Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #6: You Can't Believe Your Own Economic Plan

Dear Senator Obama,

This is the first in a series of letters I feel I must write to you as the general election draws close. I pray this first installment finds you well. May God bless you.

I recognize that this letter begins with the number 6. I know it's odd (and even), that any series could begin at 6, but I thought I'd begin here and work my way toward number 1. As you have already gathered, I cannot in good conscience vote for you. I'd be a fool to ask you not to take this personally; none of us is either so humble or so hard-hearted that we can easily accept a voter's rejection. And while I offer that I am not rejecting you as a person; should I tell you that I am not rejecting your humanity or denigrating your value as my equal under God and law, I know that such words will not necessarily palliate your feelings of disappointment. Not that I am all that important to you or anyone else; I admit I am just a simple person living on the edges of a meadow in a small New Hampshire town. But I also recognize that you are like me: it would be nice to have everyone's acceptance.

Here is reason number 6 explaining why I can't vote for you.

YOU'RE NOT BEING HONEST ABOUT A BOTTOM-UP TAX AND ECONOMIC MODEL, OR YOU'RE BEING STUPID

Forgive me for accusing you of dishonesty. I know that hurts; I know that you have promised to be a different candidate, one who rejects the petty games, the dishonesty, and the broken promises common to politicians of old. But you are either being dishonest or simply dumb when you talk about building an economy from the bottom; you are either being dishonest or dumb when you say trickle-down economics don't work. Why would I say this? Because your very plan proves you accept the framework of trickle-down economics; your own policies prove that you believe trickle-down or top-down economics are the most effective means for shaping economic health.

Imagine I am running for president. Imagine that I am speaking to the National Association of the Filthy Rich. Imagine that I make the following promises to them:

"My fellow Americans, please hear me when I say that I am a friend of the upper class. I recognize your role in building businesses and providing jobs in this great nation of ours. Hence, please know that I intend to reduce your tax burden through a series of cuts and credits; I shall also keep capital gains taxes at a minimum if I can't eliminate them altogether; I shall lower marginal tax rates. Some of my critics may ask why I would do this. My answer is that I recognize that if the wealthiest among us can keep as much of their money as possible, they will save and invest their money; both savings and investments -- in many cases the same thing -- allow the wealthy to expand their businesses; to sell their goods at lower prices; and most importantly such investment creates jobs for millions of Americans. Increase the tax burden on the wealthy and they can't save and invest; they can't expand their businesses, so jobs are lost; and the cost of goods almost always increases, as the cost of lost revenues is passed on to consumers."

Surely, Sen. Obama, you see that I have essentially adumbrated to the National Association of the Filthy Rich a trickle-down economic model. A model, as you know, you've said does not work.

But what did you say to "Joe the Plumber?" Here's what you said:

"Well, here's what's gonna happen. If you're a small business which you would qualify as, first of all, you'd get a 50 percent tax credit, so you get a cut on taxes for your health care costs. So you would actually get a tax cut on that front. If your revenue is above $250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are gonna stay the same. It is true that for … say, from $250,000 up, from $250,000 to $300,000 or so …

So, for that additional amount, you'd go from 36 to 39 percent, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason we're doing that is because 95 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000 so what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less … I want to give them a tax cut and so what we're doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than $250,000 that that marginal amount above $250,000, they're gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36 percent rate…

Okay. So, over the last 15 years, when you weren't making $250,000, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means that you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful …

But another way of looking at it is, 95 percent of folks who are making less than $250,000, they may be working hard, too, but they're being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I'm doing is … you know, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever — $60,000 or $70,000. Under my tax plan, you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be spending lower taxes, which means that you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are faster. Now, look, nobody likes high taxes, right? Of course not. But what's happened is that we end up … we've cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than $250,000. We haven't given a break to folks who make less and, as a consequence, the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years. So all I want to do is … I've got a tax cut. The only thing that changes is, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well, even though they've been working hard … and I understand that; I appreciate that … I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect your disagreement, but I just want you to be clear. It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too.

You know, I would be open to it except for … here's the problem with the flat tax. If you actually put a flat tax together, you'd probably … in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40 percent sales tax. I mean, the value added, making it up. Now, some people say 23 or 25, but, in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who are, you know, have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's … things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. But, listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question. And even if I don't get your vote, I'm still gonna be working hard on your behalf 'cause I want to make sure … small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it. All right. (applause) One other thing I didn't mention. For small-business people, I'm gonna eliminate the capital gains tax, so what it means is if your business succeeds and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains that you get, we're not gonna tax you on it 'cause I want you to grow more so you're actually going … you may end up … I'd have to look at your particular business but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that 'cause I'd have to take a look at your business.

[bold added for emphasis]

I hope you see what you've done. You told "Joe the Plumber" essentially what I told the filthy rich; you told him that if his taxes were lowered and his capital gains taxes eliminated, he would have been able to save, invest and GROW HIS COMPANY MORE RAPIDLY. Of course, growing a business means, usually, that jobs are created; if "Joe the Plumber's" business does grow, he will, of course, need to hire extra help.

So all you've done, Senator, is first suggested that trickle-down or top-down economics don't work, and then you've promised to America that they will and do work. The trick is that you've seemingly lowered where the trickle-down begins; (ironically) talking to a plumber, you promised to lower the spigot: If Joe's taxes are cut, his prosperity will trickle down.

But the reality is you actually haven't moved the spigot. You are still a top-down politician. Why? Because you have promised to tax the upper classes more aggressively; you have promised to take the revenues from their prosperous success and slam them down to the poor and needy. Your model is hence two-fold: it is a trickle-down (with a seemingly lowered spigot) and a slam-down economic model. Your whole plan is contingent on the success and prosperity of the wealthiest Americans. You NEED the top economic classes to grow and thrive so that you can distribute their wealth to the poorest classes. Hence, no matter how you obfuscate or restate your position, you undeniably believe in what you have insisted does not work. Moreover, the slam-down component of your "progressive" tax scheme gives the lie to what you said to "Joe the Plumber":

"...my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody."

You don't believe that at all, Senator, because you are priming that "bottom up" economy from the top, NOT the bottom. Don't you see this?

Lastly, when the folks "most in need" in America do not even pay taxes (and if they are paying payroll taxes they are indeed working), why would you give them a tax refund? And isn't it true that, in the scheme of things, this "refund" is really only a tiny amount? How does this cash outlay "help" them build their businesses, or get their kids the education they need?

My sense is that you are doing several things here, and all of them are cynical. First, you are trying to appease an assumed envy (the lowest class's envy of the upper), and you are trying to palliate some guilt felt by certain successful Americans (who can't stand to be envied, at least prima facie). Second, you are trying to implement egalitarianism: you are trying to remove the pain of Darwinian competition. Third, you are simply trying to win votes with such vapid promises.

Let me amend myself here: I will state that you are not being dishonest, only dumb. And if not dumb, intentionally obtuse.

That's just one reason I can't vote for you. Sorry.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Calabresi: It's Not Just The Supreme Court

Steven G. Calabresi paints a rather grim picture (from a certain perspective) of what the nation's federal judiciary might look like in an Obama administration. If you do not want to read all of Mr. Calabresi's fine essay, just take a moment to read some highlights posted in the Contratimes sidebar.

Empathy, not justice. The new mantra.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Ajami: "Obama and the Politics of the Crowd"

Fouad Ajami's "Obama and the Politics of the Crowd" just might be the best essay written this entire election season. I urge you to read it. The only facet of Mr. Ajami's gem I find to be less luminiscent than the rest is his claim that the sheer size of the crowds gathered to see Barack Obama are "a measure of American distress." What Mr. Ajami forgets is how many of these crowds throughout the campaign were drawn by means other than a promise of a simple cameo appearance by their favorite political celebrity. Folks were also drawn in by the brand names associated with the campaigns, you know, the Oprahs and the rock stars that showed up to stir up the masses. Simply spread the rumor that a rock band is going to play a free set in the park of your choice, and you will quickly draw a large and excited crowd.

