[Replay of a Replay] Remembering: Kneeling At The Corner Of Church And Liberty

9.11.09: I forgot that on this date last year both Barack Obama and John McCain visited Ground Zero together. Interesting. I wonder if they will be at Ground Zero today commemorating the 8th anniversary of the date's tragic events. Regardless, I post what I wrote both last year on this day in history and what I wrote a few years before. Peace. BG

_____________________

[It is another cloudless morning here in New England, just like the morning seven years ago. Back then, two planes were already in the morning sky; observers on the ground might have seen them from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont or New York. There would be a different flight plan that day.

Today, 9/11/08, both John McCain and Barack Obama will visit Ground Zero. In honor of that visit, and in honor of that infamous and painful day, I repost a reflection I wrote several years after 9/11/01. Tomorrow, I will offer another reflection, I think, if I feel so moved.]

Yesterday morning, Friday, July 1, I walked west on Liberty Street and came to a slow stop. It was my first time to visit the World Trade Center since it became Ground Zero. I could see the wide-open 16-acre crater left in downtown Manhattan. But it was not the view that stopped me, but something much smaller. For there, in the southeast corner of Ground Zero, stood a street sign that, for me, was full of symbolic irony. I was at the corner of Church and Liberty.

I noted the irony, perhaps with bitterness touching my heart. And then I walked into the open space, tears filling my eyes, sobs erupting from deep within.

I had not expected this. I had not expected to want to fall to my knees, to wail on the ground, to daven before a new sort of Wailing Wall. I had not expected to feel that I could never leave this place; that I could never go back to something simple, safe, tidy, even naive. I had not expected to want to keep this hole in my heart; this hole from which people leapt and fell through tumult and smoke and confusion.

There was no surprise, however, at the enormity. I had always understood that; had felt it; had known its significance. I always understood the mechanics and the engineering; the aerodynamics and the flight paths. I had already stood on the ledge of a broken window; I had fallen. I had huddled with my child in the back of a plane; felt the pressure change in my ears and the turbulence of a bad pilot; I had seen the sparkling Hudson and the September blue; the smoke ahead; and I had felt the tipping of the wings as the engines were throttled full. I had waited for death to come in 3,000 different ways; and yet my imagination remained intact enough to remind me that I had not died even once.

What I had not expected were the tears. I thought that I had passed through that. I thought that I was, if not insouciant, so to speak, I was at least through with all the grief. But I was not. And clearly neither were many of the others walking by me, slowly, each pausing at various signs, reading them, performing a sort of Stations of the Cross along a postmodern Via Dolorosa. An old man, huddled against the massive, imposing fence, his long white hair and flowing beard tangled around his weary face, played an old silver flute, its dulcet tones reaching out and up, Amazing Grace trembling in my ears. He was crying in each breath.

I became quietly indignant (I was too humbled to be truly self-righteous) at those tourists from "far-away" who posed for digital cameras. And I was miffed, though only mildly, by the hawker silently moving through the crowd with a photo album, 9/11 pictures for sale, though numerous postings declared that such sacrilege was strictly forbidden. But I could forgive all this, for grief and horror do strange things to people. The abundance of cameras reminded me of a funeral I went to last spring, where the family of the 39-year-old father killed in a tragic accident gathered at the funeral parlor before the burial so that portraits could be taken around the open casket. My friend, the owner of the parlor, told me that it "happens all the time." Grief does strange things indeed.

I strolled north, stopping frequently. A young woman next to me, her back to the scene as she waited to cross Church - heading toward the Millenium Hilton - blurted into her cell phone, "I am going to get SO f***ed up tonight!" I moved away from her and closer to the fence, admitting to myself, a little sadly perhaps, that the world is indeed a very diverse place. The brown-haired woman to my right stared in disbelief westward, her lips trembling, tears on her cheeks. She wasn't thinking about getting "f***ed up." She was grieving for those who no longer could.

But there was one thing that was physically surprising to me, and beyond the scope of my imagination. It was that, with all the buildings surrounding the site, with the highest to the north, east and south, it was if I was INSIDE something, like a temple, cathedral or sanctuary. What happened on September 11 in New York was literally IN New York; with walls echoing sounds like the Whispering Gallery in St. Paul's Cathedral. I could see the Twin Towers, their heads poking through the ceiling of New York, and I could hear sounds. Sounds unbearable.

