More Interesting Video, Or Not

We have been seeing some serious interruptions in our YouTube linkage the past 24 hours, no? Oiks. What to do?

Here's a new video that is quite interesting.

[Quick glossary:

GSE: Government Sponsored Enterprise
OFHEO: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight]




Peace.

You Know, It's A Very Curious World

As a follow-up to the video to which I linked on Saturday (and again this morning) in which part of the blame for the current economic crisis is placed on the CRA, or Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter, I offer you this rebuttal from Business Week. But this is a curious world, perhaps even an Orwellian world. For over at Wikipedia, something a lot like a 1984 debate has broken out over the CRA; claims of revising history are being hurled about.

As you know, Wikipedia entries are generally created in a cooperative, peer-reviewed fashion. Wikipedia (perhaps even the whole of the World Wide Web) at times feels a bit like Orwell's Ministry of Truth, where real truths are tossed into the fires of forgetfulness. Just one look at the Wiki debate or "talk" page on the CRA entry (the entry is now under dispute) and a person could begin to worry that perhaps the truly historical and historically true are no longer secure. Some Wiki contributors even assert, rather casually, that sources submitted to the debate are subject to vandalism. Oiks!

Please note that the conversation is rather hard to follow. But there are some interesting observations and contentions offered.

Here's something from the Business Week article to which I linked at the top of this post:

University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject [sic] comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

But on the Wiki talk page I found this simple but rather astute observation submitted in an unsigned contribution:

But what Michael Barr says is:

"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision"

it doesn't say they weren't subject to the CRA.

Indeed, it seems someone has at least got one thing right.

Peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

...And Then Return

Once again I must thank Karen Luttrell for her help. Thank you, Karen.

It seems that she has tracked down a copy of the missing video I discussed in my last post.

(To read why I think you should view this video, go here.)

Here's the URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY

Here's the link.

And here's the video embedded:

When Things Vanish...

I apologize to those of you who attempted to view the YouTube video I recommended in my last post. Apparently it has been removed from YouTube's library: it seems that there has been a claim by Warner Music Group that a copyright has been violated. I have no reason to quibble with that claim.

Here is the original link. You can see for yourself the explanatory note at the top of the page.

I noticed yesterday that well over a 1.3 million folks had already viewed the 9 minute film. I believe when I had linked to it on Saturday night at 10:30, only a few hundred thousand had viewed it. I think that it is safe to conclude that the video is quite popular; I cannot imagine it will not pop up somewhere else. Perhaps a revised version, with all copyrights intact, will reemerge on YouTube shortly.

Regardless, my apologies for the disappointing inconvenience.

As I implied already in a comment posted elsewhere on this site, I am certain hundreds if not thousands of questionable movies have been expunged today from the YouTube playlist because they contain include tunes that have not been posted without all due permissions. Or is this just me tumbling down the rabbit hole of deepest unlikelihood?

Peace.

BG

Have You Watched This? You Probably Should

The video below is presented here because I think you need to watch it. I am not saying that you need to watch it because I think it right. I am saying that you need to watch it because by the time the election comes around, millions of people will have watched it. And if the Obama campaign and the Democrats do not launch an effective counter attack to this video, those millions who view it will vote all Democrats out of office.

I can see, I think, that the video is imperfect. Nevertheless, it will be effective. It has the potential to sway hundreds of thousands of independent voters. And if an even more comprehensive case can be made that the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle IS a Democratic Party creation, then the Democratic Party is doomed this fall, and maybe even for years to come ... ESPECIALLY if the bottom fully falls out of the financial markets. My sense is that the Democrats in Congress are desperate for a bailout, and the Republicans know it. It will be interesting to see the result of their debates and compromises over the next few days. (Let me state that Republicans may indeed support a massive bailout precisely because they see how dire the situation is for the nation, while the Democrats are eager to save the nation ... AND cover their own butts.)

Please, check it out. Tell me what you think. I just said aloud as I watched it that this video, if left unanswered, will be the end of the Obama campaign. And if not this video, then the arguments presented therein will be a major blow to Sen. Obama's campaign. He and the Democrats MUST respond, cogently, methodically, armed with reams of dates, facts, bills, and signatures. If they don't respond in a comprehensive way, but only in some lame YouTube rebuttal, then I believe they concede that the heart of this video's argument is true.

Perhaps I have overstated things. But it strikes me that this sort of video, at the very least, is an example of the strength of the "new media." Yes, this video may have been produced by the old media's conservative mavens. But the way this video will play online will be, in my opinion, colossal. And if not this exact video, then something quite like it may be decisive in the 2oo8 election.

Let me say it again. I have no idea whether the video is right. I do not offer it here because I think it right. I offer it because it makes sense of a very difficult situation, at least to those folks who haven't the time, or ability, to sift through the information.

Here it is:



My only caveat is that those (few?) of you who comment here must watch the whole video. It is a lazily enforced caveat, of course, but to expedite discussion and secure the highest level of intellectual integrity we can muster, I ask that you watch the video from start to finish. Pause it where necessary (I paused it at least a dozen times). Do the Google searches. Interact with it. See if it is good.

Peace.

Hat tip to Karen Luttrell.
©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Is Sarah Palin John McCain's Harriet Miers?

I make no claim for myself that I am the first or only person to ask the question in this post's title (though I do notice a few bloggers who beat me to it who failed to spell Ms. Miers' name correctly in their respective headlines).

Regardless, I do hope you will take a look at the interesting Kathleen Parker essay over at National Review Online called, "Palin Problem." And yes, Parker is a real conservative.

I thank Contratimes' visitor SE for passing along Ms. Parker's commentary.

Food for thought...or not.

On The Debate

Simple. Neither man is a god. They are mere humans: fallible, faulty, full of insecurities, doubts and weakness. What are we looking for anyway? The archetypal man, the quintessential American, the incarnation of leadership?

Honestly. Don't we all know people in our personal lives who we find more inspiring, and even better leaders, than either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama? Or are we so cloistered that one of these two men is perceived as the greatest person in America?

Both men did fine. Does anyone disagree? I noticed two things: Sen. McCain LOOKED -- and I mean this superficially -- at times less rattled than Sen. Obama. Sen. McCain's "blows" seemed to actually hurt Sen. Obama's feelings, which goes to something I said last year, namely that I wondered if Barack Obama is too nice to be president (niceness is a good thing). I also noticed how often Sen. Obama looked down, both while speaking and while listening. I thought the downward tilt of his head made him look hesitant and uncertain. I swear he lowered his head 20 times just answering the question about Georgia and Russia. (And was he looking at his notes?)

These, of course, are VERY minor things. I was surprised, really, that Sen. McCain did as well as he did. As several pundits said afterward, neither man created a sound bite that could haunt him. There were no blunders of note, no gaffes.

I won't call it a tie, because I don't keep score. But I will call it a fair look at how each man comports himself, and how each manages to get his head around the issues at stake.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Joe Biden And The Palin Paradox

Sarah Palin has been hammered by her critics for her apparently inept performances during her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. I'll concede, perhaps solely for the sake of argument, that Gov. Palin has been, at times, less than stellar, at least in the finer points of national statesmanship. I'll admit, too, that some people are comfortable with her having a steep learning curve; some folks are especially comfortable with that curve knowing that it appears, in many ways, to be less steep than Barack Obama's.

But a giant white donkey and white elephant are in the room, and nary a Democrat can see them. One beast is Joe Biden. The other is the Palin Paradox.

