two-faced the rightwing propagandists are. As I said before, when liars lie so much, they can't keep track of where they are. It's the good duty of Jon Stewart and his research team to find videotapes of people impeaching their own credibility, flip flopping so much, they make John Kerry or Mitt Romney look stable.

Enjoy!

Flashback Friday: John McCain

Amazing. Truly amazing! The Republican Party is such a psychopathically dishonest organization, you have to wonder if there are any souls in heaven who once voted Republican. It's truly amazing watching Senator McCain's speech and seeing the reaction of the convention delegates. The pro-military theme, particularly the constant "USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!" chanting that interrupted McCain's speech several times (looks like a member of Code Pink managed to disrupt the speech for a half minute), and the constant repetition of his well-known POW story is incredulous. This is a party, after all, that favoured the draft evader and deserter in 2000 instead of the war hero they are now coronating. And just four years ago, they mocked another Vietnam veteran by displaying purple hearts imprinted on band-aids. Swiftboat Veterans continued the Republican hatchet job on the Democratic Vietnam War veteran John Kerry. This from a party where the current administration had only one veteran of that war: Colin Powell. The others got deferments, medical exemptions, plush national guard spots they didn't bother to show up for. So, after eight years of attacking veterans of the Vietnam War, NOW they are willing to praise a veteran and highlight his service there? Incredible.

I watched the speech because I admire McCain. He has been my favourite Republican politician since the mid-1990s when I took notice of his crusade for campaign finance reform. When I say "favourite Republican", let me assure you that I can count the number of Republicans I admire on one hand. The party, however, is a disgrace. There's not a chance in hell I'd ever be a member of that party and I still find it amusing that a lady I knew in my home congregation in Atlanta actually had the audacity to suggest that I join the Republican party when I couldn't find a job in D.C. and moved back home.

Anyhow, I liked most of McCain's speech. He truly is an admirable person, with a lot of integrity and I have no doubt that he will be unlike Bush, who was vindictive, petty, divisive, and incompetent. McCain would be the first president we can all truly be proud to lead us in a long time. What I found most interesting during his speech is that the loudest applause occurred when he mentioned Governor Palin and when he criticized Senator Obama. When he spoke about reaching out to all Americans and working with Democrats, he only got mild applause and from the looks on the faces of people in the convention hall, they did not look enthused about it. That told me a lot. These people truly hate Democrats. Maybe they hate us more than they do al-Qaeda. Considering how many books by O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity are about the evils of liberalism, it shouldn't be surprising. However, it's still alarming because as McCain said in his speech, from the person whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower to the migrant worker, "we're all Americans." That line didn't get the enthusiastic applause and standing ovation I thought it would. Watching the reaction of the attendees told me all I need to know about these hateful people. I feel sorry for them. Their beloved president brought our nation to ruin and instead of directing their frustrations at him, they continue to hate liberals and Democrats.

The best part of the speech was when he admitted that his party promised to change Washington but was changed by Washington, and instead of looking out for the people it became intoxicated by its own power. It's nice that he acknowledges that, but I don't believe McCain will have the power to change things. With his inability to choose the top two VP candidates he wanted, he has shown in his first decision that he's every bit a hostage to the social/religious conservatives that Bush is. The only difference is that Bush believes the religious right b.s., where McCain is following the Reagan model of hoodwinking them into voting for him. McCain made overtures late last year that he became "evangelical" but at age 71, I find it hard to believe that he had a true "born again experience." He's Episcopalian all the way, which is mainline Christianity not known for radical pentacostalism. McCain's personal history as a Maverick, individualist who likes to stir the pot is probably in his DNA and unlikely to change. That's why I'm comfortable with him, should his party manage to hold on to the White House. He was the best option out of that pathetic band of losers the Republicans paraded to voters this year.

Okay, this photo is obviously photoshopped by someone. I couldn't help it. I thought it was amusing. For my Flashback Friday, I wanted to remind readers about the 2000 Republican Primary fight when Bush played nasty with outright lies. As I watched Bush praise the McCains for being "wonderful adoptive parents" to a girl from Bangladesh a few nights ago, I couldn't help but wonder about the Republicans in South Carolina who voted for Bush because they received the infamous telephone push-poll asking them if they'd be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child with a black prostitute. Push-polls are not interested in a person's opinion, but to plant inaccurate information about an opponent in the hopes of destroying their potential support for that victimized candidate.

Rove was brilliant at this. And Republican voters in South Carolina bought it. So, it makes me wonder...those people who believed that and voted for Bush because of it, what do they think now when their beloved president praised McCain for adopting an orphan from Bangladesh? Do they feel like idiots? If not, they should. Are they outraged? I don't know about conservatives, but I hate being lied to. I've ended two friendships this decade because of a pathetic lie. For me, I can forgive some lies but not others. I weigh lies and the unforgiveable ones are those that attempt to sway my opinion about something by using deceitful means. Bush was a lousy liar, but people thought he was honest...so when McCain compared him to Clinton, it was funny to see Bush protest a bit too much. As the past eight years have shown, Bush is a far worse liar than Clinton could ever be. I can forgive a lie about an affair or something personal that's none of our business...but to lie about an opponent's child to sway a vote is unforgiveable.
What else did the Bush team lie about McCain in 2000? Well...they accused him of being gay, of being brainwashed by his Vietnamese captors, of being mentally unstable or even insane as a result of being tortured as a POW, and they even accused him of being a coward who sold out on his country by confessing government secrets under strain of torture. A coward! The Bush team accused McCain of being a coward--not their guy, who avoided Vietnam and failed to show up for Guard duty after they wanted a flight physical. Who's the hero, who's the coward?