The Obama campaign has been utterly deft in creating spectacle; this idea of a crowd is the lifeblood of a campaign commited to promoting a demographics of desperation. You've heard the argument before; it has been essentially offered here in the comments thread: So many people giving time and money proves how desperate Americans have become. Of course such actions prove no such thing.

What do crowds do? In part, they serve as reinforcement: "Since so many people fervently believe this it must be true!" Religious people understand implicitly the power of the crowd; think of the reinforcement of Catholic ideals one experiences during Mass in St. Peter's Square. But an Obama crowd is also used as a sort of tableaux of evocation, of emotion and passion. The idea is to create scenes filled with feeling (a certain way). And it's about identity and membership.

But Mr. Ajami's analysis is otherwise astute, and his conclusions are, at least to me, disturbing.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

A Confession Before The Court

Late last week I submitted to readers two items regarding a lawsuit -- and a potential series of lawsuits -- in which the plaintiff sought essentially a delay in the upcoming election because Sen. Barack Obama had not proved he was eligible for the office of President. The plaintiff submitted to the federal court in Philadelphia, PA, that Sen. Obama was NOT born in the United States (in accordance with Article II [clause 5] of the Constitution), and that the plaintiff would be, among other things, disenfranchised as a voter.

In two posts here (this and this), I wondered whether this "could be" the "October surprise" of the 2008 election cycle. Emphasis, of course, on "could be." I did not offer this with any sense of glee or delight or hope, I merely offered it. I simply felt the story "important."

But it seems that I may have been a victim of my own cynicism.

I spent a good part of today, and some of this past weekend, reading Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al., particularly all of Judge R. Barclay Surrick's "Memorandum & Order" which he issued on Friday night (when the suit was dismissed). It is thrilling reading.

I have two things I'd like to quickly spell out. First, the suit was dismissed essentially because the plaintiff, Mr. Berg (a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter), did not show standing or harm: he did not convey to the court that he himself could legitimately file suit, nor did he direct the court (according to law) how he had been hurt or how the court could right the alleged wrong. Second, the suit WAS NOT rejected because its evidence or facts were deemed false. In fact, because of the nature of the suit, the court had to accept the allegations as given as true, and then simply follow the legal and logical consequences presented in the complaint as all facts and motions relate to current law.

There were some very interesting comments penned by Judge Surrick, and I shall return to them in a moment. Suffice it to say it is all rather interesting. To me.

What disturbs me considerably is something I've spotted in myself, namely a cynicism so deep I have come to distrust nearly everyone running for political office. And there is no doubt I am of the psychological constitution where I find myself distrusting left-leaning peers more often than those who lean right. Since Barack Obama is undeniably left-leaning, I was too quick to suspect him of profound wrongdoing, of defrauding the American public by essentially gaining the presidency without meeting all constitutional prerequisites and by taking advantage of what is ostensibly the vague and seemingly unenforcable rules of Article II. Again, I am not saying I believed the lawsuit had legitimacy or that Mr. Obama was not born on American soil. I am saying that I am duly cynical enough to believe those things possible and plausible.

Moreover, I divined that my cynicism did not go deeply enough. I did not bring to the Pennsylvania lawsuit the next level of inquiry. I did not ask whether Mr. Berg himself was trustworthy; enamored of his former status as deputy attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania, I did not ponder that he might be something of a rogue litigant. After all, I learned in my simple research that Mr. Berg had earlier submitted a motion to the same court for protections in a bankruptcy procedure, and that the case was dismissed for the exact same reasons as Berg v. Obama. Add to that the item I picked up that reported Mr. Berg, shortly after 9/11, created a website asserting that the Bush administration either was involved in or knew beforehand the atrocities of that infamous day, and I am left holding something inherently suspect (it is no secret I have zero tolerance for 9/11 "truther" schemes).

And, of course, the zenith of my cynicism, if you will, manifested itself in my wondering aloud whether we would see a spate of similar lawsuits over the next few days and weeks.

______________________

Judge Surrick wrote some curious things in his memo and order, and I would like to note a couple of them here. But perhaps I should try to explain his ruling one more time in language that I know, the language of the layman.

The judge dismissed the case partly because the plaintiff was essentially complaining that someone else MIGHT NOT be following the law. Put this way, the complaint strikes even the lay person as prima facie foolish: I can't sue my neighbor, for example, because he might not be following federal tax codes. Hence, not only can I not bring such a suit, a judge has no grounds on which to adjudicate. Mere suspicion of wrongdoing is not sufficient justification for a court to hear my complaint.

The case was also dismissed because the plaintiff was not able to show harm done by the defendant (Barack Obama): if I vote for a man I believe does not meet the legal requirements, the man for whom I vote has not harmed me, I've harmed myself. After all, I could choose not to vote for the man; I could choose to vote for someone else, or not at all. Hence, there is really nothing for the court to redress for the plaintiff.

But what is startling even to the average "Joe the Voter" is that legal precedent has created a mind-boggling problem: the American voter has no (or very little) standing to bring to the courts any challenge about a candidate's legitimacy as a candidate. Here's one of Judge Surrick's statements in light of a New Hampshire legal ruling:

"...voters do not have standing to bring a claim under the Natural Born Citizen Clause to exclude a candidate from the presidential primaries." (Page 12, ¶ 1)

Of course, Berg v. Obama is aimed not at the primaries but at the General Election; Judge Surrick believes that hardly matters. However, even Judge Surrick seems puzzled by this legal fact that voters have no standing; he offers that Congress, ultimately, may be the sole body that has standing in this case (contingent on Congress' interest, and whether it has passed or will pass laws that can guide them). In short, Judge Surrick's order leads me to believe that there must be a dearth of legal precedents and procedures (if any) to properly adjudicate when a candidate has been elected to the Presidency without meeting the Natural Born Citizen requirement. (Has a loophole been found? If so, can we say chaos? crisis? After all, if a US citizen does not have a legal standing here, who, or what, does? Very interesting. And is it at all reassuring that Congress may have sole standing here?)

But what struck me as particularly curious was this comment made in the judge's notes, (page 11, note #9):

"...Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory."

That this strikes me as undeniably political and not one whit jurisprudential goes without saying. Moreover, it strikes me as rather naïve, as the judge asserts without any legal reference or attribution of expertise that Barack Obama "underwent an excessive vetting." His comments are also irrelevant, as is the vetting itself, even if it bears epistemic weight: the issue is NOT whether Mr. Obama has been vetted, and such is not before the court. The question is really about authority: who, if not the voter, can hold to account a candidate who has not proven citizenship? It seems Mr. Berg is at least asking that question. What amazes me is that the only definitive answer given by the court is that neither the voters nor the court have legal standing in this matter. And even if Mr. Berg is counting on the court to accept him as having legal standing, the question is not about "vetting" but about "proof" or the failure (allegedly) to present it.

Amazingly, though this is largely a procedural statement, this statement is made not only by the judge, it is stipulated in Barack Obama's motion to dismiss:

"We have taken Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and drawn all inferences in his favor."

So what we are left with is only a very limited legal clarification. The case is not dismissed on grounds that the charges are false (though they probably are). The case is dismissed because the complaint was filed by the wrong person, in the wrong places, and lacked sufficient evidence of damage to the plaintiff.

Interesting, interesting.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

I Spotted This A Few Minutes Ago

Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot

By MICHAEL HINKELMAN
Philadelphia Daily News

hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656

A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.

Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.

Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president.

He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.

Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg's complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.

They said that Berg's claims were "ridiculous" and "patently false," that Berg had "no standing" to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.

Surrick agreed.

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.

Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."

The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."

For example, Berg had claimed that Obama's nomination deprived citizens of voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November. (Berg backed Clinton in the primaries.)