Later, I spoke with a woman who witnessed nearly everything on September 11. She told me that she was in the shower of her 23rd floor apartment on Liberty (the southwest corner) when the first plane smashed into the North Tower. She confessed that that she didn't realize what was happening until she was drying herself off. She said she heard a roar of jet engines overhead (the second plane), and then, echoing throughout her house, the sound of thousands of people screaming. (I think I can hear that sound right now.) And I know it was one of the sounds I could still hear trembling in the faint murmurs of the buildings surrounding Ground Zero. The walls do speak. And they speak sorrowfully. (The woman, a Manhattan lawyer I fortuitously met on the train home, told me that she was never able to return to her apartment after closing the door to it just before the towers fell. It was essentially uninhabitable, at least for her. And she told me her entire harrowing story: the dust-cloud filled with glass particles; the people screaming and pressing in the dark, the leaping into a boat on the Hudson, a thrown puppy, the vomiting, the uncertainty about more attacks, and so much more.)

But at the end of my too-short visit to Ground Zero, I could not shake from my mind the street sign, Church and Liberty. For Osama bin Laden attacked America - at least according to his own fatwa - because of its "Christian" infidelity (and its support and alliance with infidel Jews) and the liberty both synagogue and church provide. And it was America's liberties, our very freedoms, he turned against each of us: our freedom of travel, our easy borders, our freedom to build, and work in, tall buildings; our freedom to believe in God and liberty, or not. This is our vacant lot: that our virtues were turned against us by a man and men too impotent to build a nation, too weak to fill it with soldiers and weapons and wealth and commerce and hope; and too poor to attack us with something created by the superiority of their own vision. No, they attacked us with our own virtues, turned into weapons against us. They did not attack us with their virtues, but with their own spiteful vice. And for a moment, we staggered.

This morning, though far from New York, I still stand at the corner of Church and Liberty. I look up and understand: This is the World Trade Center. And I ask myself, "What world are you willing to trade?" My enemy has already asked that question, and he has shown me his answer. And now I give him mine: I am not trading.

Yesterday I walked through New York wearing a T-Shirt my wife gave to me two years ago. It reads on the front, in small print, "July 4, 1776: Remember Why." On the back, in quiet letters, it reads, "Live Free." I was amazed at how many people looked at my simple message as I passed through subway lines or strolled The Mall in Central Park. It is a good message.

Remember why.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Ground Zero, World Trade Center, wtc, Fourth of July, Independence day, Liberty, Osama bin Laden, 9/11, New York City, Manhattan

What Is Truth, Mr. Obama?

Ahh, the Truth. Remember the good old days, you know, the days of the Obama campaign when a new dawn of truth was imminent? Remember the rosy days when Mr. Obama's people would tell us that he understood that "words mean something"?

Maybe you don't. I sure don't. But I sure remember John McCain being lambasted -- by the media, by bloggers, and by Barack Obama -- for saying last year that the "fundamentals of the economy are sound...the workers of America are the fundamentals of the economy."

Mr. McCain was right, the fundamentals were sound. People were buying and selling; people were exchanging labor for goods; people were trading fairly and honorably nearly everywhere in America. Workers were doing what they do, as were buyers.

Of course, falling stocks, red ink, bankruptcies, foreclosures, bailouts: all these suggested, at least to the Omniscient Obama Campaign, that Mr. McCain was clearly doddering, slipping into sputtering senescence.

And then magic happened. Thus Sprach Obama last week:

If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy ... then we're going to get through this.

And what did his chief economic advisor say on "Meet the Press"?

Of course, the fundamentals (of the U.S.) economy are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology.

Definitely a confederacy of dunces. These are the voices of doom and gloom: they adopted that strategy in the campaign season -- they NEEDED the economy to tank in order to control the narrative and the electorate's mood -- and now they need the economy to thrive so they can control the narrative and the electorate's mood. The most depressing voice in the American economy -- Obama's -- is utterly new, pressed into action to invigorate things.

And his new voice is John McCain's.