So, given this history of a party that rejected a true war hero in 2000 for a war coward and liar of the worst sort...the Republicans want Americans to trust them to lead us for another four years with their track record of the past eight years? That operatives within the party could say those kinds of things about a candidate within their own party and now pretend that everything is great tells me that we would be fools to ever trust this party again. Thanks, but no thanks.

Sorry, John. I admire you a lot. You are a much better man than Bush ever will be. You're far greater than your party. They don't deserve a person like you. You are far too gracious, kind, and forgiving. I have no doubts that you would make a great president, but your party had that chance in 2000 and they blew it. They backed the wrong candidate and now they should pay the price for that decision. Your party deserves nothing less than a forty year exile and investigations into all manner of corruption and improprieties. I hope you will join President Barack Obama in investigating the crimes of the Bush Administration. After what they did to you and your family in 2000, you know you want to!

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Rebuttal to the Phony Christians on the Right

Last night, Sarah Palin made fun of Obama's experience as a Community Organizer. This is rich, considering how Republicans cancelled the opening night program and asked delegates and supporters to donate time and money to the potential disaster that Hurricane Gustav threatened to be. It was all about "putting on our American hats" and being a caring community. When Gustav faded away with minimal damage, the phony pretense was stripped away. The Republicans went back to what they do best: hate, hate, hate!

Belittle Community Organizers at your own risk. They are the people who do a lot of the work that doesn't get done, often for low or no wages, long hours, lots of frustration and dealing with bureaucratic red tape. She might as well have made fun of stay-at-home moms, because look at her...she can pop out five kids and run a small town and then a small government at the same time!

It's officially on, Governor Pitbull!

Dr. Laura on Sarah Palin (I'm Loving It!)



In my online news fix, I came across a blog post that Dr. Laura, the darling doctor of the rightwing, wrote about Sarah Palin, whom conservatives are now praising as a "female Ronald Reagan" that might save their party from a humilating defeat. Remember, Dr. Laura is making these points, not me:

I am extremely disappointed in the choice of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican Party. . . . I'm stunned -- couldn't the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain? I realize his advisors probably didn't want a "mature" woman, as the Democrats keep harping on his age. But really, what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?

When Mom and Dad both work full-time (no matter how many folks get involved with the children), it becomes a somewhat chaotic situation. Certainly, if a child becomes ill and is rushed to the hospital, and you're on the hotline with both Israel and Iran as nuclear tempers are flaring, where's your attention going to be? Where should your attention be? Well, once you put your hand on the Bible and make that oath, your attention has to be with the government of the United States of America. . . .

Any full-time working wife and mother knows that the family takes the short end of the stick. Marriages and the welfare of children suffer when a stressed-out mother doesn't have time to be a woman, a wife, and a hands-on Mommy.

You just gotta love it! I'm so digging this.

Blame the Liberal Media

McCain/Palin came up with a new strategy to combat the onslaught of unfavorable media attention on Governor Sarah Palin: attack the "liberal media" for unfair character attacks. John McCain was scheduled to go on Larry King Live, but cancelled because of what his campaign felt was CNN's aggressive "attack" on a McCain aide who couldn't answer a simple question. I watched a video of that segment and it was not an attack. The reporter simply asked the McCain aide for ONE example of Governor Palin's foreign policy decision. He couldn't answer and kept changing the subject, but the reporter kept bringing it back to her question. If that's an attack, these Republicans are warped! Only a party that gave American politics the nastiness of Lee Atwater's infamously racist Willie Horton ad in 1988, the Swiftboat Veterans, and Karl Rove would have the audacity to claim victimhood now. To me, it's just one more example that the Republican Party is incapable of understanding what the truth really is. They've been hypocritical and inconsistent on so many issues, they can't keep track of where they are anymore. I guess you can expect that when you lie so much.

Is all of the information that has flooded our media airwaves and the Internet regarding Governor Palin truly an "attack"? It's amazing that they would claim that when they had spent the entire eight years of Clinton's presidency digging up any kind of dirt and throwing them to see what sticks. They've accused the Clintons of murdering Vince Foster and Ron Brown, of Hillary being a lesbian and Bill raping Juanita Brodderick (sp?). They published a salacious report detailing the entire Monica affair in such graphic terms that would make even Larry Flynt blush. The Clintons are the all-time champions of being "attacked" by the so-called media. So, for Republicans to say that all the stuff that has come out on Palin to be a personal attack is such a farce. They truly are a bunch of whiners who can dish it but can't take it.