Berg could not be reached for comment last night.

Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there.

Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery.

The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate.

Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4. *

PREDICTION: Trouble, Chaos, Anarchy

[Assignment: Read this first, then this (especially Sec. 5). I am not saying these things are true or right, but I am saying that they are important.]

Prediction 2008: Either a major challenge in the US Supreme Court will be undertaken regarding the "certificate of birth" of Sen. Barack Obama before Nov. 4, or it will occur before the inauguration should Sen. Obama be elected. Either way, we are looking at the most tumultuous political event in modern US history.

Have I exaggerated? Perhaps.

It appears that another lawsuit has been filed in Washington (state) challenging whether Washington's secretary of state has duly proven that Barack Obama is a US citizen. It also appears that there might be a movement afoot to file suits in each state, or at least all key battleground states.

If Barack Obama indeed releases his "official" birth certificate, it will be profoundly and exhaustively scrutinized. If it is proven to be false, well, you can imagine what will happen. But if proven true, the lawsuits disappear, my prediction falls flat, and a bunch of people -- and I guess I would be included -- will look incredibly foolish and even petty.

The fact is, though, that the Obama legal teams have been combating rather than simply correcting those who are bringing lawsuits. This sort of malarkey, if it is malarkey, is being fueled by the Obama Nation: they could easily and quickly bring an end to it. Why haven't they? And if this does escalate into the worst-case scenario -- that Barack Obama and his handlers KNEW BEFOREHAND that he was not constitutionally qualified to be sworn in as president (I am sure they could make a great case that the rules say nothing about RUNNING for and being ELECTED president) -- then the only people to blame will be Mr. Obama and his handlers. But my guess is his handlers and his many supporters will blame any attempt at maintaining law and constitutional integrity on "racism," "partisanship," and the like.

Here's one scenario predicted by a commenter at Injuryboard (link above):

[Barack Obama] knows & is hiding the REAL TRUTH! If he's elected he and the liberal congress will not only seek to "erase" the 2nd Amendment, but they will also seek to further twist up OUR CONSTITUTION that states "no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States." He will say that it was the "will of the people" that he was elected, and that OUR CONSTITUTION needs to be "corrected" as a result; essentially making him a legitimate, illegitimate president. Can we not postpone the election until he has provided definitive proof of his citizenship? More conservatives in every other state need to file a lawsuit every day until Nov. 04.

Of course, Scott overlooks the whole political procedures necessary to amend the constitution, or to change it as much as I think he's suggesting the Obama defenders will (perhaps) seek to change it. Regardless, Scott has shown us at least one curious and chaotic possibility. But perhaps Scott is an anarchist plant; maybe he's just shilling for constitutional chaos. Who knows?

Just imagine what will happen (domestically and elsewhere) if Sen. Obama wins the election but is deemed ineligible for office. Could it be that some people who have supported Barack Obama have actually hoped for such a scenario?

Crazy, I know.

Uh, Oh. Perhaps THIS Is The October Surprise?

Have you read this? If you haven't, then you need to. And don't think you've heard all this before. You haven't.

It's interesting that yesterday I heard a radio talk-show host read rather recent quotes from Bill Ayres, the former Weatherman that helped Barack Obama get his start in politics. Mr. Ayres described himself, among other things, as an "anarchist" and a "Marxist."

Can you imagine the anarchy that will result if this turns out to be the real deal? Is anarchy the goal?

Chaos. That's what I see. What do you see?

Gut feeling: We are being lied to.

[Please. Don't comment here about the "source" of the story. The source is really the former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, a DEMOCRAT.]

Orwell On Socialism's Opportunity

Along with far too many other books, I keep at my bedside George Orwell's Why I Write, published by Penguin Books in its Great Ideas series. What follows is something I read to my wife the other night. (I am such a romantic; she yawned.) Please permit me to occasionally add things in [ ], and to use boldface when I think it necessary for emphasis.

From Page 71, George Orwell's Why I Write:

The fact that we are are at war [and in economic disarray] has turned Socialism from a text-book word into a realizable policy.

The inefficiency of private capitalism has been proved all over Europe [and apparently the United States]. Its injustice has been proved in the East End of London. Patriotism, against which the Socialists fought so long, has become a tremendous lever in their hands. People who at any other time would cling like glue to their miserable scraps of privilege, will surrender them fast enough when their country [or their retirement plan] is in danger. War [and economic anxiety] is the greatest of all agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions, brings realities to the surface. Above all, war [and economic disarray] brings it home to the individual. That he is not altogether an individual [you must share; sacrifice]. It is only because they are aware of this that men will die on the field of battle. At this moment it is not so much a question of surrendering leisure, comfort, economic liberty, social prestige. There are very few people in England [or America] who really want to see their country conquered by Germany [or Wall Street, or jihadists]. If it can be made clear that defeating Hitler [and income disparity] means wiping out class privilege, the great mass of middling people, the £6 a week to £2000 a year class, will probably be on our side. These people are quite indispensable, because they include most of the technical experts. Obviously the snobbishness and political ignorance of people like airmen and naval officers will be a very great difficulty. But without those airmen, destroyer commanders, etc. etc. we could not survive for a week. The only approach to them is through their patriotism. An intelligent Socialist movement will use their patriotism, instead of merely insulting it, as hitherto. [It is interesting to read news reports of Michelle Obama's frequent and recent meetings with military families in swing states.]

But do I mean there will be no opposition? Of course not. It would be childish to expect anything of the kind.

There will be a bitter political struggle, and there will be unconscious and half-conscious sabotage everywhere. At some point or other it may be necessary to use violence [like Weathermen bombs]. It is easy to imagine a pro-Fascist rebellion breaking out in, for instance, India. We shall have to fight against bribery, ignorance and snobbery. The bankers and the larger businessmen, the landowners and dividend-drawers, the officials with their prehensile bottoms, will obstruct for all they are worth [or maybe they will even help]. Even the middle class will writhe when their accustomed way of life is menaced. But just because the English sense of national unity has never disintegrated, because patriotism is finally stronger than class-hatred, the chances are that the will of the majority will prevail. It is no use imagining that one can make fundamental changes without causing a split in the nation; but the treacherous minority will be far smaller in time of war [and economic crisis] than it would be at any other time.

The swing of opinion is visibly happening, but it cannot be counted on to happen fast enough of its own accord. This war is a race between the consolidation of Hitler's empire and the growth of democratic consciousness. Everywhere in England you can see a ding-dong battle ranging to and fro -- in Parliament and in the Government, in the factories and the armed forces, in the pubs and the air-raid shelters, in the newspapers and on the radio. Every day there are tiny defeats, tiny victories. ... It is a struggle between the groping and the unteachable, between the young and the old, between the living and the dead. But it is very necessary that the discontent which undoubtedly exists should take a purposeful and not merely obstructive form. It is time for the people to define their war [and economic] aims. What is wanted is a simple, concrete programme of action, which can be given all possible publicity, and round which public opinon can group itself.

I suggest the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need. The first three points deal with England's internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world:

1. Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
   
2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.
   
3. Reform of the educational system along democratic [read 'radical egalitarian'] lines.
   
4. Immediate Dominion status for India [Iraq?], with power to secede when the war is over.
   
5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured [sic] peoples are to be represented.
   
6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers.
   

The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy.

[end of Orwell quote]

______________

Interesting: "...turning this war into a revolutionary war..." in order to produce a socialist state. Sounds eerily familiar.

Time to "cling."

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Diuguid: The Palindrome's Palin Drone

I just heard about the column by Kansas City Star editorialist Lewis Diuguid in which Mr. Diuguid claims the use of the word "socialist" is essentially a racial slur: it is veiled, or not so veiled, racism. I tracked the piece down, as I had to read it myself. Sure enough. In Plains English, Mr. Diuguid gives us all an incredible history lesson.