Peace through dissent.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

I Witness: McCain's 'Last' Town Hall Meeting

Yes. I was there. The message IS the medium, the proof in the picture: my self-portrait in front of Peterborough, NH's lovely town hall moments before John McCain would speak from its steps proves that I was crazy enough to endure rather cold weather for more than two hours just so I could witness what is possibly the end of a man's bid for the White House.

But permit me to backtrack a moment.

When my wife and I chose at the last minute (practically) to attend the John McCain rally in gorgeous Peterborough, NH (where Thornton Wilder wrote "Our Town"), I decided, like a fool, to travel lightly: no cameras, no gear. If any of you have been to a major political event involving tight security and Secret Service, you know what I mean; and any of you who have worked in the press and have been "handled" by the campaign operatives know what I mean by "handling." Besides, I have brought my photo gear to work such events "outside" the press handlers' reach, and even then I have been hassled. Traveling without any potential hindrances sure made sense as I stood in my house planning my strategy.

But I was a fool for leaving my cameras home. Peterborough, after all, is essentially my home turf. I lived in that fine village for five years; my wife and I, though we live less than 10 miles away, run most of our errands there. It is the local hub. So what was I thinking when I jumped into an incredible queue without my cameras when there was so much pure political theater going on out on Grove Street (though there is a Main Street, Grove Street FEELS more like Peterborough's main street)? Obama supporters were set on the east side of Grove; they chanted and shouted and sang and, at times, harangued. Giant puppets paraded down the street; McCain supporters mostly stationed on the west side of Grove waved signs and sang "God bless America!" and did their own bit of preaching. Besides both teams chanting in unison "USA!", which was nice, some of both parties' representatives taunted each other; the badinage was quite humorous and delightful, at least to me. But I am getting ahead of myself for, you see, a friend of my wife's was queued up with my sweet bride; hearing my lament that I was stuck using my cell phone camera to record what was going on, she handed me (thanks Lauren!) her Nikon point-and-shoot (I am a Canon guy so Nikons are utterly backward). Assured that I had a spot saved in line, I took off with a dinky camera and did my best.

What sort of things did I see? [Images are not chronological; click on each one for larger view.]

Well, there was the frightening:

And the surreal:

(Apparently this moving parody of a red demon GOP elephant steered by the diminutive George W. Bush set atop its head and leading a disfigured John McCain was intended to make an effective point.)

And then there was the REALLY surreal:

There was a surprising visit by an old icon:

(Uncle Sam shouted -- you can guess which side he was on -- such inspirations as "No friends of Paris† in the White House!")

There was the predictable (it amazes me that a friend of mine, a self-described Marxist, would choose to pick a fight with this guy as I took this shot):

There was also the rather wordy (though this poor photographer nixed the punch line, which read "Keep the change").

And there was just the plain-Jane sort of stuff (cell phone picture):

But in the end, what I saw was really a slice of America, united in its division, divided in its unity: E Pluribus Unum all topsy-turvy.

______________________

You may be wondering what an award-winning photographer came up with for an image of Sen. John McCain. Well, I don't mind boasting: I got an incredible shot. It combines everything great about my talents with a borrowed camera; it shows you my deft skills as I handle even an unfamiliar camera while being jostled by cheering, jumping fans of John McCain. This IS the quintessential image, sharp, clear, precise, professional. It's clearly fit for a national journal's cover. In fact, it is so good it might even be prophetic.

Besides, what would you expect of a guy who has been "nothing but a hack" for all things McCain? Judge for yourself:

(Only seconds after taking this image, I did shake Mr. McCain's left hand with my own left hand. A secret leftist's handshake, you know.)

OK. So the image is itself part of the surreal, the fantastical, the ephemeral. But at least I've left a surprise for Lauren when she downloads her images (uh, sorry Lauren).

Peace.

†For the uninitiated, that would be "Paris Hilton."

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

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.

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.

A TARP Over Our Many Woes

I don't see how one can miss the irony of the acronym. The "Troubled Asset Relief Program," or TARP, has been woven by lawmakers and tossed over what might be the corpse found at a horrific accident scene. Usually what follows is an investigation: a forensic examination of all details, an Accident Reconstruction Team running data, taking measurements, taking pictures. And a plastic tape -- in this case probably red tape -- keeping the public at a distance. Which is even more ironic, since the public's trust, and even its treasury, are what lie beneath the tarp.