And speaking of "liberal media"...Republicans have no clue what a liberal media is! If the media was truly liberal, Bush would have long been impeached after 24/7 coverage of his incompetence is rammed home to viewers. A liberal media would hound McCain for his sexual affairs and liberal pundits would make sure everyone in America knows that he was so checking out Palin's fine ass during her announcement speech last week. A truly liberal biased media would have investigated all leads in the idea that 9/11 was an inside job and not dismiss it as some fringe conspiracy theory. A liberal media would expose every Republican politician's lie and hypocrisy while ignoring Democratic ones.

Guess what? The media isn't liberal. It's not conservative either. It's corporate with a bottom line. The whole goal of media is to increase ratings, ad revenues, and readership. There are four things that will guarantee an intense media spotlight on a politician: sex, violence, money corruption, and hypocrisy. So, if a politician claims to some kind of moral superiority (such as Eliot Spitzer, who was a Democratic Governor until he resigned earlier this year) and is caught violating the very thing he or she professes, of course the media is going to have a field day. It doesn't matter if the person is a Democrat or a Republican. That's why John Edwards got into trouble. He presented himself as a family man and it turned out that he was caught with a mistress with a baby that might be his. And let's not forget Larry Craig, a conservative Republican who has an anti-homosexual voting record getting caught soliciting for gay sex in a public restroom (in the Twin Cities last year). Of course the media is going to jump on that! To complain about unfair attacks is just ludicrous. Exposing hypocrisy is absolutely within the bounds of responsible journalism.

The photo above shows the most famous of the "media elite." None of them are known to be Kennedyesque liberals. Can you think of one famous liberal in the media class? If you said Helen Thomas, I wouldn't agree. She was every bit as tough on Clinton as she was on Bush. On the flip side, conservative media tend to read the talking points bulletin that the White House hands out. That's not reporting, that's regurgitating propaganda.

When I was at BYU, I took a "Media in Politics" course and it was one of the best ones of my college curriculum. The professor wasn't exactly a liberal (this was BYU, after all) but in our readings, I learned that there's a strategy at play when conservatives accuse the media of having a liberal bias. The media will over-compensate towards the conservative viewpoint to prove that they aren't biased and scrutinize the left harsher. No other proof is needed than to examine the way news has been reported during the last 16 years. The Clintons were subjected to some of the most vile rumours, innuendos, faux scandals, and real scandals. On the other hand, Bush has had it relatively easy. None of his lies were harped on the way they harped on the misquote by Gore that he had claimed to invent the Internet (which he never said). It's the double-standard that is undermining truth to the point where people just don't know what to believe any more.

For me, I'd love to see an actual liberal bias in the media. For what does "liberal" mean? It means being open-minded and not narrow in opinion or judgement. That's exactly what we want in the media. But the Republicans don't want people to be informed. They want sheeple who watch the Fox News Channel and don't question their leaders. In this worldview mindset, Britney Spears is the ideal citizen because she had said in 2003 that Americans should just trust that the president will always do the right thing. That's not what our Founding Fathers believed. They set up a government of checks and balances with a free media so that any abuse of power would be witnessed, challenged, and reported. We are to be each other's keeper. Corruption prefers to operate in darkness.

The McCain strategy to fight back against the media regarding his unvetted VP choice might backfire on him. He wants everyone to believe that he'll be different from Bush but this whole episode only shows us just how much he is like Bush: selecting an unqualified person because of her compelling story and conservative credentials without regard to what's in the best interest in our country should he not live to see out his first term in office. Then, when the shit hits the fan, to claim that his campaign did a complete vetting of her (when the facts reveal otherwise, as many people in Alaska are claiming that they were never contacted about info on Palin). This is Bushism at its worse: make decisions based on superficial one time meetings where you look into their eyes and find a soulmate (Bush with Putin, McCain with Palin), then do research later. When the press has a field day over all the controversies, blame the media and never admit you made a mistake. Total Bush operandi. John McCain truly is McSame.

The best narrative the Democrats can run on is that Republicans had their chance to nominate McCain eight years ago, but they chose Bush. Why should they be entrusted with another four years, especially when McCain's decision for a VP follows the same pattern as Bush's decisions. We've seen how eight years of this has turned out. Can we afford another four years of this? With 80% of Americans believing that America is going in the wrong direction, it would be completely moronic if McCain wins in November. It's proof that our country has gone insane (the best definition of which is "doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results"). I wish John would cut the Rovian b.s., take responsibility for his decision and admit the truth: he did not vet Palin and only picked her because he wanted a big surprise to shake up the political world and to outdo the Democrats with a history-making campaign.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

The Republican Minstrel Show

So begins that quadrennial obscene Minstrel Show that is called the Republican National Convention. Watching it is a reminder of why the Republican Party never appealed to me. The conventional hall is basically white and gray. Sure, they have token black, hispanic, and Asian folk scattered around, but because the party is overwhelmingly white, they drown out any colour. As we saw at the 2000 RNC in Philadelphia, there were more black people on the stage than in the audience, which is why I consider it nothing more than a modern day minstrel show. The only black people Republicans like are the "Uncle Tom" types that tow the party line that is anti-government, pro-business, pro-war, anti-abortion, and even more telling...anti-affirmative action.