"Socialism" is an old code word for "black."

And here I thought George Orwell was white. And Karl Marx. And Vladimir Lenin. And Josef Stalin. And Bill Ayres.

And I thought I was thoroughly white when I talked like a socialist after graduating from college.

I swear, if I did not know any better, I would have concluded that "socialism" is actually code word for "white guys who not only feed on envy, they feed it."

All sarcasm aside (for just a second), I am not really surprised at this great straining of the mind, this great bending off all reason.

But I do think a deeper truth is being overlooked here: the words "McCain" and "Palin" are old code words for radical white supremacists who are damned for what they don't do and what they don't say.

Seriously, say "socialism" to me and all I see is Dr. Zhivago, you know, all cold snowy white...and profoundly unhuman.

The Obama Aesthetic: Thoughts By Roger Kimball

In "Seeking Yours," published here Saturday, I had hoped to generate some discussion about the marketing phenomenon which is the Obama campaign. My hope was that readers would listen (I posted an audio link) to a discussion between the host of Studio 360, Kurt Anderson, and author Steven Heller, whose most recent book deals directly with the use of art, logo, branding, stagecraft and spectacle in the establishment and maintenance of totalitarian regimes. My specific hope was that readers would hear that neither Mr. Anderson nor Mr. Heller could seem to notice what is going on before our very eyes: The Obama campaign has been second-to-none in the propagandistic arts of brand, art, logo, stagecraft, and yes, spectacle. After all, filling a stadium with excited souls cheering a man set against a backdrop of giant faux pillars is indeed spectacular, pleasing to the eyes.

In my rather verbose way, I tried to articulate my own thoughts about the Obama campaign's successful use of those ties that bind people together, giving them a sense of faddish belonging, of being connected; of having badges that signal membership. But I deleted the whole attempt.

However, moments ago, I stumbled on this commentary from the very interesting Roger Kimball. (I do believe you should listen to the first 4 minutes of the audio clip before reading Mr. Kimball, however.) I think Mr. Kimball hits on some of the things Mr. Heller might have said had he not been so apparently guarded.

Here's Roger Kimball:

Candidate behind a curtain

CONNOISSEURS are already inscribing Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign into the annals of political theater. From the point of view of spectacle-prescinding, I mean, from any question of content--it is difficult not to admire the disciplined seamlessness Team O has constructed. From the oratory to the haberdashery and beyond, you sense the calculating hand of a seasoned political dramaturge. That dark suit. That white shirt, open at the neck or, when formal occasion demands, pinioned by the signature pale blue tie. What Obama wears are not so much suits as costumes. His message is communicated less by his speeches than by his slogans, or perhaps "mantras" would be more accurate. His overall image is not so much the projection of a personality as the coefficient of his theatrical props: the logos, the posters, and that late if unlamented pseudo presidential seal.

Given the constraints of present-day democratic society, I doubt Leni Riefenstahl could have done much better. What we're dealing with, though, is less The Triumph of the Will than a spoiled yuppie's version of the Children's Crusade. "Vero possumus" reads the legend on the Big O pseudo presidential seal. It doesn't have quite the ring of "E pluribus unum," but it does contain a reassuring echo of Bob the Builder: "Can we build it? Yes we can!"

The indispensable term for understanding the Obama aesthetic is kitsch, by which I do not mean bad, cloying art but the deliberate sentimentalization, i.e., the avoidance, of reality. Take another look at the Big O seal. What's that under the Bob the Builder Latin? A rising sun? A long and winding yellow brick road? Who knows? But I find it hard to look at the device without hearing strains of Judy Garland singing "Somewhere over the Rainobama" and thinking of that scene toward the end of The Wizard of Oz where we're enjoined to "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Actually, the question of identity is as pressing when you think about the fantasy that Team Obama is spinning as it is when you see The Wizard of Oz. What, really, do we know about Obama? Once you go beyond the props and slogans, there is a disturbing and, one assumes, deliberate vacancy about the man. Who is Obama? Where does he come from? Who are his friends? What does he believe in? These are not easy questions to answer, at least not if you want to go beyond the calorie-free rhetorical pabulum of "Change we can believe in."

Several people have noted the large debt that Obama's favored campaign artists owe to socialist realism. When his campaign is not displaying posters of Che Guevera, it is sporting Shepard Fairey's Change, Scott Hansen's Progress (both of which are sold out at Obama's web site), or Antar Dayal's Yes We Can. All would have won a smile from Uncle Joe, who also liked his art graphically primitive, ideologically conformist, and morally and politically uplifting. And the continuity, I believe, is more than graphic. Obama's aesthetic shares the spirit of socialist realism, but adds a non-sugar sweetener to the mix. Stalin's worker-facing-the-future was sweaty, muscular kitsch. Images of the leader-facing-the-future-over-the-imperative-of-change are spiritually kindred productions redone for the delicate sensibilities of Obama's decaffeinated-latte-drinking, metrosexual, New York Times-reading claque.

There is something deeply childish about the Obama aesthetic. But it would be a great mistake to believe that immaturity is a guarantee of innocuousness. There is nothing at all innocent about Obama's all-encompassing aesthetic, any more than there was about the more obviously minatory aesthetic of socialist realism. What Team Obama offers is socialism lite, with fantasy plugged in where the realism used to be. At bottom, the issue that Obama's aesthetic raises belongs not to art criticism but to the question of our political future. The crucial thing to bear in mind is how uncompromising Obama's aesthetic is. Recently, a television interviewer asked Obama if he had any doubts. "Never" was his response. That's the answer he requires you to have as well.

Colin Powell: A Strange Endorsement

Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama yesterday on "Meet the Press," and it has been seemingly well-received by Mr. Obama's supporters. But it all strikes me as rather odd.

If there is one unique characteristic of Barack Obama's candidacy, it is that he has consistently held that not only was the Iraq War the wrong war at the wrong time and probably in the wrong place, it was begun on faulty (and maybe even deceptive) pretexts. Many Democrats have for years denounced the war as a scam, a neo-con plot rife with imperialism, greed, and a lust for oil. Bad intelligence transmogrified into gross lies, into "cherry-picking" and abuse. Or so it has been claimed.

Moreover, many on the left -- many of whom are die-hard Barack Obama supporters -- believe that Bush and Co. behaved criminally; that there should be prosecutions and impeachments and jail time (and maybe even execution).

Colin Powell, as we all know, is the very man who perpetuated these great crimes before the United Nations. It was Powell who spoke of WMDs, of chemical weapons; he offered stern warnings that Saddam Hussein was a threat to America's security. He was one of the principal "liars."

Now, somehow, he's something of a hero. He who could not be trusted is now amazingly trustworthy. His endorsement of war was at first deemed criminal; his endorsement of the man who will inherit that war (if elected) is now somehow wise, brilliant, courageous. Reliable.

What Powell's "run-up-to-war" status as Iraq War architect means for the Obama campaign can't be easily descried. When Mr. Obama accepts such an endorsement, is he accepting the role Powell played in the Iraq invasion? (Does he believe that Powell's view of Iraq was the right one, or the wrong one? )

Conversely, in endorsing Barack Obama, is Colin Powell agreeing with Mr. Obama's central claim, that the war should never have been started?

Or is an endorsement of Mr. Obama a catharsis; is Mr. Powell exonerated by submitting to the anti-war position of Mr. Obama? In other words, is Barack Obama Colin Powell's absolution?

It is interesting that Mr. Powell's endorsement has not been wildly vilified by the leftists who hate the Iraq War in all its complexities. Maybe it has been vilified and I don't know it. If I have my history right, it was Colin Powell who helped design the first Gulf War, writing into that great plan restrictions that left Saddam Hussein in power. Then, more than a decade later, it was Colin Powell who pushed to have Saddam Hussein removed, all to the detriment, not just of the country, but of the whole world (or so claim the war's many critics). How is it that Mr. Powell's endorsement is not seen as a run for political cover?