Without question, the veteran of the fabulous foursome vying for the White House -- Joe Biden -- should be the most competent of the bunch. He should be, at the very least, the person least prone to gaffes and missteps: Having served in the Senate for 35 years, he should of all people know the power, specifically the negative or adverse power, of a gaffe.

But on Monday of this past week, Mr. Biden blundered his way to denouncing his own running mate in something of a confessional to Katie Couric. Just watch for yourself (I've posted this before, but I can't get enough of it):




That Sen. Biden admits his own campaign's attack ad on John McCain is "terrible" is amazing in what it reveals: a sharply divided house. But what's the outcome of Sen. Biden's confession? Sen. Biden was reportedly scolded by the Obama campaign and thus later backpedaled on the severity of the unarguably grotesque ad to which Ms. Couric referred. Ouch!

Again, this same week, the inimitable senior senator from Delaware criticized President Bush's handling of the current (and alleged) financial crisis:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

Attentive history buffs immediately corrected Sen. Biden, pointing out that Herbert Hoover was president when the stock market crashed and that TV was not even yet commercially available as a medium for mass communication. Ouch!

At a recent campaign stop Mr. Biden was asked a question by a woman who stood behind a cordon; she was curious about whether the Obama-Biden ticket supported "clean coal" technology. Here's a report about his reply and its relation to the facts on the ground, so to speak:

[Biden's] response was, “We are not supporting clean coal… no coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them, over there (China).” But here's what Obama said at the Democratic National Convention: “As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.”

Ouch!

And then there's this report about Sen. Biden's thoughts on bailing out financial insurance institutions:

Biden also told the Today Show that he was against the AIG bail out when it was first announced, even though he is now for it. That didn't fit well with the Obama campaign’s attack on John McCain for the same flip-flop. Obama told Matt Lauer, "I think Joe should have waited, (to voice his opposition to the bailout) as well."

Of course, the list goes on ... and on.

Apparently there isn't a Democrat of note, or even a major news outlet, that has shown any interest whether Sen. Biden has the slightest understanding of the "Obama Doctrine," or even the Obama objective. Sarah Palin, by comparison, has been reviled by her critics for failing to handle Charlie Gibson's inane question about the elusive "Bush Doctrine," or her seemingly naïve defense of her foreign policy creds given during her interview with Katie Couric. But both queries by both interviewers were quite lame, even sophomoric: they were lame and sophomoric because they were intended to blind-side a governor of a state, to make her falter and look foolish, despite such questions' dubious relevance to her currently emerging role. Amazingly, a SENIOR Democratic senator, one of the most senior of ALL senators, is given a pass when he blows easy and plain questions, or even when he blatantly rebukes his own running mate's anti-McCain ads, or contradicts the policy positions of that same running mate. Joe Biden clearly fails NOT in his understanding about foreign policy. He simply fails to get his own campaign correct. He's somehow fit for office while Sarah Palin is not because she can't answer questions that are indeed arcane and difficult. Joe Biden can actually talk like a fool and win support; while Sarah Palin, who has not made a single comparable blunder to any of the aforementioned Joe Biden gaffes, can actually talk rather plainly and yet is deemed a fool for doing so.

Curiously, Sarah Palin is rejected by Democrats offhand as unsuitable for the vice presidency; being "one heartbeat away," she is not ready to step in as president should the need arise. However, Joe Biden's bid to be president was overwhelmingly rejected by his own party -- HIS OWN PARTY, not his antagonists' party -- and he was even rejected TWICE; but overnight he is apparently more than ready to be president should the need arise in an Obama presidency. Joe Biden's party did not want him to have ANY heartbeats IN the Oval Office; but they think a man who blunders the simplest questions and talking points is now more than capable to sit just "one heartbeat away." Amazing. And ouch.

All this amounts to the paradox -- the true Palin Paradox -- given us by the media and partisans utterly devoted to all things Obama. It is a paradox, and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is not, or that it is in any way enlightened.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

What To Do?

There are about 100 reasons why I've not discussed the big bailout of the American financial system at this lowly blog. One reason, I can offer, is that I am not sure I even understand what's going on. In fact, even those who claim to know what's going don't seem to know what's going on, or how the trouble began in the first place. Part of me believes that before any solution can be offered, we all need to agree on what the problem is, and how the problem came into existence.

Regardless of my deep level of incompetence, I did find this article interesting. I know, I know. I have people all around me telling me the bailout is good, necessary and urgent. Even the president has spoken on the matter (and all of us blind, "paid partisan conservative hacks" obey everything the big W says). But I did like what was said in the article cited above. Now, excuse me, while I conform myself into the image of the man from whom I take all my orders.

Blindly Blithely Double-Binding

I am sure you have heard of the double bind. It's something of a psychology term coined by Gregory Bateson (et al), who noted the prevalent use of double bind-type language and behaviors in the families of children hospitalized for schizophrenia.

A double bind is essentially caused by the communication of two mutually exclusive ideas, concepts or expressions. If memory serves me well, Bateson first noted the double bind while observing a mother's visit with her troubled son. The mother said something like, "Don't you know I love you? Don't you love Mommy? Come over here and let Mommy hug you." When the boy came to hug his mother, his mother stiffened, pulling her head back; she hugged her son awkwardly and insincerely. Bateson's anecdote shows the subtle cruelty of the double bind.

___________________

Behold a political double bind that should trouble us all!

On Tuesday, from the heights of the current economic crisis, here's what Democrat Harry Reid, Senater Majority Leader, said about Sen. John McCain:

“We need, now, the Republicans to start producing some votes for us. We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands and what we should do.”

You can watch Sen. Reid make his comments here:



Obviously, such a statement by itself cannot a double bind make. But when you add the following to the recipe, well, we're left laughing double-bent at the preposterous double bind. Here's Sen. Harry Reid on Wednesday:

"It would not be helpful at this time to have [John McCain and Barack Obama] come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation's economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op."

The same day, we heard this from Democrat congressman and-up-to-his-eyeballs-in-this-quagmire Barney Frank:

"All of a sudden, now that we're on the verge of making a deal, John McCain drops himself in to make a deal. I really worry about the politicization of it....

"Frankly, we're going to have to interrupt a negotiating session tomorrow between Democrats and Republicans on a bill, where I think we're getting pretty close, and troop down to the White House for their photo-op, and then come back and get on to it. ...

"We're trying to rescue the economy, not the McCain campaign," he added.

Damned if you do and ... damned if you do.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

A Résumé Of Now

During Thanksgiving weekend last year I enjoyed dinner with some of my favorite people on this planet. It was a great time of silliness and laughter, fine wine and soft light, delicious food and spirited conversation. And politics.

I don't mean to suggest that there were any feverish moments of partisan bickering, of allegiances and loyalties busting at the seams; of bellies belching flak. There really was nothing of the sort. After all, it was November 2007; the roster of political candidates for any party had not yet been filled.

I recall this now because of something I said that night. But first, I must offer something of a confession. Those of my readers who have paid close attention, even any attention, to what I've written here should know by now that I am not a fan of John McCain's. In fact, I have not penned a single sentence in favor of his candidacy at this or any other website. None. And I make this bold assertion in the face of the clearly delusional visitors who come here to accuse me of being some sort of paid hack for the McCain campaign. Sadly such folks confuse my criticisms of Barack Obama as proof of my allegiance to all things Republican; such confusion also leads some interlocutors to conclude that my defense of John McCain or Sarah Palin from blatantly false or mean attacks is tantamount to my endorsing the Republican Party throughout eternity. But back to my story.