I have no problem admitting my own culpability. I agree with George Will that suddenly and without warrant, Main Street America has been knighted as some sort of model of fiscal valor and discretion, while Wall Street has been stripped down to nothing but its new clothes of naked avarice. I accept that Main Street -- which is also heavily invested in Wall Street -- is every bit as reckless with personal credit, and as avaricious as the paragons of capitalism.

But the fact remains that, despite John McCain's utterly unhelpful "this is not the time to fix blame, it's time to fix the problem," there is blame to be fixed -- at least in Washington. And from what I am seeing, most of the evidence points directly at the Democratic Party. I don't see how one can conclude otherwise: the Democrats appeared desperate to pass a plan. And though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid averred that no one knew what to do, the Democratic Party's candidate for president, Barack Obama, who clearly did not know what to do, insisted that there was "no choice" but to pass the massive corporate bailout. Apparently, at least to Sen. Obama, some things are not a matter of choice but of inevitability: without anyone proving that the future would be dire, Congress HAD to act -- now.

To me, it all smacks of Democrats looking for America to bail them out, to give them more time to gain more control of all things Washington, solely so they can control the horrors of their own mismanagement, and maybe even their own prosecutions. I sense Democrats desperately seeking to control the scene of their own accident, hoping that they can send in their own investigators. And if there were obvious Republicans to blame, there would not have been a second's pause in Democratic Party denunciations of the GOP's "culture of corruption." In a critical election year, we know Democrats would have exploited Republican culpability to the absolute maximum; that they have not, proves to me they have much to hide.

That President Bush and many Republicans pushed for this bailout can only mean one of two things: either they see that Democrats have in fact screwed things up so badly that there is no time to waste afixing blame right now, and a tourniquet is needed immediately, or that both parties are to blame and the Republicans must join Democrats to stave off a possible coup or revolution. But the latter seems implausible to me, particularly since the Democrats have been legislating for the last two years.

I must, however, return to my grave feelings of suspicion. There is something grotesque afoot; when I look at those who have contributed tens of millions of dollars to Barack Obama's campaign, I see the names of those who stand to benefit the most, not only from the bailout, but from a troubled economy. When I think of Democrats rolling out Warren Buffett as some sort of moral index of economic and market excellence, I sense that there is a profoundly blind eye to the opportunistic advantage given such a wealthy Democrat like Mr. Buffett: as of two days ago, he had made in excess (at least on paper) of $650,000,000 in "helping out" Wall Street (and this from a man who complains that the Republican tax codes favor the rich and prevent him from paying more taxes).

What is the one thing Democrats need, usually, to win the White House? That's right, they need discontent, resentment: they need envy to be maximized. How best to do that? Foment concern about injustice, about economic disparity, about unfair tax rates, about who has X and who doesn't. Every election cycle I have ever seen in which Democrats vie for the White House, a house wherein some Republican beast has been ruining the very foundations of the world, Democrats root against the economy at every turn. Somewhere the Democrats have been able to create and preserve the ridiculous myth that they know how to stimulate and manage economies better than anyone else. Hence, they need, like an addict needs a fix, for economic news to be grim. So they work to undermine it, or so I believe.

What better way to prove the greed of Wall Street, a large Democratic stronghold if there ever was one and yet somehow cast as Republican, than to help create a crisis by mismanagement? What better way to create chaos than to hold a gun to Washington's head, saying, "You have no choice," all the while knowing that your own wealth is not at risk. What better way to create chaos than to have great Democratic billionaires, like Mr. Buffett or George Soros, assist in sell-offs and cheap buyouts and sundry other manipulations of markets and moods? What better way to produce fear -- fueled by envy's promiscuous whispers -- than to tell Main Street that Wall Street has sold it off, even if Wall Street, by nearly 2 to 1, has backed the candidate of the very party in control of the House and Senate, and whose candidate for president is almost drowning in incredibly liquid assets? How else to generate anxiety about free markets than to actually prove that markets are not one whit free; that they are susceptible to the actions of just a handful of billionaires (and who cares if those billionaires are Democrats)?

When a friend of mine, a major-league banker in a Wall Street bank, tells me that he and his bank believe Barack Obama is better for them, I know something is up, and what is up has nothing to do with making the wealthy less wealthy or the poor less poor.