Alas, there is more that confuses me here, but I shall have to explore those things some other time.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Barack Obama's Wealthy Constitution

I think it fair to say that you can be certain the fundamentals of the economy are in dire shape when Barack Obama can raise $150,000,000 in September alone. I am sorry. That is not what I meant. I meant what John McCain meant a couple of months ago: the fundamentals of the economy must be quite good. Mustn't they be for so many Americans to be able to tithe to their candidate so generously? Well, perhaps not. But one wonders.

According to one report I heard today, Barack Obama raised more money in September -- a mere 30 days -- than George W. Bush and John Kerry spent on their 2004 campaigns -- combined. [Updated, 20:58: This is apparently not quite true; the report was either wrong or I misheard it. See below.†]

So, where are we? Barack Obama has raised some $604,000,000, almost 2/3 of $1 billion, during a time of great poverty, hardship and financial loss; during the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression."

Meanwhile, last month John McCain had $42 million in his campaign coffers. So I think I have this right: the super-rich and money-grubbing Republicans have in hand more than TEN TIMES less money than the Democrats have raised in total, and a mere 1/3 of what the Democrats raised last month. But I thought Republicans always BOUGHT the White House?

Maybe not. But when you have the world's "greatest investor" -- Mr. Warren Buffett -- supporting not only Barack Obama but abject greed (see his column in this weekend's New York Times), it seems that many wealthy souls expect a very large return on their investment in Barack Obama. (In fact, a recent study shows that the very wealthiest in America DO support Barack Obama.)

By the way, isn't it a wee-bit scary that the wealthiest Democrat in the world is telling readers of the New York Times to be "greedy," especially since such advice can only help his portfolio? No wonder Mr. Buffett is the "world's greatest investor." But I digress (again).

I know, I know. I've heard it often: The very foundation of the Barack Obama campaign is that we are all our brothers' keepers. At the very least such a message must make the very wealthy feel better about themselves. And that means a lot, since even they are our brothers -- and our keepers. (Or they soon will be.)

(Where's AYN RAND when you need her?)

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

†I found this a moment ago:

"In 2004, Bush and Kerry had total operating expenses of $572 million. Of that, $312 million — well more than half — went to media consultants to place ads on television and radio. The rest paid for staff salaries, travel, pollsters, fundraising consultants and direct mail. A study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity concluded that all the 2004 presidential candidates spent $457 million on consultants."

What this source at least shows is that Barack Obama has RAISED more money than the operating budgets of the combined campaigns of Bush and Kerry in 2004.

Proving Two Things? Biden Uses Fear; Cautions That Next President Will Have To Do Hard Things, The Sort Of Things George W. Bush Has Done

From ABC News:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee [Joe Biden] warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you--not financially to help him--we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right....

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I am not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us....

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Perhaps what we have here is the failure NOT to communicate. One can't imagine that this sits well with Barack Obama. But maybe it does. Maybe it sets him up perfectly. After all, he's the one who insisted that we must not play the fear card in the same paragraph in which he told us that Americans are less safe than ever. Maybe he's well-placed to blame all sorts of things on the Bush Administration; such blame will provide ample cover for months, even if a President Obama himself is the one worthy of blame. And maybe we are already hearing the Obama camp admit that "facts on the ground" change everything; maybe we are witnessing exactly the sort of thing the Bush Administration had to do when faced with the BIG PICTURE: it had to make "tough decisions" that were "unpopular" and brought "the polling so down."

Maybe in the end, we are seeing Joe Biden set us up for the fact that Barack Obama is himself McSame, or more of the same, or four more years of George W. Bush.

Or maybe, just maybe, we've heard Joe Biden play a different sort of fear card: Barack Obama is NOT ready to be president.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

A Corporate Idiocy: Fallacies Abound (Even For Frank Rich)

I will not explore the great depths of the "Joe the Plumber" story. You know it all too well. I merely want to point out the idiocy of left-wing "debunking."

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher spoke to Barack Obama last week; he asked a question about taxes. Barack Obama answered. And his answer has been used against him by John McCain.

That's it, in nuce, as we pedants might say.

But note how the San Francisco Chronicle deals with the story:

"His first name isn't really Joe. It's Samuel.

"He's not really a plumber - at least, not a licensed one.

"He's concerned about increased taxes - but hasn't paid his own income taxes."

Surely you see the problem. Let's follow the logic of this particular type of argument employed by the San Francisco Chronicle:

• Stop your ears and cover your eyes! You mean the guy named Samuel whose middle name is Joseph is not really "Joe"? Then Barack Obama's answer is irrelevant!

• Gasp! You mean he is not a fully-licensed plumber? Then there is no need for Barack Obama to defend his answer at all!

• What the &#*? You mean "Joe" the not-exactly-bona-fide plumber has not paid all of his income taxes? Then there is no need at all for Barack Obama to discuss taxes with such a man!

Not that any liberal might even think this way, but it would seem to me that the more liberal tack to take in all of this is to wonder -- with all due hand-wringing and mopping of a concerned brow -- how horrible America must indeed be for a white man to lie about both his real first name and his capacity to pay America's unbearable taxes. And surely a true liberal would perseverate over the social injustices that must have driven "Joe" to seek asylum in a business without first acquiring proper documentation. But that's just me misunderstanding the extent of the liberal spirit.

Check out this capital idiocy from the Chronicle (sorry!):

"Wurzelbacher's expressed concern about paying more taxes looked a bit tarnished with the revelation that he owes Ohio about $1,200 in personal income taxes, according to the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas records. And there's a 2007 civil filing that shows a record for a $1,200 owed to a creditor, St. Charles Mercy Hospital."

Don't you just [expletive deleted] love this [expletive deleted]?

Joe's "concern" is "tarnished" because he CAN'T pay his taxes?! Get it? No, of course you don't, nor should you. For only the insanely partisan can think in such a distorted way. But a clear-thinking commentator would note that Joe's inability to pay taxes is actually PROOF that his CONCERN is real (or at the very least, could be real). Apparently one must be without spot or blemish before asking Barack Obama a question about his tax policies; only those who are not suffering can ask the Great Harbinger of Hope to explain his plan to increase taxes on certain Americans. And can you imagine a liberal journalist chiding poor Joe because he owes $1,200 to St. Charles MERCY (!) Hospital? Can you imagine Joe is dismissed as disingenuous by a liberal member of the press because he DOES NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE?!

Where's your compassion, America?

All this to say that this is what passes in the liberal press for "debunking." For "fact-checking."
______________________

Here's another apparently great bit of "debunking":

In Sunday's New York Times' column by Frank Rich, "He Just Can't Quit W," we find MORE reasons to hate conservatives: Conservatives banish those who don't conform!

Here's the imitable Rich in his own love-of-truth words regarding the seemingly rapid death of the McCain campaign:

"Even Republicans are rapidly bailing on a McCain resuscitation. It’s a metaphor for the party’s collapse that on the day of the final debate both Nancy Reagan and Dick Cheney checked into hospitals. Conservatives have already moved past denial to anger on the Kubler-Ross scale of grief. They are not waiting for votes to be counted before carrying out their first round of Stalinist purges. William F. Buckley’s son Christopher was banished from National Review for endorsing Obama. Next thing you know, there will be a fatwa on that McCain-bashing lefty, George Will."

Beyond noting the tactlessness of thinking Nancy Reagan's and Dick Cheney's health issues are fodder for lame political humor, it should be noted that Mr. Rich does not understand metaphor. But I digress. What is germane to our discussion here is the left's handling of facts, and Mr. Rich proves himself shamelessly competent at abusing facts and his readers.

FACT: National Review has not "banished" Christopher Buckley. The editors merely and amicably accepted Mr. Buckley's resignation, which he, by his own admission, penned without any compulsion other than his own conscience (and maybe a couple of outraged subscribers). Read here, or here.