It's funny to think that this party is against affirmative action, considering who McCain selected for his running mate. The complaint I've heard many Republicans/conservatives make about affirmative action is that it "unfairly favours less qualified women and minorities over a more qualified male." That may or may not be true, depending on who's doing the hiring, but in McCain's case, he has done exactly that. When you think about a popular former two-term governor of a blue state, Christine Todd Whitman, why wasn't she selected?

Even more, the selection seems to be based primarily on the Republicans freaking out over Obama's superstar show with his ability to fill a 70,000+ seat stadium with people even buying scalped tickets to get inside for the historic event. For the past two years, you know that the Republicans had been watching with jealousy as Democrats made history by having its first viable female, African American, and Hispanic candidates. The regret of many Democrats was that we had to choose between the woman and the African American. I would've been happy with either candidate. However, it is quite disheartening to see that after all of Hillary's hard work towards "breaking the ultimate glass ceiling" (she earned her 18 million votes), McCain decides to do an end run by naming an inexperienced political newby to be his running mate and if he wins, it is Palin that will make history without having to break a sweat and earning her votes the old fashioned way.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, however, I don't think she'll be much of an asset beyond the conservative voters, who always tow the line. These are the people who represent the 30% in the presidential approval polls. They have a tendency to stick with their candidate, regardless of whatever comes out because they can't admit to themselves when they made a mistake. To admit to any error means that you're questioning God, or some bullshit like that. So, they'd rather go down with the ship than jettison the heavyweight and save themselves. Essentially, conservative Republicans are lemmings who wouldn't think twice about following their leader off the cliff.

It was odd listening to Bush praise McCain, particularly the line that John and Cindy are "wonderful parents to an adopted girl." Really? He now admits that? Because in 2000, he authorized or wasn't bothered by Rove's tactics to spread the lie to South Carolina voters that McCain had an out-of-wedlock baby with a black prostitute. It's just amazing to me how you can totally be okay using blatant lies in a desperate attempt to win a primary or an election and think nothing of it or dismissing it as mere politics. Bush will be held accountable by God for all his lies, even if he thinks he's getting away with them now. That's the kind of politics that needs to change. No one should be able to lie without consequence (such as the ongoing Obama is a Muslim lie). But it's also interesting to me that Republicans have to lie about their opponents to win. Democrats only have to tell the truth about their opponents, because they are so rich in scandals and personal failings.

Back to Palin. This photo is an example of the shamelessness of Sarah Palin, exposing her pregnant teenage daughter, even though she had said that she had hoped it could remain a secret until after the election. Didn't she realize that cameras catch everything? And in the era of YouTube, nothing gets past cameras these days. So, using a baby and a blanket to hide the pregnancy was pretty lame. Shameless!

Even more shameless about Palin...on a radio talkshow, she actually laughed when the DJ called her opponent a "bitch" and a "cancer" (knowing full well that her opponent was a cancer survivor) and made fun of her weight. More Republican family values on display?

On "Good Morning, America" Tuesday, they talked with a few people about the teenage pregnancy issue and a few women said that it made them more supportive of Palin because they admire that her family is Pro-Life. Hearing these women gush with pride teenage pregnancies was bizarre. So, I guess that's one way to not get in trouble with your evangelical parents: when you tell them that you're pregnant, be sure to tell them that you decided to keep the baby and they'll be supportive and loving and not hit the roof. I read a few years back that states that voted for Bush in 2004 had the highest rates of divorce and teenage pregnancies. Gee, I wonder why? Can you say "abstinence only education"?!? Ignorance is bliss, right? Like how Bush pretended that Hurricane Katrina didn't exist for three days after the fact. If you don't think it, it doesn't exist.

As mayor and governor, she tried to make government employees display their loyalty to her and she sought to ban books from the library. The pastor of her church (she had attended an Assemblies of God denomination) actually told his flock that anyone who questioned President Bush about his response to Hurricane Katrina ran the risk of going to hell!!! And she views the Iraq War as part of God's plan.

Man, where do Republicans find these people? I've never met an Assemblies of God person that I liked. They are a scary group of people who are so fanatical in their beliefs that you have to wonder if they aren't mentally ill. Now, mental illness is no laughing matter, but for the sake of sanity and reason and all things decent, it's just disturbing that someone like her would use her religious views to force people to her viewpoint (such as the abstinence-only policy which she herself did not practice, nor her daughter).
Finally, I get to the traitor, Senator Joseph Lieberman. What a buffoon. I watched his segment of the Convention just to see what kind of response he got, and I must say that I was pleased. He truly is a sap! That he doesn't get that he's the butt of a cruel Republican joke is sad. In 2000, those people called him a "Sore Loserman" and now he's endorsing their candidate for president. He got mild applause and it was amusing to see him attempt to praise Clinton's bipartisanship to a convention hall full of people who most likely hated Clinton. It would be the equivalent of Senator McCain praising Bush at the Democratic Convention. What a moron!

