U.S. Establishing Diplomatic Presence in Iran?

Here’s my theory:

A younger, well-read student of history disguises himself as an older, white male Republican. Imagine a light navy suit, white shirt with the collar that buttons down at the corners, bright-red tie, over-sized American flag lapel pin, light brown hair - slightly graying - that’s been calling for a clip for a week. Somehow, this Navy Suit gains audience with the president - the specifics aren’t important - and extracts a thin, hollow tube from his pants - no, not that tube! - a bamboo tube.

Without notice, a dart tipped with the Secret Serum of Logic (found at one of the oldest, unnoticed library’s in the U.S.) is loaded into the thin tube. The Navy Suit raises the tube to his lips and, much like we’ve seen on TV or even practiced ourselves with paper-wrapped straws, emits a sharp, intense breath into the elongated apparatus, forcing the dart from its launching position into the neck of the President of the United States of America, who unfortunately carries the name George W. Bush and dreams of spooning Dick Cheney in the nighttime.

Not-so-coincidentally, soon after the so-called “Dart Incident,” Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik says U.S. ground troops will be “mostly finished” in Iraq by mid-2009.

Most stunning of all, a week later The Guardian claims the U.S. will establish a diplomatic presence - “a halfway house to setting up a full embassy” - in the capital of Iran, Tehran. After 30 years of relatively cool relations between the U.S. and Iran, George W. Bush has chosen a bold strategy of reaching out to Tehran in an effort to slow the Middle East country’s development of nuclear technology.

Such out-of-character developments originating from the White House cause hopeful brows to furrow in consternation over the sharp 180 (can a 180 be sharp? anyway…) in U.S. foreign policy. Theories of all kinds have emerged to explain such an enigma:

• With a little less than 200 days left in office, Bush is grasping at straws - or logic, as we call it in the left-wing blogosphere - in a desperate effort to save the embers of his legacy after a tumultuous tenure at the helm of the American government.
• Bush no longer feels beholden to his voters, donors, supporters - most of whom suffer from chronic headupassness - and is grasping at all straws in sight to have a least one, true success before leaving office.
• Bush was kidnapped and water-boarded by former Secretary of State James Baker who convinces the current Executive to thank Iran for helping us with Afghanistan in the early days following 9/11.
• Bush will want to ride the coattails of potential positive policy utilized by the next president, Obama, and claim that the strategies this new president has found beneficial were actually introduced by Bush. No one will believe the failed oilman who duped a small majority of the country into believing he’d be the best leader to steer the U.S. into the next century.
• Presidential candidate John McCain has angered Bush by trying to forge a gap of reputation between the two old, white Republicans - prompting Bush to initiate policies that follow ideology spouted by Obama, not McCan’t.
• Or, conversely, Bush wants to initiate these more leftist strategies he mistakenly believes will fail, allowing McCain to distance himself from Bush and garner voter approval after these Democratic tactics fall short. First of all, too little too late for McCain and secondly - most surprising to Bush, these strategies actually WORK. Tally-ho!
• Bush wanted to plant a diplomatic effort in Iran to cover for a spy-team meant to infiltrate Iran’s confusing and secretive government hierarchy. Little did he know that President Obama would actually use the diplomatic team for diplomacy, goshdarnit.

Nevertheless, as the global population sits stunned over their morning coffee, reading rumors of the U.S. actively extending a diplomatic hand to Iran under the direction of W, the young, well-read student of history chuckles to himself in fond memory of his morning with the president and the dart that changed history.

Decreased Violence in Iraq - More to do with Money than the Surge

It is intensely irritating to hear McCain repeat again and again that he supported the “Surge” strategy and that this strategy is responsible for a reduction in violence in Iraq. Furthermore, Obama is now whistling this tune in an effort to endear uninformed Americans and convince them of his competence on national security.

In all this talk of surge success, very little is being mentioned of the immense amount of cash being handed over to many of Iraq’s violent tribes and militias - putting vast amounts of criminals on U.S. payroll to NOT reach for their automatic weapons and plant IEDs. You got it. We’re monetarily bribing down the violence. And we’ll likely continue to do so as we reduce troop numbers.

I’m not saying I oppose this strategy. Whatever works, right? But to continuously claim “The surge is a success” without acknowledging the effect of these payoffs is equivalent to presenting a facade to the American people. Of course, we should expect nothing less. How many lies were told to garner support for the war in the first place?

Yet we hear over and over that the surge’s success has proven McCain right. I know at some point I should develop a callous to the lies, but it seems nearly impossible and we’re all left with high blood pressure and anger over our leaders’ inabilities to prioritize truth over popularity.

Finally, CNN offered an interview with terrorism expert Peter Bergen on 360 last night in which he said,

I actually think both the Democrats and the Republicans have been overemphasizing the surge. If it was just about the surge, the violence would be back up again because the surge is over. There are some underlying factors that are much more important in Iraq in my view.