In November 2007, while dining in a fine establishment with the loveliest people, most of whom align themselves quite strongly with the Democratic Party, I was asked by one of my dinner companions what I thought of the upcoming election season (the one that is now upon us). I recall quite clearly stating that I was not a big fan of any one candidate, but that I thought the Republicans would nominate John McCain. I remember also mentioning that I believed Mitt Romney would be a very attractive candidate, at least superficially; and that Rudy Guiliani had a great chance, though his pro-choice stance on abortion might limit him. But my reason for discussing John McCain was simple: John McCain had not been perpetually running for president. In fact, or so I offered, he was known to be a hard worker in the Senate, often if not always present. I also noted that he had been working in Washington far longer into the year than many other senators who were seeking the presidency. That McCain began his on-the-road campaign later than most, if not all, of his colleagues, I thought was rather telling.

Finally, I added that McCain was clearly his own man, for no other senator of note from either party had been known to so often stand against the party to which he (or she) belonged. It was for these reasons I believed John McCain would win the nomination; and, at the time, I felt he would be the Republicans' best chance for appealing to independents and conservative Democrats, as I believed then that the Democratic Party presidential nominee -- without question -- would be Hillary Clinton.

Several of my companions agreed that McCain was, at best, the most tolerable Republican known then to be striving for the White House.

I share all this because of yesterday's startling events. John McCain decided to suspend his campaign for the White House because he felt the need to fulfill his duty -- he IS employed as a US Senator -- and return to Washington to help in this time of "economic crisis." In short, John McCain decided to be a senator and not a candidate, at least until the crisis is averted (at least on paper).

Now I know that Democrats instantly turned on Mr. McCain for returning to the capitol: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, reduced Mr. McCain's decision to a mere ploy, a mere photo-op. And it very well may be. But it strikes me that Mr. McCain's decision is at least consistent with the sort of senator John McCain has always shown himself to be: diligent and dedicated. And present.

Wednesday, like millions of others in America, I received an email from Barack Obama. Here is that email's first sentence:

The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.

I have little educated reason to doubt that Mr. Obama is correct, that we are witnessing something as dire as the Great Depression. But I ask: If something so dire is about to befall this country, is spending nearly half a billion dollars on a presidential campaign the most important thing to be doing right now? Shouldn't that money -- and all campaign money -- be held for something "more important"? Moreover, if today is the very threshold of the next Great Depression, what is Barack Obama going to do about the imminent crisis -- not in the future, for the future is perhaps too late -- but RIGHT NOW?

Please, I beg you. I am not saying John McCain has done the right thing here; I am merely suggesting that he has done the better thing. The problem with the Obama candidacy is highlighted in this very moment: Barack Obama's résumé is a résumé of the future. His candidacy is all promise: Elect me and I will do _______. But what we need from him is something more than promises: we need some proof not only that he can deliver, but that he even knows how to deliver, that he knows the basic steps. To what can the Obama campaign point that proves Mr. Obama has delivered? Where is his expertise? What proof does the campaign have that Mr. Obama can work across party lines and get REAL things done, like the real thing before us? Everyone concedes that John McCain has proven himself over and over again, especially across party lines. Where are the people who say the same of Barack Obama (besides his adoring fans)?

This exact moment, or so it seems to this writer, is the last great chance Barack Obama has to prove he is a man who DOES things, and not just a man who thinks and talks about doing things, before the election.

Today I stop and think about what happened yesterday. Did I really see a "maverick" rush back to Washington for a photo-op, or did I see him go back to Washington because sometimes there are more important things than even the White House? Surely Barack Obama's OWN WORDS prove that he believes we are on the very brink of catastrophe, and yet his actions prove that an imminent financial collapse is less dire than a White House without him.

John McCain, on the other hand, has at least attempted to do something today; he is not boasting about his wild successes in some vague and unknown future. That, I am reluctant to say, is one admirable and commendable quality in a leader. But I'll let you do the endorsing.

Peace.

BG

Who Needs Karl Rove When You Have ... Joe Biden?

Following up on "Who Needs Karl Rove? (Part 2)", I direct readers to the following interview given yesterday by Sen. Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate.



Where does Joe Biden leave us? And what are Democrats -- middle American Democrats -- thinking when they hear this sort of confession?

Mr. Biden thinks that his OWN RUNNING MATE'S advertisement denigrating Sen. McCain is "terrible." What does this admission say about the very health of the Obama-Biden ticket? And if these sorts of admissions are already coming from the Barack Obama campaign, what should we expect once Barack Obama assumes the presidency? If this no-holds-barred tactlessness, this scorch-the-earth-and-screw-the-handicapped-senator-and-his-satanic VP is de rigueur for Obama Nation BEFORE the Democrats have the White House, what will that Nation do if Sen. Obama did something untoward, controversial, stupid or, God forbid, illegal, after he attains the White House?

Honestly, I don't know how anyone in good conscience at this moment can support the Obama-Biden ticket. I really don't. But people of clearly bad conscience do support that ticket, people like "Forrester," a commenter over at FoxNews.com. Note what Forrester says:

“one reason McCain doesn’t use computers much is that his injuries from Vietnam prevent him from doing so” . . . riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Stephen Hawking can use a computer, but John McCain, not so much.

The idiocy of Forrester's comment is evident if one pauses for only the slightest moment. Moreover, his idiocy is pervasive; I've heard this unbelievably stupid statement uttered by callers to talk radio. (Forgive my incendiary remarks!)

The fact is that John McCain is simply a different person: according to reports, it HURTS John McCain to use the computer keyboard. But the paraplegic with a keyboard or the man with Lou Gehrig's Disease are not necessarily in pain while tapping out sentences or using voice-activated systems. Sure John McCain could probably afford to purchase an adaptive keyboard, but why should he bother when his wife is willing to type in his stead? Those of us who can actually feel pain know that pain can severely limit; even temporary pain stops a person in his or her steps.

What distances me from those who support the Obama campaign is that such folks, many of whom are my friends and neighbors, seem quite able to tolerate a level of cruelty I simply can't. The abject cruelty shown not only to Mr. McCain but to his VP pick is beyond the pale, and it is not a cruelty hurled from the bottom of some pit, but from society's highest echelons. Barack Obama APPROVED an advertisement that was cruel; and whether by intent or sheer ignorance, such cruelty is inexcusable. And only a complete incompetent could not find a brutal, cruel and even vicious essay or commentary written or voiced about Ms. Palin less than a stone's throw from this website.

Barack Obama is here to help us feel good about America again? Today, that strikes this writer as a rather cruel joke.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Lamenting Lamott's Lament

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -- Anne Lamott

I remember getting emails from a very progressive woman who used the above Anne Lamott quote as her email signature. It is a great quote, of course; despite it being the only thing I've read by Anne Lamott (save for a few fragments here and there) until a few minutes ago, I have to confess that Ms. Lamott gets something wonderfully right in just 25.5 words.

Sadly (and it is sad), Ms. Lamott gets just about everything wrong in her Sept. 16 Salon.com essay, "A Call to Arms." This writer laments Ms. Lamott's great lamentation not solely because of its loathsome invocation and confession of hate, but because it bewilders the soul, as Ms. Lamott is known as something of a "Christian." Hence, her remarks draw attention to the fact that her Christ must be a projection of her own self-image.

Here is Anne Lamott on Sarah Palin's ascension to the vice-presidency:

I had to leave church Sunday morning when it turned out that the sermon was not about bearing up under desperate circumstances, when you feel like you're going crazy because something is being perpetrated upon you and your country that is so obscene that it simply cannot be happening.