But YOU don't need to know the truth, only a semblance of it, because you are a reader of the New York Times, or so one must infer from Mr. Rich's artful and misleading prose.

Finally, notice this "clever" trick of the Rich pen (recall the column's title):

"...no matter what McCain says or does, he still can’t quit the guy."

The guy, of course, is President Bush. And the reference? Come now. He can't "quit" the guy? That's right, "Brokeback Mountain."

What, pray tell, is the "homophobic joke" buried beneath Mr. Rich's crass "metaphor"? But Mr. Rich can't be homophobic, can he?

I will let you decide.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

When A Priest Should Be Defrocked?

Here's a clip from "The Grapevine" regarding what one well-known Catholic priest and novelist had to say about racism in the McCain-Palin campaign (all this after apparently bogus news reports claimed McCain-Palin supporters were heard shouting "kill him" -- referring allegedly to Barack Obama -- at a Palin rally):

The agent in charge of the Secret Service office in Scranton, Pennsylvania, says allegations are unfounded that someone yelled "kill him" when Barack Obama's name came up at a rally for Sarah Palin Tuesday.

The Times Leader newspaper reports Bill Slavoski was in the audience along with a number of other Secret Service agents and law enforcement officials. Not a single one heard the comment.

Reporter David Singleton at The Scranton-Times Tribune first reported hearing the remark. His account was picked up by media across the country.

But Agent Slavoski says he was baffled when he read the report. He says more than 20 civilians were also interviewed and "we have yet to find someone to back up the story."

Even if it did not really happen, the incident has prompted much criticism from the left. Catholic priest, liberal commentator and novelist Andrew Greeley writes in the Chicago Sun-Times that Palin is a "racist with her eye on the White House. She can stir up crowds to shout 'kill him' ... how can she ever justify silence when she heard a cry for lynching?"

Greeley went on to say that John McCain is also guilty of racism: "McCain increasingly acts like an angry, befuddled cancer survivor and treats his rival like a field n-word who is just barely human." [emphasis added]

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

The sheep know the shepherd's voice. Father Greeley speaks a language I don't know.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

[Expletive Deleted]

My thanks to James Taranto for his "Two papers in one!":

• "In Wednesday night's debate, John McCain warned that a group called Acorn is 'on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history' and 'may be destroying the fabric of democracy.' Viewers may have been wondering what Mr. McCain was talking about. So were we."--editorial, New York Times, Oct. 17 [my emphasis]
• "Several F.B.I. offices are reviewing reports of fraudulent voter registrations submitted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, a liberal community organizing group that has been under fire from Republicans."--news story, New York Times, Oct. 17

________________

If the editorial board of the New York Times was not aware of ACORN and Republican allegations against that well-known and arguably infamous organization, readers may have been wondering whether the New York Times is at all reputable, reliable, honest and in touch. Of course, I jest. Contratimes readers are not like the editorial board of the New York Times: dishonest and deceptive.

Seeking Yours

I would like readers' opinions and thoughts about something I listened to last month on "Studio 360," the NPR program produced in New York City and hosted by Kurt Anderson. I wrote a lengthy piece after listening to the conversation between Mr. Anderson and his guest, author Steven Heller, in which they discussed Mr. Heller's newest book, Iron Fists: Branding the 2oth Century Totalitarian State. But I did not like what I wrote, so I deleted it into oblivion.

Readers can listen to the entire 10-minute conversation below. I encourage each of you to ask yourself as you eavesdrop on this discussion what one thing is NEVER mentioned: What incredible phenomenon occurring right before our very eyes do these two men completely ignore? (Note the anemic reference to American flag lapel pins).

Please listen to "Propaganda R Us." It's important, I think. At the very least, you will learn something. (Click on arrow below.)



(Are there any rather recent examples that pop into your mind of political branding, of badges, posters, banners, uniforms, songs, and the like?)

Throwing Stone

I spent the better part of the day trying to photographically capture the last of the fall foliage. With cameras and lenses tossed onto the seats of my car, I zipped down back roads hoping to find something different, something new. And I did find something new, though it had nothing to do with fall foliage. It was a radio promo I heard for Oliver Stone's newest film, W. You know, the exploitation film -- its release so timed to maximize earnings and influence an election -- about George W. Bush.

The announcer said that I should come see "the incredibly true story" about George W. Bush. It's truly an ironic turn of phrase.

Incredible, indeed. Sort of like that incredibly true story of a second gunman in Dallas.

But I am opining prematurely; I am merely falling prey to my prejudices.

Thank God for such prejudices.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Standing With The Policeman, Looking Over My Shoulder

On impulse this afternoon I walked into a very popular annual rummage sale held in a nearby community church. It was 1:15 when I made my way through the door; the sale had begun only 15 minutes earlier. Of course, those of you who have been to a rummage sale know the enduring smell of such sales. It is quite an overwhelming smell. I wondered if I could last more than a few minutes.

And then I took in the whole scene. I admit I should have put it all together beforehand: there was a police officer doing traffic control around the town oval solely to keep shoppers safe. And sure enough, those who had made it safely through the town oval were standing with arms loaded with clothes. There were women of all shapes and sizes and ages moving faster than I thought possible. Suddenly I was blinded by too much information, the straight lines of tables and racks twisting into a hellish labyrinth. It was the old Filene's Basement wedding dress sale, though the dresses were canvas and denim, wool and L.L. Bean fleece. There were old shoes, used Dunham boots, a less-than-fetching pair of Sorels. My skin, inexplicably and instantly, began to itch; histamines filled my sinuses. I quickly turned around and split through the four women -- apparently mothers and daughters who had arrived in the black BMW 328xi behind me -- and made my hasty escape. I had no right being there.

I was comforted to find other men outside -- I don't know how I had missed them when I had entered -- who found freedom in the big spaces. They all seemed to be panting. I felt for a moment that we all looked like we had just rushed out of a burning building. I could have used a blast from a hose.

Verdict: Rummage sales disprove the theory that men are hunter-gatherers. Maybe hunters, but definitely not gatherers. This man, at least, became instantly lost beneath the low-ceiling of a parish hall where everything looks and smells the same. Essentially worthless.

The very name strikes fear: rummage sale.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

"Turn It Up"

From Georgia's Democratic congressman John Lewis:

"Senator McCain and Governor Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

"There was a Governor of the state of Alabama, George Wallace. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights." [emphasis mine]

When I heard Charles Krauthammer discussing these remarks -- and others like them -- I hit the RECORD button:

"When John McCain runs an ad with a white woman -- Paris Hilton -- in it, he is accused of racism. He runs an ad with Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae in it, who is African-American, and that’s racist. And then he runs an ad with William Ayers, who is a white male in it, and that’s racist.

"If it weren’t so comical, these promiscuous accusations of racism, it would be tragic.

"The Obama campaign has been playing the race card over and over again. Look, this is a campaign that in the primaries succeeded in painting Bill Clinton as a racist.

"Now, Clinton, with all of his flaws, this is a man who throughout his career from governor of Arkansas to president of the United States and beyond, has been a great and sincere friend of African-Americans who shared and tried to advance their aspirations. So if you can pull off a trick like that on Bill Clinton, you can pull it off on Republicans.

"And look what Obama has said. He’s the one who raised the 'Barack Hussein Obama' a year or two ago in which he said the 'Hussein' is actually an asset and would be an asset in dealing with Muslims abroad. He’s the one who openly said that the Republicans will say I’m black, they will say he’s scary. They will say he’s different. They will say he doesn’t look like the guy on the dollar bill.

"That is Obama preemptively accusing McCain of racism, which is a scurrilous charge. Racism is a serious charge in our country, and a false accusation is doubly serious. As we saw in the Duke lacrosse case, it can destroy lives. Given our history, it ought to be used with great care. And to accuse preemptively McCain of racism even before there is any evidence of it, and there has not been any evidence of it before or since, is scurrilous.