When Gore selected him in 2000, I didn't think he'd do anything to help win electoral votes and sure enough, he didn't. Since then, he's gone over to the dark side but that's to be expected. Most of the neoconservatives in our government are Jewish and pretty much represent Israel's interest on Capitol Hill. (I'm not saying that all Jewish members of Congress are neocons, because we have Boxer, Feingold, Feinstein, Schumer, the late Lantos, and Wexler to name a few who aren't).

For the first night of the convention, I guess Lieberman did the job of the first minstrel buffoon. Who's next? Alan Keyes, Condoleezza Rice, or Clarence Thomas? Stay tuned. Or not. For me, seeing a bunch of rich, pasty old white folks and listening to their bland propaganda was a bit too much to take. I thank God that I'm not a Republican. It's the most unappealing organization I've ever seen. I love diversity and all I see on my TV screen is bland conformity straight out of a 1950s show.

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

First, we owe a huge thank you to John McCain for delivering the media and Democrats the greatest gift of all: a gift that keeps on giving. His rash selection of a running mate has been a godsend for scandal sniffers and may just be the kind of decision that will sink his presidential hopes once and for all.

The New York Times has reported that McCain's "vetting" of Sarah Palin consisted of little more than a Google search!!! They were afraid that digging into back issues of Palin's hometown newspapers would have alerted the media that she was a serious contender, thus ruining the surprise. However, there's also reports that he only decided on her as a running mate 48 hours before he made the announcement!

What does that say about a presidential candidate when the first important decision appears to be a rash one to appease a vital constituency when he couldn't have his top two choices (Lieberman and Ridge) and hated the one Rove wanted him to select (Romney)? On the surface, Palin had the credentials that conservatives like: NRA-member; Pro-Life; Evangelical; a big family; and a total hottie. In evangelical circles, experience counts for little if you pass the abortion test, thus why Pro-Choicers like Christine Todd Whitman and Kay Bailey Hutchison didn't stand a chance. Condoleezza Rice has more experience than Palin, but she's too black for a party of die hard racist holdovers of the Confederacy.

However, beneath the beauty queen's surface lies a lot of interesting facts and speculations that have emerged...

One of the biggest controversies is the above photograph of the Palin family, which was supposedly taken in December 2007. The daughter is showing a bump, which doesn't match the timeline for the due date of her pregnancy (December 2008). There's speculation on blogs like the DailyKos that Trig (the Down's Syndrome baby) is actually the daughter's, not Sarah's. Resourceful bloggers are claiming that photos of the Governor when she was supposed to be pregnant didn't look pregnant and that the daughter (Bristol) was absent from school during much of this past spring. The Governor supposedly took a flight to deliver a speech when she was close to the due date, so with all the inconsistent stories and timelines, one has to wonder about this Alaskan soap opera. Did Sarah Palin claim her grandson as her son?

The New York Times has revealed that Sarah and Todd eloped in 1988 and their son Track was born eight months later. So much for abstinence before marriage, eh? She didn't live up to it but she's requiring it to be taught to Alaskan teenagers even as her own daughter has an out of wedlock pregnancy herself? I guess if you live in a place like Alaska where winter nights are loooooooooooong, there's not much to do but sex! So much for Republican Family Values. Can we all finally agree that Republicans don't have a lock on values and morality?

If this weren't enough, the news media is also reporting that the Palins were members of the Alaska Independence Party in the 1990s. This political party is dedicated to nationhood for Alaska. That means secession. And now she's joining a ticket that claims to put America first even as they accuse Obama of being too foreign for America? The hypocrisy keeps revealing itself that I wonder why anyone finds Republicans credible anymore.

There's also the ongoing troopergate scandal where she fired the guy who refused to fire a sheriff who was in a bitter custody battle with her relative. She was also for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. And she's claiming that being Governor with the ability to call up the National Guard is enough experience to step into the role of "commander in chief." She received her first passport in 2007 so she could pay a visit in Kuwait to members of the Alaska National Guard deployed over there. The more I learn about her, the more she resembles Bush in a dress.

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. The media, thank God, is loving this and are on the hunt in Alaska for anything that might turn up. Will more scandals finally cause her to withdraw her name from the Republican ticket? If she truly cares about our country, the only honourable decision for her is to say "thanks, but I must decline." Hell, if she cared about her family, she'd withdraw. It's amazingly naive to think that she can subject her family to the intense scrutiny of national campaign before she was ready. Especially the exposure of her daughter's pregnancy before the world should signal to everyone that this woman cares only about herself and career, family and country be damned. When she looks into that mirror of hers, she has to know deep down that she's not qualified to step into the presidency if McCain dies in office. She's seduced by the allure of history to be the first female Vice President in American history. Nothing else matters, not her marriage, not her children, and certainly not her country.

But the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco rests with McCain himself. That he did not fully vet her shows how reckless he is in the first important decision of his candidacy. That he didn't go with his first or second choice shows that he's a hostage to the rightwing of the party. Now he's locked in to his choice of running mate. If Governor Palin doesn't do the honourable thing and withdraw, we will witness the slow drip, drip, drip of a political party commiting electoral suicide all because beauty matters more to them than brains, because Pro-Life is the only qualifying criteria they look for in a candidate, and because they are deathly afraid of the Obama superstar and his massive crowds everywhere he speaks.