I sat outside a 7-Eleven and had a sacramental Dove chocolate bar. Jeez: Here we are again. A man and a woman whose values we loathe and despise -- lying, rageful and incompetent, so dangerous to children and old people, to innocent people in every part of the world -- are being worshiped, exalted by the media, in a position to take a swing at all that is loveliest about this earth and what's left of our precious freedoms.

When I got home from church, I drank a bunch of water to metabolize the Dove bar and called my Jesuit friend, who I know hates these people, too. I asked, "Don't you think God finds these smug egomaniacs morally repellent? Recoils from their smugness as from hot flame?"

And he said, "Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian."

I have been in a better mood ever since, and have decided not to even say this woman's name anymore, because she fills me with such existential doubt, such a sense of impending doom and disbelief, that only the Germans could possibly have words for it. Nor am I going to say the word "lipstick" again until after the election, as it would only be used against me. Or "polar bear," because that one image makes me sadder than even horrible old I can stand.

I hate to criticize. And I love to kill wolves as much as the next person does. But this woman takes such pride in her ignorance, doesn't have a doubt in the world about her messianic calling, that it makes anyone of decency feel nauseated -- spiritually, emotionally and physically ill.

I say that with love. As we say in Texas. (Also, we say, "Bless her heart.")

We felt this grief and nausea during the run-up to the war in Iraq. We felt it after the 2004 election. And now we feel it again.

[…]she is absolutely, hands-down the most ludicrous person ever to be nominated. She's a "South Park" character. There was a mix-up. Mistakes were made.

Everything you need to know about how to bear up during these two months is already inside you.… Now, I am a reform Christian, so it is permissible for me to secretly believe that God hates this woman, too.

Ms. Lamott, I recognize, is a writer. This fact should surely be offered as her excuse; she is exploring ideas, playing with words, exorcising her demons. Her writing is a catharsis; it is her coping strategy. As such, she cannot be held accountable for her actual words, or what those words mean: nay, only intent matters, and her intent to is self-medicate, to heal, offering analgesics to others along the way. She's offering potions. She's a medicine woman, and writing is her wagon.

Her strange elixir, however, is hardly helpful largely because it is plainly un-Christlike. Not that I am putting myself forward as an exemplar of Christian behavior; I haven't presented myself as such in the past and have no intention of doing so now. I am too busy trying to love myself the right way to even start hating anyone else. My own worst enemy is inside these very words; I haven't any need to blame anyone else for my woes. Of course, I do poke fun at others, particularly those folks in the media who seem (to me) to think they've somehow arrived ahead of the rest of us. But I do not hate these folks, nor do I call anyone "friend" who does. But Ms. Lamott DOES hate Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin not only makes Ms. Lamott "spiritually, emotionally and physically ill," she is likely hated by God Himself, or so Ms. Lamott intimates from beneath her un-Christlike sarcasm.

I take that last part -- that God secretly hates Sarah Palin -- as a bit of Lamott vanity. But even a woman of letters should perhaps be circumspect when invoking the Lord's Name, let alone His Hatred, in vain. But if Ms. Lamott believes that when she and He hate the same person she is committing self-generated idolatry, worshiping her finely apotheosized self, she leaves us precious little to hold onto: She's created God in her image and she either doesn't know it or she doesn't care.

Hence, she gives fearful import to that noble warning: what a dreadful thing it is to fall into the hands of thy God. I, at least, think being judged and damned by oneself is indeed a great thing to fear. All by myself, I have enough to fear. Is there not woe enough in the world without having to worry whether Anne Lamott and her God hate me, too?

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

HT: James Taranto

A Story To Be Told

Cole Ruotsala died on Friday, September 19, 2008. His funeral is Thursday.

In just a few short weeks, Cole's story circled the globe. His little website at Caring Bridge has received over 440,000 visits as of this writing. His video page, only about two weeks old, has received over 26,000 guests.

The little boy touched me.

“Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

My Absence, And More On Cole Ruotsala

I have just learned that Cole Ruotsala, the precious little boy of whom I wrote a while ago (see his video page by clicking "A Family Asks For Prayer" immediately to the right of this post) probably has only hours to live. Such news breaks the heart. (Followers of this blog know that Cole's dad left a comment here thanking you all for your care and your prayers.)

Since I wrote about Cole, I have been blown away by the breadth of his story. People from all around the world have come through this website in search of more information about him; there is not a hemisphere of the planet Cole has not touched. Over 350,000 visits have been recorded at Cole's website; today there have been thousands of messages left for him and his family.

I will be away from Contratimes for the next several days. I urge you to visit some of my friends during my time away. (And boy do I have some good friends. Thank you.)

In all grace, hope, and gratitude, I bid you each, along with the family of Cole Ruotsala, a peace that passes all understanding. And I offer a special prayer for Jim, Cole's grandfather, who is also my dear friend. Peace to you, my good and faithful man.

Bill Gnade

Brown Spots On The Wall (Street)

John McCain has called it a crisis. Barack Obama called it a result of George W. Bush's failed policies, the product of "more of the same."

I wonder about the arithmetic of this current correction of the American economy, a correction replete with foreclosures, bankruptcies, take-overs and bail-outs. And I wonder about blame.

If there is the slightest hint of corruption to be found; if the tiniest shred of evidence pointed toward a culpable person or party, isn't it likely that great political theater would have already been staged, with seats sold out in a sudden rush of interest?

If the Republicans were to blame for the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae debacle, wouldn't it be political idiocy, even suicide, if the Democrats did not immediately call for subpoenas and indictments and hearings and special prosecutors? Why haven't they done so? Doesn't the DNC stand to gain from getting to the criminal bottom of it all, if, indeed, Bush and Company are culpable?

Or are Democrats afraid? But why? Why should Democrats fear when they confront the vast "culture of corruption" that is the Grand Ole Party? I should think that the very halls of Congress would be abuzz with news of hearings, of impeachments and convictions. But I am not hearing any such thing. Am I not listening closely enough? Why the relative silence; where's the great hue and cry for justice, for "hell to pay!"

Is the silence due to the fact that the two biggest contributions to political campaigns disbursed by Freddie Mac went to Democrats Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, respectively? Is it because the former head of Freddie Mac, Franklin Raines, who paid himself $20 million in 2003 essentially to destroy a financial sacred cow and then awarded himself another $25 million as a consolation prize, is one of Barack Obama's campaign advisors and was a big player in the Clinton Administration, serving as director of the US Office of Management and Budget? Or is this all a reach?

Or is the silence due to the fact that Joe Biden voted in favor of the 1999 legislation that arguably led to this great 'crisis,' while John McCain was 'absent' from the Senate at that time; and that Bill Clinton signed the deregulation bill into law, making it a key part of his Democratic legacy? Yes, Republican Phil Gramm, a former McCain campaign economic advisor, helped craft that controversial bill. But Democrats were also behind the bill. Beside, as already noted, the Obama campaign is getting economic advice from the man who led Freddie Mac into the abyss. If Gramm is McCain's liability, then Raines is Obama's liability as well.

I am not unaware that Republicans also received contributions from Freddie Mac, but the Republican connections to Freddie Mac do not seem quite as unbreakable as their Democratic Party counterparts'. I am also aware that everyone may stand to lose something here. But surely there is a party that stands to lose less and gain more, no? If so, why has that hand not yet been played? Or does it all amount to no more than a wash? Are we about to see more mud-flinging around Wall Street, flung solely as a distraction, even a palliative, keeping voters confused, detached or disinterested, and hence passive and careless?