I sense, now, of course, that Democrats will immediately turn this into a Bush failure. They will denounce his tax cuts as "reckless and irresponsible"; they will couple that indictment to a declaration that America can no longer afford the War on Terror, at least in Iraq; they will call for reduction in that theater, that "reckless and misguided rush-to-war theater" of great disgrace.

Republicans, of course, have leverage points, too. But the seemingly pusillanimous John McCain seems so preoccupied with appearing like the incarnation of the bipartisan spirit that he seems unable or unwilling to seize the great campaign opportunity smacking him in the nose. One look at the economic trends since the Democrats won in 2006 might win Sen. McCain a few more votes; but a more revelatory examination of Democratic-backed policies that led to certain "inevitabilities" would certainly lead to a Republican victory.

I will not be the one to say that what lies under the TARP is stinking. But I will not be surprised to learn that the thing that does cast off a great stench is the TARP itself.

Just some hasty thoughts.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Something Seems Wrong, Part 1

Let me state the obvious: If you were playing the stock market yesterday, you might have made a fortune. Feast during famine, famine during feast. It all depends on who you are. But a nearly 500-point gain in a day -- buy low, sell high -- might mean that Monday's thousand-aires are today's millionaires; and that today might be a mixed-market bag, with some cashing in their big gains. But maybe not.

I want to explore something here, something I do not really understand. I shall play it out this way: Today I am just going to post some screen captures from Opensecrets.org that show how much money both the McCain and the Obama campaigns have raised and spent, and how much cash they have on hand. I am also going to show you screen captures of both candidates' top donor lists, both in terms of cash given and the industries from which such cash donations come. I think you will see something interesting. But I won't give too much away. I simply want to learn whether readers see what I see.

Tomorrow, I want to write about a conversation I had this past summer with a man who is a top-tier banker in New York City. I will tell you neither the man's name nor the name of his bank; you will simply have to trust me. But I will tell you that he is a Democrat and a fervent supporter of Barack Obama. And I will also tell you that I've known this man for 40 years.

So, there you have it. My little outline. And as promised, here are the screen captures from Opensecrets.org.

First, the lists of both candidates' top contributors.

Barack Obama:



John McCain:


Second, the lists of the areas of industry that contributed to both candidates.

Barack Obama:


John McCain:


Third, here are graphs indicating how much each candidate has raised thus far, and how much has been spent. The graphs also list debts and cash on hand.

Barack Obama (8/31/08):


John McCain (8/31/08):


I will quickly note that Barack Obama is raising and spending money nearly 2 to 1 compared to John McCain. It is an amazing feat, especially when those of us raised on American politics the past 30 or so years recall hearing nothing but moans and groans regarding "those wealthy Republicans" and how much cash they spend to gain power. But this is a tiny point to make, really.

What patterns do you see in the fundraising data provided above? Doesn't it strike you as interesting that many of the major players in the current economic crisis have given huge sums of money to Barack Obama; and that even if those same bundled-up contributors gave cash to John McCain, their contributions were much smaller? Isn't it also interesting to see that Barack Obama has been given so much cash from the news media (and also Time-Warner) and the movie industry, whereas John McCain has not been given such sums by those who control and peddle information -- and misinformation. John McCain has been given $1.6 million by "Big Oil," but Barack Obama has received more than twice that from Big Publishing, $3.4 million, and more than 3 times that from Big Movie/TV, $5.1 million. Big Computer gave Barack Obama $4.2 million, while giving John McCain received just $1.5 million, or close to a third of what Barack Obama has received. Somehow, however, most Americans are under the impression that John McCain is in Big Oil's tank (forgive me) and that Barack Obama is somehow free of undue outside monies. How does that happen? Answer: Media propaganda. No?

Clearly the income disparities of both campaigns are stunning. The Obama campaign is not only well-greased, it is financed by many of the very groups who stand to gain -- and lose -- so much in the current market dynamics, and in the apparent bailout. But I want to leave you with this: There was something about my banker friend that suggested to me that the impending doom he was forecasting from his seat on the porch of the local general store was not all that scary -- for him. There was seemingly something he felt he could gain in this current financial morass. And surely there is something to gain for some Wall Street folks: illiquid assets bailed out at above market prices; properties bought up for a song and sold later when property values improve; credit protected by federal handouts, just to name a few. And then there's the market: a sudden drop means there are some great deals out there, and great deals were indeed made. Big time.