At some point, our country has to matter to these people more than the perfect politician. We've endured eight of the worst years of my lifetime and we need a break from Republican incompetence. And that's exactly what McCain's choice of a running mate reveals. He's every bit as incompetent as George, who thought Harriet Miers was the best qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. If Governor Palin doesn't withdraw, I hope that the media continues to dig up more and more dirt on her. She could very well be the most fascinating news story of the year...a ticking time bomb that destroys the Republican chance to steal the White House for another four years.

Yeah, I'm lovin' this soap opera! It's what I had hoped when I wanted Johnny to pick Governor Crist of Florida. I love it when the party of family values and morality is exposed for the hypocrites they are, with their smug sanctimonious attitudes and swiftboating lies against Democrats because they can't compete on policy issues. It's nice to see some karmic payback for once after the last two election cycles. I'm not ready for the McCain/Palin show to be over yet. There's more good stuff coming our way, I'm sure.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Bush Drunk Off His Ass

Some photos are making the e-mail rounds and the first thought I had was are these faked? Why hasn't the media reported on this? Remember back in 1998 when the media had no problem printing and reporting on every salacious detail of Clinton's sexual activities with Monica Lewinsky? Parents complained about having to cover their children's ears or of explaining what "oral sex" means to children who are far too young to know about that. Most incredible of all, one lady I knew was livid about Clinton's affair, saying that the worst thing about it was pushing it in our faces and lying about it! That was a contradiction...if Clinton was lying about his affair, how could he be throwing it in our faces? Yes, he lied about it...but it was the media and the Republicans who were obsessed with every detail and wanted everyone in America to know exactly what he did with her, when and how often.

With Bush, however, the media has pretty much done a blackout on the truth to protect the president from his embarrassments. Why the double standard? Especially when the foreign media has no such blackout. What does it say about our country that we Americans are shielded from knowing the truth about our president when the rest of the world views him as a laughing stock? I've read in European news articles that foreign leaders who meet Bush walk away baffled how this man could be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. Most foreign leaders have sized him up as an incompetent and ignorant man who had no business being president. That's the true embarrassment, and these photos of him in Beijing show just how dysfunctional the man truly is.

When I saw the photos, my heart went out to Laura Bush and daughter Barbara, who in a few photos look quite embarrassed by his behaviour. If he truly was drinking, why is that lie not pounced on by the media? He claims to have never touched alcohol since he "found Jesus" at age 40 (that would be 1986). If he has turned to drinking, we have a right to know. After all, the American media had a field day reporting on a drunk Yeltsin who livened up all those G-8 meetings during the Clinton years. You know the foreign media is doing the same for our president. Yet Americans want to remain in denial about our president. I just don't get it. For me, I want to know all the information out there. Who wants to be ignorant because the person who knows something you don't know has power over you. Knowledge is the true power. Self imposed ignorance only empowers the people who seek to manipulate you.

Barbara Bush is looking gorgeous here, but her father looks toasted. He could be sleepy but I think Barbara's expression is quite revealing. I wish I could read her mind at that moment.

Check out both Laura and Barbara's facial expressions and reaction. While everyone is focused on the president, the two people closest to him (wife and daughter) look like they just want to get away from him. Why? Can you say "embarrassment"?!?

The most interesting thing about this photo are all the Secret Service agents helping Bush while Laura looks rather unconcerned and wanting to get the hell out of there. Did he fall? Is he incapable of standing on his own? Why is Laura the only one not interested if her husband is okay? I remember when the media reported on whenever Clinton injured himself, but this incident did not make the news. It only convinces me that Bush was a drunken ass and poor Laura (who gave the ultimatum to him before his 40th birthday that it was either the booze or her, which prompted him to go cold turkey) is embarrassed. In a telling interview I saw around the time of Jenna's wedding, Bush had said that Laura was looking for a house in Dallas. Is she planning to leave him when they leave the White House? Maybe she, like one of her former sisters-in-law who left Neil Bush and his sexual addiction to Thai call girls, has had enough of the Bush family and wants out. For her own mental health and well being, I hope she has the good sense to divorce Bush. He's embarrassed her too many times, and Beijing may be the last straw.

What I most love about this photo is the priceless expression of daughter Barbara. She looks so embarrassed about her father's behaviour, which has entralled Mitt Romney of all people. Laura seems happy, but it could be an embarrassed smile as she waits to see where he's going with his antics.

This photo really makes Bush look like a drunken fool. He looks like he's about to belch. Again, daughter Barbara looks annoyed at her father's behaviour. It's sad to see the two ladies in his life have to endure his unexplainable behaviour. Honestly, if he has resorted to alcohol again, it doesn't surprise me. Deep down, beyond his obvious machismo pride, he has to realize that his presidency is an abject failure. He has accomplished absolutely nothing for our country but lead it to ruin. Someday, I hope he will apologize to Gore and admit the reasons why Cheney stole the presidency from the winner of the popular vote. What good is it to inherit the presidency if you resort back to the bottle to cope with the knowledge that your life is one of constant failure?