Someone, I hope, can set me on the right path. I would very much like to understand the politics of this particular game -- and why the game is not being played for all it is worth.

Prediction: Whoever wins this particular game wins the election.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

The Mistakes Keep Mounting

Whoever hacked into Governor Sarah Palin's personal email account and posted her personal data online has deeply damaged the Democratic Party's bid for the White House. Unless, of course, the person or persons who committed this crime are Republicans.

Warning! Daring statement ahead!

I will take a wild guess and say that the FBI will not find McCain-Palin stickers on the laptop of this particular hacker.

What do you think?

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

And He's Not Even President!

[I've been away from my desk for most of the last 48 hours. Though I am not at all refreshed, I return inspired. I think. We'll see.]

On Sunday I wrote about the New York Times' report on Gov. Sarah Palin's style of leadership. Recall that I highlighted the following, which I believe the Times wants readers to believe counts against (wild guess!) Gov. Palin:

[…]four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

The Times does not expand upon this bit of news; I suggested that the Times chose not to because Ms. Whitstine's blog is kind of "out there," to say the least. (It is curious that the Times often provides links in its stories, but chose not to link to Ms. Whitstine's blog.) But there is no doubt in my mind the Times' anecdote -- gossipy as it is and utterly unsubstantiated -- was presented simply to identify Gov. Palin as the female successor to George W. Bush; like him, she "suppresses dissent." The tale is meant to impugn and indict. It is not meant to inform or clarify.

I wonder why the Times seems not to have placed this on its front page (from the Political Grapevine):

Bad Reception

For the second time in three weeks the Obama campaign has gone after WGN Radio in Chicago for having an Obama critic on its air.

The Chicago Tribune reports the station was besieged with phone calls and e-mails Monday in an effort to force the cancellation of an interview with David Freddoso, a reporter for the National Review and author of the best-selling book "The Case Against Barack Obama," which has been described as a "serious" biography by the Politico newspaper.

The campaign e-mailed supporters, "WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama." The interview went ahead as planned.

Last month the station experienced a similar barrage of criticism for interviewing conservative writer Stanley Kurtz who had examined Obama's ties to former 1960's radical William Ayers. [Tribune link added]

I guess what I am to conclude from the Times' ostensibly stellar reporting on Gov. Palin's statecraft is that an inconsequential assistant to a small state's governor is a grave threat to civil liberties when she urges an arguably lame blogger to stop blogging. What I am also to conclude is that the Times does not consider it a grave threat to first amendment rights when the rather consequential Obama campaign publicly declares war on a critic's attempts to give voice. Of course, I can see the nuances here, as the Obama campaign is well within its own free speech rights to suppress, or try to suppress, voices it fears (and it clearly does fear those voices). All of this, or so it seems to me, makes the Obama campaign's actions eerily similar to George W. Bush's alleged penchant for stifling dissent, which is, I think, well within his free speech rights, too.

Doesn't this Obama campaign defense strategy prove one thing, namely, that Barack Obama represents four more years of George W. Bush?

But that can't be! Hence, I must be missing something.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Who Needs Karl Rove? (Part 2)

It is impossible to make this stuff up!

Maybe you saw this new Barack Obama advertisement wherein Sen. John McCain is considered out of touch because he does not know how to use a computer or send email.





Apparently, nearly all of this is just plain false -- and incredibly stupid! Did you hear? Well, you can read this if you'd like, or this.

Of course, in the magic age of YouTube, you get this quick retort:



Whoever is running Barack Obama's campaign should be fired. Wait. Barack Obama IS running his campaign: He "approves this message." How wonderfully ironic, especially since he compared his executive experience -- he has executed a campaign -- to Governor Sarah Palin's experience -- as a mayor! Hear Barack Obama speak to Anderson Cooper:

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla [sic], has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.”

The laughs will not stop! Barack Obama may very well be executing his campaign -- right before our eyes.

_______________________

Here's quite the quote from a 2000 Forbes magazine article about that year's political campaigns:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.

©2008. All rights reserved.

Hat tips due here, here, and here.

She's George W. Bush In Lipstick: The Times Shapes Perception

On Friday, September 12, 2008, the New York Times ran an editorial, "Gov. Palin's Worldview." On Saturday, September 13, 2008, the New York Times published a story about Gov. Palin's manner of governance. After reading the two pieces in sequence, one can immediately dismiss any thoughts that the New York Times intends on setting things straight.

The two NY Times pieces remind me of something Times columnist David Brooks wrote in his great little book, Bobos In Paradise. (I am also reminded of what I wrote regarding the industry of political prognostication -- that nasty habit -- in my essay, "The New Alchemist: The Pundit Who Makes Gold From Nothing.") Here is what Mr. Brooks said about journalism (for the complete quote, see immediately preceding link):

To get the most attention, the essay should be wrong. Logical essays are read and understood. But an illogical or wrong essay will prompt dozens of other writers to rise and respond, thus giving the author mounds of publicity.

What Mr. Brooks was discussing conforms to my feelings perfectly, as it makes me wonder whether the New York Times' strategy to maintain a committed readership is simply to get things wrong. Surely the Times draws thousands of conservatives its way each morning, all intent on counting the blunders, spotting the omissions, and denouncing its undeniable bias and hubris. How else to explain its demonstrable penchant for propaganda, its blatant disregard of journalism's presumed posture of objectivity? Is it not a bald attempt to maintain a readership and secure its profits?

Before the Times ran its sophomoric yet probably effective (how sad!) piece on Saturday, it showed its hand on Friday: The Times, as I said yesterday, is intent on reshaping reality before our eyes; it intends to bewitch and confuse, and it wants to play to its faithful readers' anxieties -- the very anxieties the paper creates on any given day. For the Times' goal is to portray Sarah Palin as the new George W. Bush, secretive and power-grabbing. The only difference is that she's George W. Bush in lipstick.

There is no way this can be denied; one read through either piece proves the case against the Times. The paper cares less about the news; it cares everything about controlling the human mind. It essentially trundles out all the old canards and false impressions: Bush and Palin are intellectually incurious, inflexible, ambitious, grossly dependent and scripted, learning their positions on the fly, surrounding themselves with friends. Both "pray," and believe that they are on a mission from God (gross characterizations, of course). Both are fun and witty and playful, no doubt; they have an ear for singing the right tune to the people. And yet both run profoundly secretive administrations; they abuse power (like email!), and they demand absolute loyalty from their staffs.

(Note: Have you ever noticed that the Bush White House is always described as the most secretive in history, and yet every dopey leftist journalist and pol knows exactly what's going on, not only in the obscure machinations of the Oval Office, but in the dark and devious brains of the President and his Lord, Dick Cheney? Doesn't anybody see the irony here?)

It should be obvious that the Times' editorial exploring Gov. Palin's worldview will not, and does not, explore the governor's worldview at all. This oversight cannot be accidental; if it is, then the Times is truly a waste. It can only mean one thing: that Gov. Palin does not really have a worldview. Which is exactly what the Times wants you to believe.

Alas, how sad. As I noted in my penultimate essay, even the apparent novice appointed to head the Alaskan Division of Agriculture, Ms. Franci Havemeister, has more executive experience than Barack Obama. Well, maybe not. But the Obama résumé is not impressive; and the Times will never present the esteemed senator's background -- or worldview -- with the sort of gossipy and mendacious reportage presented by the Times over the weekend. The Times can't do that, for it finds gold in being wrong, and in controlling how readers think and perceive.