"They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Accusations of racism is the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel, and it has been used again and again on the part of the Obama campaign." [emphasis mine]

The only part Mr. Krauthammer gets wrong is that this is not funny at all.

(Guess the reference: From whence the title of today's post?)

Reasons

I had just one person in mind when I started this blog in April 2005, and I am not that person.

Perhaps I began this blog for lost love.

Maybe I was thinking of a blessed soul happily traipsing through the mountains of Washington.

Maybe I was intent on touching the lover of beauty squeezed into the Tube in London.

Maybe I've been writing for the nephew who loves ideas, or the niece who believes ideas must be lived and not merely discussed.

Perhaps I had in mind some woman I once wished had been my girlfriend, or the woman I wish had not.

Maybe I have been writing solely for the friend in Boston who carries anger in a toolbox, or the poet of Oxford who disappeared in the fog off the coast of Dover, or that joyful man in Maine who leaps over pain with his unicycle, or that tall woman who talks to herself between stalks of corn.

Perhaps I had the weatherman in mind, who knows all about convection and adiabatic cooling -- and that there is no such thing as "heat lightning." Or perhaps, more simply, I had in mind that child whose mother died as I photographed the end of her story along an icy state highway.

Maybe I started all this for the atheist who used to pray with me in the dark nights of our many fears, that soul who has seen more of the worst of humanity than any soul should. Maybe I began tapping keys in the inaccessible reaches of the blogosphere for the Amish girl I once knew, or the boy I once assaulted with a fistful of elderberries while walking along Main Street when I was fourteen. Maybe I have in mind that boy who is now a powerful lawyer in the heart of the nation's capitol, the boy I used to pick on when we rode the school bus together as mere children -- the redness of his cheeks burning me even now with shame (for surely love tells me that I should have been his friend).

Maybe I am writing for a child who is still not ready to read, or the old woman who no longer can. Maybe I am writing for the blessing who taught me about the value of triangles, or the professor who helped me lift my chin (but not too high). Maybe I am writing for the drug-addled psychologist who shakes in disbelief now that he sees with vicious clarity why suicide is sometimes a seemingly viable antidote; or maybe that student whose trembling hand I held, her eyes shut in terror, as we traveled a chairlift to the top of a mountain; or the wonderfully witty woman, now dead, who from her wheelchair taught me how to cook when I'd visit her in the hours of degeneration.

Maybe when I lay my skis on edge and let myself settle into a deep arc carved on a slope on a bright winter day, I know that my tracks are for the person coming behind me; maybe I write in snow for someone who understands how snow warms the deepest reaches of the heart.

I will not say who it is I had in mind when I first registered this blog in April, 2005, nor will I say if my Muse (so to speak) has ever visited here. Just know that it is someone I will always love.

Peace,

BG

A Truly Wild Prediction

It's 9:47 p.m. I tried to listen to the 2nd Great Debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. I made it through the first question, and then I turned off my car radio.

I can easily believe that Barack Obama is the Democrat's choice for the White House. I can understand why he is there; I can easily understand why he is popular. What I can't believe is that John McCain is the Republican's choice. I really can't. For the life of me, I do not know how it happened.

In 2000, when I first really started paying attention to politics, I recall watching the first debate between all the contending Republicans. I can only recall a few of those candidates now: Lamar Alexander, George W. Bush, John McCain, Alan Keyes. Maybe this list isn't even right. But I remember what I thought of both Bush and McCain: "You've got to be kidding me?" I considered both men terrible.

Here's my wild totally out-there prediction: Within this very hour, Democrats will celebrate an Obama debate victory while Republicans will declare that their man won. I could be wrong. I know I am new at all of this heady stuff. But I have recently received some very revealing evidence, and here it is: Democrats generally like their candidate and Republicans generally like their's. Pretty esoteric, I admit.

Tomorrow, the gloating and the fact-checking will confirm that the Democrats were right and the Republicans were right. In such a wondrous moment the verdict will be clear: everyone's right. Americans will finally be united around one common bond. Perhaps we'll hear Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter proclaim the good news: Your candidate is always best.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Very Funny Fox News

You have got to read this story. The headline, the name -- impossible! And then there's one sentence that should, if you're half-alive, make you laugh doubly hard.

The Sage Of Delaware: In Touch

As reported in the Grapevine:


Veep Mistakes

During Thursday's vice presidential debate one of the candidates said, "Along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon," and, "Our commanding General in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan," and that Barack Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad."

None of those statements is true. So who made them? Was it Sarah Palin, whose lack of foreign policy knowledge was said to be a liability?

No, it was Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

As The Wall Street Journal also notes today, Biden invited Americans to join him at Katie's Restaurant in Wilmington, Delaware, to witness the struggles of the middle class. Problem is, Katie's closed down about 20 years ago.

________

Democrats: Joe Biden is not fit for the presidency (that's why we rejected him twice), but he is fit to be ONE heartbeat from the presidency; what qualifies him is his vast foreign policy experience. (We'll ignore the domestic blunder about Katie's Restaurant.)

Excellent!

©2008.

Hearing What We Want To Hear

During Thursday night's debate, I wasn't sure of what I heard. I turned to a couple of folks who were sitting with me in one of the local pubs; the big debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin had drawn a decent crowd (for these parts). I asked whether I had misheard Sarah Palin. "Did she just say 'Taliban?'" I inquired. One man, Bob, who operates a NH political website where I "work" as a blogger, corrected me. "She said, 'Talabani,'" he replied.

Apparently, well, not everyone who opines for a living asks rather simple questions. Perhaps since I do not opine for a living, I am in the habit of making sure I have the simplest things right. At least I try.

E.J. Dionne Jr., that esteemed but always left-leaning columnist from the Washington Post, got caught playing the charlatan on Friday's "The Diane Rehm Show," broadcast on National Public Radio. The ever-attentive James Taranto gives us an example of people hearing what isn't there, and of people unwilling to look anything less than omniscient. Read Taranto:

A hilarious example of press bias against Palin occurred last Friday on "The Diane Rehm Show," a production of Washington's WAMU-FM. The exchange between hostess Rehm, caller Tom of Norwich, Vt., and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne begins at about 46:10 of the "10:00 News Roundup":

Tom: I just wonder why not more has been made of the statement by Palin during the debate last night that "Maliki and the Talabani"--this is a quote from the transcript--"also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to the point of victory." The Talibani obviously are our absolute enemy and have been since 9/11; Maliki, our central ally in Iraq. This to me is a tremendous blunder, revealing a very superficial familiarity with these sorts of terms.

Rehm: Thanks for calling, Tom. . . . E.J.?

Dionne: I think that "superficial" is absolutely the right word for the knowledge or the lack of knowledge Palin showed yesterday. I'm glad the caller raised that one, and I suspect there is going to be a scouring of that transcript for exactly that sort of gaffe. That has echoes of some of the stuff she said to Katie Couric.

If you look at the debate transcript, however, you will see that the reference is not to "the Talabani" but to Talabani--as in Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq.

Indeed, it is quite clear Gov. Palin was talking about Talabani, and not the Taliban; because I was in the back of the pub while watching the debate I can excuse myself for mishearing her. But I at least asked someone who did not mishear -- someone who did not strike a pose but rather got things right. And I recall wondering whether what Gov. Palin said -- or DIDN'T say -- would be leapt on by the extremist blogosphere. Who would've thought that E.J. Dionne and his interlocutor TOM would have spoken with authority, or some semblance of it, on something never said?

(I do find it interesting that in the above quote Taliban is spelled both Talabani and Talibani; I have no idea why but it does strike me as a curiosity.)