I read an article recently that Oliver Stone is claiming that the Bush family and Bush's friends will all love his film "W" because it's supposedly such an accurate portrayal of George W. Bush that they'll all think of it as a long forgotten home movie. From what I've read, I'm sure that I will like Bush more after seeing the film because I honestly feel bad for the guy. He was pushed into a role he had no clue or experience how to navigate successfully. His entire dysfunction boils down to being a son to a difficult and emotionally aloof father who wouldn't allow him to be who he wants to be.

It is a fantasy of mine to meet and marry Barbara Bush (she's the gorgeous twin). I'd love to hang out with George and have a real heart to heart about his life and presidency. As one who remains loyal to Gore, I've gotten over my disappointments over the 2000 election and am interested in understanding the root issue of Bush's psychology, which I truly believe boils down to his being born into a dysfunctional family who are emotionally aloof when all he wanted was their affectionate embrace. His entire biography of one failure after another in his attempt to live his father's life prove to me how vitally important it is to do a psychological profile on anyone who wants to be president of the U.S. Our country did a huge disservice to George in making him president. When he leaves office, I hope he will get some therapy and take care of his alcoholism once and for all.

And if anyone knows Barbara Bush, please get me in touch with her! Those photos of her above have warmed my heart to her pains. I'd love to marry into that family. Bush truly needs a son-in-law not afraid to tell him the truth. And Laura would be an awesome mother-in-law (we share a love of books, so there would be no shortage of books to talk about!).

Monday, September 01, 2008

Not Ready for Prime Time

It's amazing how much we can learn about an unknown over a long weekend. On Friday, I knew absolutely nothing about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Today, I know enough to know that she is NOT READY to assume the mantel of the presidency should John McCain be unable to finish his term of office. That conservatives think she's a good choice only proves to me what I've long suspected: they don't think logically and they are easily swayed by the opinion-makers of the right (Rush, Coulter, Hannity, and the rest). The truest test of this is to think in terms of opposites. If Palin were a Democrat, conservatives would pounce all over her for her inexperience and now, as revealed in the media, her unwed pregnant 17 year old daughter. We'll get to that later.

First...her experience. On the Sunday morning political talkshow circuit, Cindy McCain actually had the audacity to suggest that because Alaska bordered Russia across the Bering Strait, this geographic proximity "qualifies" Governor Palin for "foreign policy experience." By that standard, then Cindy McCain would consider me a Henry Kissinger or James Baker because I've lived 8 years of my life overseas (my first six months of life in Taiwan, ages 2-4 in the Philippines, ages 13-16 in West Germany, and ages 19-22 in Italy). This is spin of the worst kind and insults anyone with a brain.

Sarah Palin's biography includes bragging about being a "hockey mom" with five children. Her oldest son joined the military last year on the September 11th anniversary and will be going to Iraq. I've read on some blogs and heard on the news that some women think being a mom qualifies a person to be president. Um, wrong! It's disturbing how much the Bush years have warped some people's thinking about what qualifies a person to successfully lead the world's sole superpower. Not to disparage motherhood, it is a tough job, but a president has to know how to select the right people to run our government, to know when to fight and when to compromise, to negotiate with foreign leaders and know when someone might be lying, to balance the hawkish response of militarists against the cautious diplomatic tact. It's a 24/7 job, when a phone call at 3 in the morning could interrupt some much needed sleep. If you look at the before and after photos of every president in the last 30 years, you can see how much each one has aged after four or eight years in office.

Conservatives who think Democrats have no room to talk about Palin's inexperience are being disingenuous if not downright dishonest. Palin was a mayor of a small-town in Alaska with a population less than 10,000 people. The office of mayor for her town is considered part-time and she basically had the duty of sitting in on council meetings and only being allowed to vote in case of a tie. True, that's the basic description of the Vice President in the role of presiding over the U.S. Senate and casting a tie-breaking vote. However, with McCain's age, we have to seriously worry about his health and with the stress of the job, he might not last four years and we'll be left with an inexperienced political neophyte to lead our country. She's only been governor for eighteen months in a state with a population of 680,000. We have many cities with a population greater than that, but you don't see many Mayors running for president.

By contrast, Senator Obama has at least been in the public eye for four years. As Senator, he has made foreign trips (I've read that Palin only got her passport recently) and has met with foreign leaders. More than that, Obama has run a presidential campaign for as long as Palin has been governor and the organization he has run has managed to defeat the "well-organized" Clinton machine. He's already endured a lot of scrutiny and made relatively few errors along the way. By contrast, Palin is just new to the American public and there are some 60+ days in which things about her past history will all be exposed for the world to see. Can she withstand the intense scrutiny? If she truly wanted to test her mettle, she should've ran for president in the Republican primaries. At least Obama has shown that he can win votes across the country. Can Palin? Maybe after proving herself as a two-term governor.