As I've said before, the New York Times is the opiate of the people.

©2008. All rights reserved.

Newsflash: Sarah Palin Is A Politician; Surprises New York Times

There was an amazing article in Saturday's New York Times. Perhaps you heard about it. Maybe you even read it.

I read it, and I found it amusing.

The story -- as if you could not have guessed -- focuses on Sarah Palin's governorship of Alaska. The portrait it paints of Alaska's beloved governor is apparently quite controversial. Here's perhaps the most damning passage, which just happens to be the lead:

Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency. [emphasis added]

The editorial slant of the Times' lead is hardly worth noting, since the Times can't help itself. The lead is really a broad and silly assertion based in pure fantasy: if you read the story to its end, you will discover nothing that justifies the Times' conclusion that Ms. Palin lives a certain way; that she follows a maxim. It's obscenely overwrought.

What we find instead of journalism is the Times damning a politician for being something apparently really bad, namely, a politician.

Only a naif would think that a governor in a small state like Alaska (demographically speaking) would not appoint some friends to decent administrative posts. That Franci Havemeister is not really sitting atop a very high position -- she's merely the director of the Division of Agriculture, which falls under the direction of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources' head Tom Irwin -- is hardly alarming. Nor is it all alarming that a high school friend might be picked by a governor for a certain post.

Let me state that I can think of at least five people from my small high-school class I could easily choose to serve the state of NH effectively were I this state's governor. One of my old classmates is the executor of my estate; I did not choose him because we are chums -- we're not really, or I should say that we definitely were not in high school. I chose him because he is excellent at what he does. I have no problem choosing good people, especially if I KNOW them. In fact, it makes sense to choose those one knows, especially if those folks are competent or excellent. Amazingly, Sarah Palin is damned for appointing people with whom she is familiar.

Note that the Times never mentions whether any appointment made by Governor Palin to any position has wreaked havoc on the political or social fabric of Alaska. No list of complaints against the head of the Division of Agriculture; no laundry list of corruption or ineptitude follows a single paragraph in the Times. No, what is apparently so appalling is that a governor would appoint a handful of friends to relatively low positions in the state bureaucracy who were GOOD at their jobs. (For perspective, there are state police patrolmen in Massachusetts who earn far more per year than Alaska's director of agriculture.)

I would note one (at least) weird bit of journalism in the Times passage quoted above, and it has to do with Ms. Havemeister's "having cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency." It's weird when set against the whole process of appointments; my understanding is that an appointment is just that, and it is not the sort of thing to which one submits an application and résumé in order to be hired. In other words, contrary to the impression given readers by the Times' abuse of language, Ms. Havemeister would not have announced to a governor that she was qualified to do anything merely because of a childhood love. Nowhere does the Times contextualize Ms. Havemeister's words, words perhaps uttered to a group of school children during a class trip to her office. Who knows? The Times doesn't care about accuracy here. Its purpose is not to inform, but to sway.

What else does the Times neglect? (Note what I've suggested in my question: the Times neglects things. How sad that what has been considered the most important paper in the country actually does neglect fundamental things.)

For example, it neglects to tell us what Ms. Havemeister's full qualifications actually are; there is not even a mention of her education. But the paper also neglects to tell us what Ms. Havemeister's job requires; I look at the Division of Agriculture's homepage and it sounds to me like someone with a background in real estate and small business might be able handle the job quite well, particularly since agriculture in Alaska is all about land and small business. At least I learn from the Times that Ms. Havemeister has a background in real estate, though what sort of background (a wildly successful one?) is too much for the paper to explore.

The Times also fails to mention whether former Alaskan governors have appointed friends; it fails to explore if any governors in America have classmates from high school in their administrations. Perhaps Governor Palin's actions are actually quite modest, with other administrations hiring far more "friends of the governor." Clearly Gov. Palin's appointments and actions have not been unwelcome or detrimental, since Governor Palin enjoys astronomical bi-partisan approval ratings.

Here's another very odd passage from the Times' report:

The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.

I hope you see why this is odd. First, the paragraph makes a rather odd leap. It has "Mr. Bitney," a former JUNIOR high school bandmate as somehow connected to Ms. Palin's HIGH school graduating class, and that this weird leap and dubious connection amount to proof of cronyism (or so they imply). The implication that Mr. Bitney is where he is in politics today because he played in a band with Ms. Palin in seventh grade is absurd and sophomoric. Second, the Times has already told us in paragraph 3 that

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

The Times, apparently, cannot tell how many of Gov. Palin's former classmates work in her administration, which is very odd, considering the paper has a "veritable directory of state government" at its disposal. Can a "veritable directory of state government" only have six names in it? Are there only six Wasilla High School students running the entire Alaskan government?

I admit that my questions are partly facetious, but only in part. The fact is quite overwhelming that we are witnessing the "greatest" newspaper in America at its very best, doing its very best to damn a Republican vice-presidential candidate, and yet in the process proving its profound ineptitude. Is this the best the Times can do? Is this all the dirt that's fit to print about Ms. Palin -- that she behaves like a politician, one so down and dirty most Alaskans love her? This is damning? Of Ms. Palin, or the New York Times?

And I have to say that I love this [emphasis added]:

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.

Say it isn't so! A chief executive huddled with -- no! -- her husband "who is not a state employee"?! You mean she had the audacity to run Alaska's state house like, I don't know, Bill Clinton ran his White House, "huddling" with his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was "not a state employee" at the time? How shameful!

Lastly, check this out:

[...]four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

That this detail is mere gossip does not ruin the fact that it is plainly funny. Why? Well, because if this is Ms. Whitstine's blog, then I would ask her to quit blogging, too. (I am surprised the Times did not tell us the name of Ms. Whitstines's blog, or provide a link to it for its online readers.)

By the way, I have a message for Ms. Frye: On behalf of bloggers everywhere, thank you! (I am sorry, Ms. Whitstine.)

The Times has proven itself once again unable to escape its current well-established legacy of mediocrity. It's still the sort of paper you read in public, but now only discreetly. It's a gossip sheet, really. And gossip is only sexy for a little while. Then it just gets old. Old, and gray, and really annoying.

(Psst! Listen to this. You know what this article is really saying? Sarah Palin is like George W. Bush! Shhh! No, no. I am not kidding you! What? How dare you suggest Ms. Havemeister has more executive experience than Barack Obama. Shame on you!)

©2008. All rights reserved.

Life Imitates An Old Sit-Com: Frasier Learns A Lesson About Elitism (And Middle America)

The American media have been talking a lot about elitism of late, particularly after the Republican National Convention. A few in the press see the Democratic Party as being rife with elitism and snobbery, unjustly condescending toward the "fly-over states" of the American heartland. But most journalists, or so it seems to this writer, denounce such characterizations as paranoid and even hypocritical, and yet in such denunciations often actually prove the case against them.

This writer also admits the obvious fact that snobbery can easily take up residence in the homes of conservatives or liberals. However, I believe that most media and academic portrayals of American life are often far more favorable toward liberal and progressive values than they are toward conservative ones. I think any reading of the American press's reaction to Sarah Palin, that apparent rouge-covered rube, proves that elitism abounds in the popular and liberal press and is blisteringly critical of the heartland. That Barack Obama said at a San Francisco gathering that heartlanders cling to God and guns precisely speaks to this point. And irrespective of what Mr. Obama meant, what was heard was snobbery of the highest (or lowest) order.