My banker friend was adamant that what would be best for him -- and his bank -- was a Barack Obama presidency.

Moral: For the life of me, I do not know how my Democratic friends can say A) that Democrats are better with "the economy"; B) that Democrats are not controlled by special interest groups; C) that Democrats are more trustworthy (and are "greed-free") in matters fiduciary; and D) that Republicans are the untrustworthy avaricious worms that have pulled the economy into the ground. But alas, alack, they do believe it.

My rather indelicate observation -- forgive me -- is that there has never been such a load of crap so widely and passionately embraced.

Peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If McCain's 'The Pig': Did Letterman Help Obama?

I appreciate Barack Obama's somewhat lighthearted attempt to exegete his now infamous joke as he sat last night with David Letterman. In fact, I love it when anyone whittles a statement down to its components, to its syntactical and grammatical pith. And that is what Barack Obama did. I just wonder if he did himself any favors by being so logical.

Obama: “[...] keep in mind that, technically, had I meant it that way [as an attack on a person], she [Sarah Palin] would have been the lipstick, you see?” (audience, Dave laugh) “But now we’re…”

Letterman: “I don’t know, you’re way ahead of me.” (audience laughs)

Obama: “Yeah, the failed policies of John McCain would be the pig.”

Letterman: “Now, do you feel like for the last week and a half, last two weeks, that the campaign - ”(audience laughs, Obama laughs)

Obama: “Now, I mean, you know, just following the logic of this illogical situation.”

I would think, then, that if either Sen. McCain or his failed policies are the pig, and Gov. Palin is the lipstick that apparently dresses up and disguises that pig, then we have gotten more information than we may have wanted. Clearly Sen. Obama has spent some time reflecting on his gaffe. He's even gotten a bit cheeky about it: If his critics had only been quite astute enough to stick to the literal text, they would not have automatically assumed that Gov. Palin is porcine. A strict reading of the text would actually show that she is only porcine lipstick.

Not really helpful, Sen. Obama, even if offered as a joke, a reductio ad absurdum joke. You are giving too much away here; you prove you are thinking about this too much. You are coming across as "too clever by half" (someone needs to explain that idiom to me sometime). Lord knows, I love cleverness, but not in instances such as this. Issue a sincere "Oops!" and move on ... at least the next time.

©2008. All rights reserved.

Gail Collins' Grizzly Journalism

Contratimes readers should take a few minutes to read Gail Collins' "McCain's Grizzly Politics." I think you will find it stunningly patronizing ... and wrong. And maybe, just maybe, even a little bit absurd.

The surprising revelation over the last nine days of political news is that the McCain-Palin ticket has Democrats in a panic. And not just in a panic; we're talking about cornered dogs in a kennel. There is snarling and snapping of jaw aplenty. I applaud Ms. Collins' article because it is exceptional in one way: her snarling is rather subtle.

Ms. Collins -- who was the Times' first-ever (and that is important here) female editorial page editor -- begins her op-ed with a most-subtle slam:

'“There is only one man in this election who has really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death,” Sarah Palin told a crowd in Wisconsin on Friday. John McCain, standing behind her, shifted restlessly as she went on and on about his idealism, his leadership and — did you know he was a war hero?'

To Ms. Collins, John McCain "shifted restlessly" as Gov. Palin's apparent loquacity taxed the poor senator's patience and strength. But notice the tedious trope Ms. Collins drags out in her sniping question: "Did you know he was a war hero?" A unique thinker Ms. Collins is not.

Of course, she needs John McCain to be teetering on the rostrum. She doesn't want you to think too much about Barack Obama. Attentive readers know what I mean:

"Did you know Barack Obama was once a community organizer -- on the south side of Chicago?"

"Did you know Barack Obama was once the editor of the Harvard Law Review?"

"Did you know Barack Obama is eloquent? That Barack offers a message of hope?"

I could "go and on" until each of you begins to shift "restlessly," I suppose, but I won't.