One — the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq, they basically scored a series of own goals by its Taliban-style tactics, producing this wave of revulsion against and amongst the Sunnis. Now we put up a 100,000 Sunni militia on the American payroll, people who used to be shooting at the United States who are now on our payroll.

We also see the Prime Minister Maliki, no one could say a good thing about him a year and a half ago in Washington. Turning out to be a somewhat effective leader going into Basra, taking out the Shia militias there, going into Sadr City, taking out the Shia militias there.

We’ve also seen the Iraqi army which, Anderson, is really much larger than the Afghan army and much more effective in a country which is smaller and with a smaller population.

So there were some underlying factors that actually suggest that long- term success in Iraq is plausible. It’s possible the surge, of course, was one aspect of it. But to say that the surge caused all these changes is I think simply very simplistic essentially.

Also, Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films produced a video report entitled Uncovering the Truth Behind the Anbar Success Story showing Sunni leaders who had formerly been associated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and responsible for ethnic cleansing being paid off. In an interview with Katie Halper of Alternet.org last September, Rowley indicated,

There have been a lot of reports about the fact that the people who the U.S. is working with, the supposed “freedom fighters,” the “counter-insurgents” are former insurgents. They were Iraqi al Qaeda before they started working with the Americans. That is troubling because if they were fighting the Americans once, they’ll fight Americans again. And more troubling for the future of Iraq is the fact that many of the tribes that the U.S. is working with are war criminals who are directly responsible for ethnic cleansing and who are using American support to prepare for sectarian civil war. The U.S. is funding Sunni militias. They already funded the Shia militias. They’re now funding all sides of this sectarian war.

Here’s an NPR interview with British journalist Peter Cockburn discussing U.S. payments to Iraqi militiamen.

In an April 2008 report, The Christian Science Monitor stated,

He (Abu Abdullah of the Islamic Army of Iraq) also maintains that while the US has succeeded in driving a wedge between AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) and Sunnis in Anbar Province, many of the tribesmen there who are now on the American payroll are still aiding IAI and other insurgent groups.

Members of these US-backed militias now number almost 91,000 and are paid a total of $16 million a month in salaries by the US. They are often lauded by President Bush in his speeches on Iraq.

The US military now calls these Sunni militias “Sons of Iraq.” Iraqis simply refer to all these groups as sahwas. But the Shiite-led government is resisting US pressure to fold these groups, especially the ones in Baghdad and Diyala provinces, into the Army and police. “Trust me, the sahwas are ultimately with the resistance, heart and mind,” says Abu Abdullah.

There is no debating the fact that the drop in violence in Iraq is largely due in part to the payoffs - right or wrong - the U.S. is giving the militias. I am not squabbling with this strategy. I am merely raising my voice in protest of the campaign of misinformation of the surge’s success by the president, McCain and now Obama.

We cannot judge our approval or disapproval of these candidate’s ideas if they are not straightforward. I have little doubt the empty political rhetoric will continue, but at least those of us with a minute ability to apply research and information to our opinions and decision-making can help proliferate necessary evidence to support or refute the politicians’ shameful mumbo-jumbo.

Notes on Obama’s Speech on Iraq and McCain’s Rebuttal

Notes taken live during Obama’s speech this morning:

• I cringe every time Obama flubs a line - unlike giggling with glee when McCain trips up.
• Steady the camera, MSNBC.
• The repetition of points of interest is annoying.
• As he looks from teleprompter to teleprompter, you’d think he was watching a match at Wimbledon. I’m getting motion sickness.
• Is it (phonetically) Tal-e-ban or Tal-ee-ban? Obama says Tal-ee-ban.
• I’ve said this before, Obama needs to meet with a public speaking coach who can teach him not to clip the ends of his words.
• I feel very content that this speech will overshadow Bush’s ridiculous speech this morning.
• “Securing nuclear weapons from rogue states.” Will that include Pakistan once Musharraf is removed from power?
• “Senator McCain was one of the biggest supporters of the war.” That statement should be clarified to indicate he was a supporter of GOING to war. To indicate he supported the failed strategy afterward is a stretch and I hate when the Democrats take a page out of the Republicans’ play book.
• He just said Tal-ee-ban again.
• We need ribbons for our cars that say “Remember Afghanistan” and “Our Troops are Over-Taxed and Over-Burdened.”
• “Iraq is not going to be a perfect place and we do not have unlimited resources to try and make it one.” Excellent point.
• Residual forces left in Iraq to go after remnants of Al Qaeda. I find this acceptable. I think this force should be multi-national and under the authority of the U.N., however.
• With all the talk of getting our forces out, Obama needs to address the defense contractor’s presence as well as our government’s involvement in their oil production and war profiteering.
• Tal-ee-ban again. Is this going to be his nuke-u-lar? I just looked it up on dictionary.com and it indicates pronunciation as [tal-uh-ban].
• Tripling aid to Pakistan? Would this be in return for our ability to go in and get Bin Laden?
• Steady the cam, MSNBC or I might switch to CNN…
• Goal of 80 percent of global emissions by 2050. Preach it!
• America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. Excellent point. W, are you listening? Oh, I forgot. You only listen to people who agree with you. Or Cheney.
• Chris Matthews’ Hardball Number today should be how many times Obama used the word “moment” in his speech. (UPDATE: the Hardball number was how many times Obama mentioned the word “Afghanistan” in a speech that was meant to be about Iraq.
  