The other night I watched a rerun of the now syndicated and long-popular TV sit-com, "Frasier." It was one of the show's earliest episodes (actually the third). Readers familiar with the back-story of the show know that the title character, Frasier Crane, is an insufferable pedant infatuated by his own effete persona. Being a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and a recently hired radio talk-show personality in Seattle, where he lives in a trendy apartment with his elderly father (Martin, a retired cop, blue-collar to the core), Frasier can afford to move in society's higher circles where he, and his equally effete and rather frail younger brother (Niles Crane, also a psychiatrist) imbibe in life's most refined pleasures. The show's irony is that the two psychiatrists are wildly insecure and even self-delusional, blundering through life with an assumed transcendence, putting on airs at every turn. Frasier Crane is really Charlie Brown; he's just Charlie Brown with an Ivy League education ... and a great deal of conceit. The entire show is probably Charles Schultz' "Peanuts," just in sit-com format.

The episode I watched was called "Dinner At Eight." It originally aired on Sept. 30, 1993. The story line is rather simple: Frasier and Niles, feeling so estranged from their blue-collar working-class father they wonder if they were fertilized from someone else's loins, decide to take their dad to a tony Seattle restaurant, Le Cigare Volant, both to elevate their dad's sensibilities and improve their relationship. When Frasier's Le Cigare Volant reservation is lost, he and Niles reluctantly follow their dad to Martin's favorite steakhouse, The Timber Mill. To Frasier and Niles, the theme-oriented restaurant is hopelessly tacky, sub-standard, and impossibly "American." They feign enthusiasm but fail to conceal their contempt. After getting their steaks and potatoes (three "Paul Bunyans"), they have this exchange (amid complaints that the courses are coming out of the kitchen too fast and the place too tawdry):

Martin (father): I don't mind you guys being tough on this place, but you could be a little nicer to the waitress.

Frasier: You're right. I'll apologize when she comes with the dessert, which should be any time now.

(Pause for eating/chewing)

Martin: Sometimes there is nothing like a good steak.

Frasier: Well, I wish this was one of those times.

Martin (exasperated): What's wrong?

Frasier: Well, I don't mean to complain but--

Martin: Well, then don't!

(Pause)

Martin: For your information, these steaks come from prized beef raised at... (distracted by Niles, who is picking at his potato) What the hell are you doing?

Niles: Something seems to have fallen into my potato.

Martin (excitedly): Those are bacon bits!

Niles: But I didn't ask for them.

Martin: I ordered all the fixins' ... you got all the fixins'.

Niles: But I don't eat bacon because of the nitrates.

Martin: No problem, they're artificial. They're made out of soy.

Frasier: They really look out for your health here, don't they?

(Both sons suppress giggles.)

Martin (scoldingly): Everybody in this restaurant's enjoying the dinner. Can't you guys do the same?

(Everyone resumes eating.)

Frasier: Niles?

Niles: Hmm, hmm.

Frasier: Is Maris [Niles' wife] organizing the arts council benefit again this year?

Niles: Matter of fact, she is.

Frasier: Where are they holding it?

Niles: Well, they haven't picked a spot yet. Perhaps I should tell them about this place!

(Suppresed laughter; dad glares disgustedly.)

Niles: I would like to be a fly on the wall that night.

Frasier: You wouldn't be the only one!

(Explosive laughter.)

Martin (throwing down his napkin): Alright. That's it. I had enough of you two jackasses. I spent the whole night listening to you makin' cracks about the food, and the help. Well, I got news for you. People like this place. I like this place. And when you insult this restaurant you insult me. ...You know, I used to think you two took after your mother, liking the ballet and all that. But your mother liked a good ball game, too. She would even have a hot-dog once in a while. She may have had fancy taste but she had too much class to ever make me or anybody else feel second-rate. If she saw the way you two behaved tonight she'd be ashamed. I know I am.

(Martin leaves the restaurant.)



(By the way, is Sarah Palin the waitress?)
__________________

"When you insult this restaurant, you insult me." It's a powerful indictment, a piercing rebuke.

I know that all classes insult one another. I know that some of the poorest folk in America think themselves better than the "filthy rich." I know some in the upper classes patronize their lesser neighbors. But what I also know is that the way many on the left insult the leaders of the Republican Party is to identify them as rubes, rednecks, and far worse. George W. Bush is an Ivy League product, but he's not generally identified by the left as elite. Rather, he's depicted as an essential village idiot. Sarah Palin is chided for being a hunter, a hockey mom, a mere Alaskan. The left always, or nearly always, considers the gravest insult to be some identification with heartland values, ideas, sentiments or tastes.

Middle America, that broad landscape, has grown sick of it. It has long been saying that when you insult this country, at least this corner of the country, then "you insult me." Describing Middle America as backward, dumb, homophobic, racist, docile, pliant, creationist, fundamentalist, native, naive, bigoted, clingy, belligerent, gauche, provincial, homey, low-brow, simple or crude, is derogation aimed not at mere adjectives, but at real people. And the irony of such abusive language is exactly the irony of Frasier, for it reveals the left's blindness to its own contemptuousness, its own resentful lack of class. (And it shows the left forgets one critical demographic fact: elites are always in a minority, hence its broad insults injure the majority -- who will vote.)

Look. When Sarah Palin is dismissed for being a beauty queen or because she attended North Idaho State, while Barack Obama is deified because he went to an Ivy League school; when John McCain's class-standing at the naval academy is trundled out to denounce him while Barack Obama's editorship of the Harvard Law Review proves him "brilliant," elitism and not humility comes to mind. There are so many damning snide and condescending remarks issued by the left on any given day it is almost pointless to point out the obvious; a man may as well boldly announce he's discovered that the sky is blue.

Martin Crane's lesson is an important one, especially this campaign season, but I am not sure it is a lesson possible to heed. No doubt his words have made me more circumspect. But I wonder. I wonder.

©2008. All rights reserved.

Progressive Press Peeved Palin Prays?

File this under incredible.

Opinion Journal's James Taranto brings more clarity to Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin (see transcript). Recall that Mr. Gibson construed Sarah Palin's words in such a way as to imply she believed America's troops were just bellicose Blues Brothers on a "mission from God." Here's an excerpt of Taranto's post from Friday, Sept. 12, 2008:

Although she had spoken the words Gibson attributed to her, his rendition of the quote was a dowdification.[†] He took the words out of context to make a prayer that "the task is from God" appear to be an assertion that it is.

This misleading quotation might have been an error rather than a deliberate deception, and it did not originate with Gibson. Our Tuesday item noted that CNN had misrepresented Palin's words on Monday, and on Sept. 4 "AllahPundit" pointed to an Associated Press dispatch from the previous day that might have been the origin of the falsehood.

Yesterday the Associated Press, in reporting on the interview, relied on its own inaccurate reporting of a week earlier in claiming that Palin had "contradicted an assertion she made at her former church that 'our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.' " This claim disappeared from later versions of the AP dispatch, although we haven't found any evidence that the wire service issued a correction.

ABC seems to have realized its mistake as well. The version of the interview that aired on ABC's "World News" last night (video here) edited out the lines in which Palin disputes the accuracy of Gibson's quote and Gibson replies, "Exact words." In their place is a YouTube clip of Palin speaking at the church. Again, as far as we know, ABC has not expressly acknowledged the error.

The journalists at AP, CNN and ABC who took liberties with Palin's quote might or might not have intended to deceive. But there can be little doubt that they intended to further a stereotype of Palin as some sort of religious nut. What's interesting is that in the course of doing so, they ended up disparaging her for praying.