Regardless. The fact is that there is an a priori assumption out there that Gov. Palin is a dope -- a lot like the dope in the White House. She's Bush with lipstick while McCain possesses Cheney's age and pugnacity, and very little else. The McCain/Palin ticket is merely a pastiche, even an inversion of the Bush/Cheney ticket. Palin HAD to have meant the Taliban precisely because TOM had never heard of Talabani AND because she is, as we all know, just plain stupid (and TOM is not).

Good thing that E.J. Dionne Jr., who is often on Ms. Rehm's show on Fridays for the "News Roundup," has instilled confidence in his readers.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Bailout Direction #1: To Keep A Ship Afloat, Cut Holes In The Hull

Dear Congress.

Really, it's the thought that counts. Please know that all is well here, still, as we slowly settle towards the bottom of the Mariana Trench. A yawn here, a yawn there, seems to clear up our ears as the pressure changes, but we want you to know that your prescience has saved us from far worse things. It is good to know that Barack Obama told us all that Congress had "no choice" but to pass the bailout package. One can only imagine our difficulties if Congress had had a choice.

The last communication we received looked something like this:



I know that some of the folks down in the boiler room were arguing that if Congress passed a bailout plan, such an action would send a loud and clear signal to the world that the severity of the problem was truly as bad as everyone suspected; panic would soon follow. It seems that the boiler room hacks were probably right, at least today. We'll see though.

Here's some advice: if we reach the bottom of the trench, we think that the best thing for you to do is leave us alone. We already know your rescue plan: bore a whole through the earth and come out beneath us. We think that's probably a bad plan. Especially since we heard that a few Democrats thought that the hole should start at the summit of Mt. Everest; such Democrats seem intent on equalizing everything -- the highs are lows and the lows are highs, though the heights are particularly too high. We have heard this line before, I think: I believe it is known as flatlining.

Anyhow. Thanks again for all your help so far.

Just Having Fun

_________________________________________________________________________



Sure, go ahead. You can use them. But you saw them here first.

(Created 10.4.2008)

Why I Can't Vote For Democrats in '08 (And Neither Should You) -- Part 1: Health Care Hypocrisy

Let me begin this essay with a concession I've made before: Let it be conceded that only one major political party in America cares about the poor, and that party is the Democratic Party.

With that sweeping concession made, let me ask a question. Barack Obama has raised $450,000,000 this election cycle; he has spent nearly $400,000,000 thus far. I ask without flinching: Why isn't this money going to the poor?

What follows in part comes from an argument I presented in a lengthy series of essays published under the title of "Making Poverty History."

____________

In 2005, I wrote the following, and it is crucial to my own polemic against my voting for a Democrat this year:

I want to make one point about someone who remains arguably the figurehead of the Democratic Party, John Kerry. Mr. Kerry, in case you have forgotten, is a member of that class aptly called the super-rich, with he and his wife, Tereza Heinz, worth at least $500,000,000. (That Ms. Heinz' fortunes came through her previous marriage to a Republican is not really germane to this point, though it is curious in a gossipy sort of way.) And we will recall with ease that Mr. Kerry stood for political values that included rolling back the Bush tax cuts. To Mr. Kerry, the tax cuts did nothing to benefit the poor or middle classes.…

I am wondering if you knew that Mr. Kerry and his wife chose, in 2004, NOT to pay Massachusetts state income tax at an optional higher rate offered by the tax commission for those with high incomes. That this made a few New England papers, and the talkshow circuit in Boston, is about the broadest audience this tid-bit reached. Mr. Kerry and his wife, no doubt with the shrewdest of accountants at hand, chose to keep some of their earnings to themselves, choosing not to give extra money to the state coffers, money which could have been used, in part, to fund programs for the needy or less fortunate.

Mr. Kerry's actions, or inactions, are applauded by me as actions well within his right. I am glad that he was free to do with his money as he saw fit. But I can't help but note a bit of irony here: The super-rich gave themselves a tax cut though they appear to oppose cuts in government funding.

I hope you get the point: John Kerry ran a presidential campaign in 2004 which was critical of the Bush tax cuts and opposed to gross cuts in government spending. But privately, when offered a chance to actually increase government coffers, Mr. Kerry abstained during tax time. It is really a rather telling fact.

Readers attentive to the political hankerings over the last several election cycles know that universal health care coverage is a key item in the Democrat Party's legislative agenda. Hillary Clinton attempted to develop a health care plan during her husband's presidency; John Edwards was quite passionate about health care reform during this latest election cycle. It is a wildly popular idea: just last month, New York Times columnist and Democrat celebrant Paul Krugman waxed on giddily about the prospects of universal health coverage in the United States.

But let me make this point, one which to some will seem utterly vapid: the Democrats have themselves done nothing to provide health insurance for the uninsured, or coverage for the uncovered. And they have had every chance to; like John Kerry at tax time, Democrats have chosen to keep their money to themselves. Let me explain.

After John Kerry lost his presidential bid in 2004, there was much harumphing about the callousness of America, particularly toward the 40 million souls who had no health insurance.

In the wake of Kerry's failed bid, I wrote the following:

Please recall with me two things from the 2004 election. First, that the Democratic Party ran on a platform that included federally-funded health care for the 40 million Americans without any health insurance. That these 40,000,000 include 18-28 year-olds who generally don't even think about health care; the very rich who choose to finance their own medical care; and those folks who simply do not want such insurance is interesting to note: the 40,000,000 is not necessarily replete with ONLY poor people.

Second, recall that John Kerry received over 59,000,000 votes by Americans who shared his views about health care for "the poorest among us." Recall too, that as a result of Mr. Kerry's defeat by George W. Bush in that election, many Democratic leaders and pundits rebuked the pro-Bush electorate for being uncompassionate, "un-Christian", and uncaring vis-á-vis the less fortunate. There was from coast-to-coast, from C-Span to lowly newspaper editorial pages, an outrage and disgust at the moral callousness of the Bush administration and the Republicans' cold-heartedness. Many expressed that they wanted to leave America, as it was no longer a kind or generous place: America had closed its doors on the poor. (New Hampshire bumper sticker: Bush/Cheney '04 - Leave No Billionaire Behind.)

Let me ask: What has prevented the 59 MILLION Americans who voted for John Kerry from pooling their own resources together in a brilliant 501(c) and creating a health insurance program for the needy? What has hindered the 59 MILLION Americans who believe health insurance is of primary importance from creating even a temporary and private fund for health care? Surely the 59 MILLION Americans who voted for John Kerry and universal coverage could have donated at least $1 each; but knowing that most if not at all could donate $10 apiece, why did no one see that a $590 million private program to insure 40 million folks meant that there was a safety net of more than $10 million per uninsured person? Where is the Democratic Party compassion I so often hear touted?

Let us note that Barack Obama and his party are poised to raise and spend MORE than half a BILLION dollars on getting him elected, but have not raised a single penny in the last 15 years to help care for those without health insurance. Apparently the desperate needs of so many vulnerable souls is not all that desperate. No, no. The Democrats are only compassionate when they can, by FORCE OF LAW, have every wage earner pay for health care for others. The urgency is not particularly urgent; but what is urgent is grabbing by legislative fiat the wealth of others so the "desperate needy," that group ignored by Democrats during the off-season, can be treated "justly" and "compassionately."

This is one reason why I am not a Democrat. That the Democratic Party can raise and spend an obscene amount of money merely to promote the PROMISE of health care, without ANY guarantees that such promises will be kept or the election even secured, proves two damning things: The party does not REALLY believe in health care, or else it would offer it via private funding, which it could easily do (even if only temporary); and the party is really only interested in one truly urgent need -- gaining power. The uninsured poor? the vulnerable? the desperate? Well, they will just have to wait until the Democrats win the White House and procure sovereignty over the Congress. In the meantime, those who do not have what they so desperately need can comfort and console themselves by blaming those callous Republicans.

As an aside, how odd to see the "compassionate" squirm when they learn that conservatives actually give more to charity than liberals.

Food for thought, or not.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.