If she truly cared about our country, though, she should have the decency to drop out. Somewhere in the depth of her being, she has to know that she's not ready. To say that she is insults anyone with any level of intelligence above Bush's. If McCain wanted a female running mate, he could have chosen Kay Bailey Hutchison or Christine Todd Whitman. They have a longer tenure in government and would be capable of handling the presidency, should McCain die in office.

However, based on Friday's announcement speech, after reading posts that pointed out McCain staring at Palin's ass or breasts and playing with his wedding band, I'm beginning to think that McCain let his little head think for the big head. Rush may be right in saying that they have "the babe" on the presidential ticket, but is that what we really want to lead us? A former beauty queen whose speech reveals a rather empty-headed, perky cheerleader type? Would she have been chosen if she looked like Janet Reno? I did watch the announcement speech on YouTube and was shocked to see that McCain's eyes did indeed look like it was checking her out many times, even though his wife was sitting right behind him. Even more telling, he kept playing with his wedding ring, which I've read before is a subconscious sign in men that they are tempted to cheat. With Cindy showing her age, maybe it's once again time to dump the trophy wife for the trophy vice president?

Conservatives seem to love the fact that Sarah Palin decided to keep her downs syndrome baby instead of aborting it. She's pro-life all the way, even in the case of rape or endangerment to the mother's life. She's also against sex education in school and believes that abstinence only is the policy schools should adhere to. Lot of good it did for her daughter!

I know, I know. Obama is right. He's noble in saying that a politician's children should be off limits. However, that's not how the right wing views it. After all, Karl Rove played nasty with lies about McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh in the 2000 South Carolina primary. You can bet that if Palin was a Democrat, that the Republicans would make her unwed and pregnant daughter an issue. The only reason why it should be an issue is because of Palin's view that making schools stick to "abstinence only" as the only acceptable sex education is a farce. If she can't keep her own daughter from getting pregnant, it's proof that sex education should be part of the course curriculum. Sexual abstinence obviously didn't work in her household, because maybe she thought talking the truth about sex with her daughter was just too "icky" and she believed that saying nothing would resolve that issue.

I read an article at the Huffington Post that McCain was in a bind over his choice. He wanted Joseph Lieberman but Karl Rove wanted Mitt Romney. So the only compromise choice they could agree on was Sarah Palin. We will be hearing a lot about Palin in the next few weeks as the media and Democratic researchers hunt all over Alaska for any trace of scandal that might put an end to her candidacy. She should do the honorable and decent thing by reconsidering and withdrawing herself from the Vice Presidential nomination. There are so many more qualified Republican politicians who are ready to lead, including a few female candidates if McCain truly wants one on his ticket. However, if she remains on the ticket, I think even some Republicans might not vote for fear that McCain might not live to run for reelection. Do they truly want to risk their party's future on a political newbie or wait it out four years to run a candidate that they're really excited about?

Did God Send Gustav?



I was going to post a Green Day music video for today's "Music Video Monday", but with Hurricane Gustav bearing down on the city of New Orleans, forcing people to evacuate the city to avoid a repeat of the post-Katrina fiasco, I thought it was appropriate to show readers of this blog how petty conservative Republicans are and to show what lengths they will go to for their political agenda. The video is of Focus on the Family's Stuart Shepard asking followers to pray for torrential rain to hit Denver directly over Invesco Field on the night of Obama's historic speech.

As we now know, God blessed that historic day with gorgeous weather. You couldn't ask for a better summer day. Why an evangelical would pray for God to rain on Obama's parade is bizarre. Again, it illustrates the seething jealousy of the right wing because they know how it looks when a candidate like Obama can fill a huge football stadium whereas their candidate couldn't pay 70,000+ people to see him give a speech.

Because conservative evangelicals tend to view natural disasters as God sending His vengeance upon us for disobeying our conservative leaders and their totalitarian dreams, it'll be interesting to see how they view Hurricane Gustav and it's coincidental sense of timing. Already, Bush and Cheney have cancelled their speeches for the Monday opening night of the Republican Convention, held at the other end of the Mississippi River from New Orleans. Just that alone seems to be a sign from God that He's reminding us of Bush's poor handling of Katrina three years ago. Whatever preparation Bush and FEMA makes now cannot make us forget the utter incompetence and indifference they showed three years ago. In fact, after Katrina hit, Bush's approval ratings sank below 50% and has never risen above 30% since. Katrina exposed Bush for the naked emperor he was. Even the media and Rove couldn't spin their way out of news footage of a great American city under water with its large numbers of impoverished African American residents stranded and left for dead.

So, after watching the video and thinking about how great the weather was for Obama's historic speech versus the Hurricane that dares to strike New Orleans the same day as the opening of the Republican Convention when their beloved president was set to give a speech...it does make you wonder. Maybe God did send this one as a warning to us all. Our country cannot afford another four years of Republican rule. The world needs our leadership again, not bumbling incompetence.

Religious people who follow everything Focus on the Family puts out...I hope you now realize that they are a sham organization. Looks like God isn't listening to their prayers, but perhaps doing the opposite of what they request. If God isn't answering their prayers, then maybe you ought to consider the idea that Focus on the Family doesn't speak for God at all. Maybe they are working for that other guy. You know...the one with the red suit.