As we noted yesterday, some of the less well-grounded members of the political media have been harshly attacking Palin for having a baby. Egads! Can we really have a heartbeat away a Christian who prays, or a woman who has borne children?

I do like Taranto's last line: "With friends like these, who needs Karl Rove?" My thoughts exactly.

†A dowdification is a fabrication or corruption of a quote, epitomized by the putative style of Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist who is to literacy what phone sex is to oratory.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Crazy Calculus: A Picture Problem

Conclusion: Bad


But...














Conclusion: Good.


Variable? Depends on who you ask.

Constant? Partisan mathematicians.

My Interview With Charlie Gibson

Contratimes: Good evening. Tonight, ABC News' Charlie Gibson, who just brought us the first-ever televised interview with Gov. Sarah Palin since her ascendancy to the national spotlight. Mr. Gibson, welcome, and thank you for being with us.†

Charlie Gibson: It's my pleasure.

Contratimes (CT hereafter): I would like to begin with a question you asked Gov. Palin, a question you say you also posed -- in modified form I assume -- to Sen. McCain about his choice for running mate. You asked her, and I quote, "Can you look the country in the eye and say 'I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?'" Mr. Gibson, can you look America in the eye and say that you asked essentially this same question of Barack Obama?

Gibson: Well, I did not. He was not being interviewed anyway, so --

CT: But it is the "central question," as you said, that's before us: Are the people running for president and vice president capable of doing the job? So I ask, why have you not asked Barack Obama whether he can look America in the eye and honestly say that he's got the experience to be not only vice president, but president?

Gibson: Well, I don't think I need to ask him that. Millions of Americans already accept him as the Democratic Party's nominee. Besides, he has been, first, the editor of the Harvard Law Review --

CT: So you're saying that anyone who has served as the editor of the Harvard Law Review is qualified to be president?

Gibson: No, no, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that when you combine that with his time as a community organizer who --

CT: So you're saying an editor of a law review who has done some community organizing is fit for the presidency?

Gibson (chuckling): Please, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that a US Senator who has also been an editor of the Harvard Law Review and earned his JD, who came from a career of community organizing and state legislative work has proven himself --

CT: So, what you're saying is that someone who has the relatively limited qualifications of a Barack Obama should not be treated with skepticism by the press, but someone who has actually served as the governor of a state should be subjected to your a priori skepticism. I mean, there is the barely hidden assumption in your question that she can't look America in the eye without dishonesty or arrogance.

Gibson: I don't think there is that assumption at all.

CT: With all due respect, Mr. Gibson, the question is laden with presumption. It's a When-Did-You-Stop-Beating-Your-Husband? kind of question, loaded to the gills. But let's move on. What did you mean when you said, "Exact words" when Gov. Palin wondered whether a quote you attributed to her was true to what she said?

Gibson: I meant exactly that they were her exact words, and they were.

CT: Were her words quoted exactly like Barack Obama's words are quoted here. Take a listen:

(Barack Obama during a campaign speech: "We want four more years of George Bush." Then, during a recent interview: "You're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.")

CT: Those are Barack Obama's exact words. Did you know he wants four more years of George Bush and that he was a Muslim?

Gibson: Well, it's obvious those words are taken out of context. Obama was probably saying the exact opposite in those clips so I --

CT: But you said that the following were Sarah Palin's, quote, "exact words". Mr. Gibson, you said to Gov. Palin, and I quote, "You said recently, in your old church, 'Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.' Are we fighting a holy war?" But that is only part of what she said; I should think you must be furious with your research staff for getting it so wrong. This is what she actually said, something that has been widely reported by the way, and I quote:

"Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Track] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country--that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

So, it is quite clear Gov. Palin was merely urging people to pray that the right thing would be done. She was not at all suggesting that American was involved in a holy war or that God was on the side of America. So, I am wondering, how could you have been so mistaken?

Gibson: Well I stick with what I said, those are her actual words. And you can see why people might be scared of that sort of extreme language, as it --

CT: You mean scared in the same way as when they hear Barack Obama say he's a Muslim or that he wants four more years of George Bush?

Gibson: No, that is not what I am saying at all, you are putting words in my mouth.

CT: And you've been clipping words from Gov. Palin's. Let me ask you: When you so clearly have her "exact words" wrong, are you actually engaged in journalism, or something else?

Gibson: Look, I am a journalist, so I am engaged in journalism. What else is there?

CT: Well, Mr. Gibson, it seems perfectly obvious that you are engaged in propaganda. To be so wrong about something so simple, and yet present it with the unshakable certainty that you are right -- "exact words" -- must have your viewers at ABC wondering whether you have fallen into the tank for the Democratic Party. But I think we should move on. Were you stumped when Gov. Palin asked you to clarify your question, which I will quote: "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

Gibson: Well, I wasn't shaken, but clearly she was, which is why she asked me --

CT: But her question was quite shrewd, Mr. Gibson. She appeared to know something you did not. After all, one look at the media reportage and commentary over the last six years reveals that the media continuously reported, and bemoaned, a Bush Doctrine that was always changing. News and political analysts initially complained that the doctrine was about pre-emption, and then they complained that nations who merely harbored terrorists were deemed to be America's enemies by the Bush Doctrine, and then they complained that the doctrine was about conducting foreign affairs and national security autonomously, without international approval, or that Bush was set on establishing democracies where democracies did not exist, you know, when President Bush asserted that "true democracies do not attack their democratic neighbors." It could be argued that the Bush Doctrine is neither a doctrine nor President Bush's, and that to refer to it as the "Bush Doctrine" is to speak simplistically and even anachronistically: such a thing does not even really exist. So when Gov. Palin asked for clarification, she was quite justified, don't you think, considering how members of your own fraternity have been so confused or bemused by the doctrine's various incarnations?

Gibson: Well, I think a genuine interpretation of the Bush Doctrine is what I said in the interview, that it's about preemption.

CT: So to you the Bush Doctrine only means one thing. Don't you see why the governor was unsure what you were asking, since the Bush Doctrine is not one thing? Let me ask you, sir, whether you now find anything actually wrong with her answer, now that you yourself have come to see that the Bush Doctrine is fairly broad, more reflective of, as the governor put it, the president's "worldview" and not the clear and singular foreign policy principle you believed it was.

Gibson: Well, I can't say she answered the question satisfactorily, because it was quite clear she felt uncomfortable with it. If she had the breadth of foreign policy experience necessary to be president, she should have been able to explain to viewers the nuances of --

CT: Don't you think, Mr. Gibson, that she might have felt uncomfortable for you?

Gibson: Well, I don't see why, since I am not running for office.

CT: No, you're not. No one in the media is -- or should be. Let me ask you, finally, how it is that 43 words could have lost you when they did not lose me?

Gibson: I am sorry. I don't know what you mean.

CT: Well, you said to Gov. Palin, and I quote, "I got lost in a blizzard of words there." You were referring to her answer to your hypothetical question regarding our nation's right to invade Pakistan from Afghanistan. I found her answer quite thoughtful, nuanced, and clear. What was so hard for you? It was only 43 words in length, 42 if we delete your first name. Where was the blizzard? Or were you just looking for a place to insinuate that she was evasive and obfuscatory?

Gibson: I just thought her answer was unnecessarily complex. I wanted a simple yes or no. I would expect that from any candidate.

CT: I am sure you find both Barack Obama and Joe Biden utterly succinct; they're legendary in giving direct yes and no answers. Am I right? Anyhow, that's all the time we have. Thank you.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

†(For you literalists out there, please note that this is a fictitious interview.)