That Ms. Collins observes Gov. Palin went "on and on" in praise of John McCain intimates that Gov. Palin is an unsubmissive woman, incapable of shutting up in the presence of her ruling man. That must explain why Ms. Collins wrote the following (please note what's in bold):

'“Isn’t this the most marvelous running mate in the history of this nation?” asked McCain, when he finally got a turn at the microphone.'[emphasis added]

Ah, yes, Ms. Collins, Sarah Palin is a bad woman, talking too much, upending the traditional values to which she's supposed to submit. Doesn't Sarah Palin know her place? (I find no mention in Ms. Collins' piece about Ms. Palin's first-ever status -- a boorish omission.)

The "grizzly" part of Sen. McCain's big mistake in politics has nothing to do with what the title of Ms. Collins' essay suggests. That title is really there, or so I believe, to convey to readers the idea that Sen. McCain turned his candidacy hopelessly red-state predatory when he put the pro-gun, pro-hunting ALASKAN woman on his party's ticket. But I digress. What irks Ms. Collins is Sen. McCain allegedly obsessing about a $3 million earmark that made it through the legislative process; such earmarks are anathema to Sen. McCain's view of a sane, rational and SMALLER government. Ms. Collins is quite tired of Sen. McCain constantly (allegedly) reminding voters of his battle against pork-barrel politics.

Notice what Ms. Collins does:

"[McCain] continues to use [a joke about the grizzly bear earmark] even though it has been established that the bear project was an extremely useful attempt to figure out how many grizzlies Montana has and whether they need continued protection as an endangered species. But even if it was the biggest waste of $3 million in history — even if it was money to sedate grizzlies so hairdressers could apply attractive red tints to their fur — do we want a candidate for president of the United States obsessing about it?" [emphasis added]

Note the slam of Sen. McCain's doddering old charm: He's "obsessing." He's that old man known to perseverate on pointless things. But notice too that Collins never contextualizes what McCain is doing, namely, he's mounting a defense of the charge that earmarks are bad for America because A) they are part of the mechanics of wasteful spending and indicate an engorged government which he as President will dis-engorge; and B) that such spending is the devil's lair for special interests, corruption and even extortion, where senators and representatives steal from the nation's coffers in order to appeal to voters in their respective states and districts. A rational and fair person, then, would respond to Ms. Collins' inanity by saying that, "Yes, I do want a president wildly attentive to such things if he or she is committed to reducing government bloat, abuse and power."

It is risible that Ms. Collins then launches into a rather didactic paragraph about American reluctance to elect a senator for president...as if the country has a choice this year. (You will find only the slightest revelatory note in Ms. Collins' essay that Barack Obama is a US senator -- Oh, by the way, did you know Barack Obama is a junior senator from Illinois?) But that Sen. McCain, who is truly a senior senator and knows the games in the esteemed Senate perhaps better than anybody, is somehow dismissed as a viable candidate for president because he is "obsessing" about earmarks is not just patronizing: Ms. Collins' argument is the stuff of high-school journalism.

I am all for debating whether Sen. McCain is known for really cutting government spending, at least when it comes to actual bills on the floor which are grotesquely inflated irrespective of the porky earmarks attached to them. But to suggest in any sense that Sen. McCain's experience in the US Senate precludes him from leading the country is foolish, primarily because Barack Obama virtually has NO experience not only in the US Senate, but anywhere else, and yet his Senate experience is worth noticing.

A quick look at Ms. Collins' last paragraph proves that pablum can be passed off as gristly red meat, at least in the Times:

"The problem with the Senate is that the skills you need to thrive there — even if you thrive as a maverick — aren’t the ones you need to be president. If McCain wants to convince us that he can adapt and widen his vision, he can start by vowing never to mention the bridge [the infamous Bridge to Nowhere] or the bears again."

To Ms. Collins, Sen. McCain could only elevate his campaign if he would just stop mentioning his experiences in the Senate, as the skills necessary to achieve there (apparently the same skills acquired by Hillary Clinton) are unnecessary to the job of President of the United States. But am I to conclude then that Ms. Collins believes Barack Obama should refer to himself as CO. Obama -- Community Organizer Obama -- and not Senator Obama, since the skills acquired working in the Senate are hopelessly irrelevant to the presidency?

Absurd.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

[originally posted at NH Insider]