• Obama should being referring to the Iraq War as a “war of choice” more. That will help raise voter ire toward Bush and McCain.
  
• Great speech, give that speech writer a promotion! But it doesn’t distract me from his FISA vote.

**McCain plans to criticize Obama for never having visited Afghanistan and not having visited Iraq recently, yet establishing a strategy for ending the Iraq War. Does this mean that McCain believes the Americans who have not visited Iraq should have no opinion on the Iraq War? If my tax dollars are being used to perpetuate an unnecessary war, do I still have an obligation to keep my mouth shut regarding the prosecution and strategy of said war? Of course not. How ’bout this? How ’bout I use a portion of my taxes to visit Iraq so that I may be empowered to formulate a credible opinion of the war. We could set up programs akin to those European tour groups old people join so that Americans everywhere can have a say in the decisions of our government.

McCain speaking immediately after Obama’s speech.

• He called again on Obama to participate in the town hall meetings. It’s an empty entreaty similar to his pander strategies.
• McCain gives Obama quotations that indicate he didn’t think the surge would have any effect and then later claimed he always knew the surge would reduce violence. “Flip-floppers all over the world are enraged?” So, you’re enraged, McCain?
• “The surge in Iraq shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan.” This seems naive. The situations on the ground in Iraq are extremely different than the situations on the ground in Afghanistan (and I’m not just talking topography). But what am I talking about, I’ve never been there. Those countries in the Middle East are all the same!
• “Iraq and Afghanistan are not disconnected. Success breeds success. Failure breeds failure.” What? What did our “failure” in Vietnam breed?
• “I know how to win wars.” Um…which wars have you won? I forget.
• Ooooh. McCain just said Tal-ee-ban as well.
• “The drug issue in Afghanistan is the world’s problem and the world should share its cost.” True. Alternative crops is a good idea, though it hasn’t worked in Colombia and hasn’t worked in Afghanistan previously. The whole supply and demand thing…
• McCain says that we must strengthen Pakistani tribes that are willing to fight terrorists in their region and this is what has worked in Iraq. This is true. But the U.S. has paid billions to Iraqi tribes to do this and they’ve also shelled out billions to the violent tribes, “bribing” them to stop their assaults. What will happen when we stop paying? And how long can we continue to pay when McCain and Bush won’t even increase college tuition for soldiers.
• “Defeat radical Islam.” What breeds radical Islam? Poverty. Just FYI.
• “When I am Commander in Chief, there will be no where the terrorists can run and no where they can hide.” Mkay, we’ll see. Does this mean you’re going to continue the “You’re either with us or against us” line.
• “I will bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. I will do that.” (Audience gives standing ovation.) And if Osama’s in Pakistan?
• The “galvanizing” factor of McCain’s speech cannot compare to that of Obama’s.

** While speaking with Andrea Mitchell, Trent Lott reiterated the claim that McCain “cornered” Obama into going to Iraq. These Republicans know fully well that, as the most probable presidential candidate, of course Obama would have visited before the election. He probably would have gone sooner had the Democratic primary not been so protracted.

Republicans are so comfortable in their cesspool of lies - whether it’s the China drilling off the U.S. Coast, Chuck Hagel going to Israel with Obama, Obama being Muslim and Racist, and many others. The Democrats are certainly not without their own political rhetoric, but an infestation of lies has not permeated Democrat strategies they way one has Republican strategies. Have they no honor, dignity or respect for the truth? They’re probably making Baby Jesus really, really angry.

Did Obama Just Lose My Vote?

This is serious. I’ve been saying for quite a while that Obama has not yet earned my vote and I am quite happy voting for Nader to help strengthen efforts toward a multi-party system. However, I voted for Obama in the primary here in Texas and was excited to vote for the first viable African-American candidate in the U.S.

Also, this is the most important election in years, if for no other reason than the necessity to populate the Supreme Court with judges who will protect civil liberties unlike those Bush has appointed or McCain would appoint.

While I have continuously lambasted the lack of character Hillary Clinton and her husband have shown during the primary season, I would not say I have been sipping “Obama Kool-Aid.” I understand that his “Change We Can Believe In” slogan is only as effective as his ability - to put it simply - to get things done. And politicians have to work together to accomplish progress. (Unless you’re President Bush, in which case you use the 9/11 attacks and existence of terrorism to scare Americans and politicians alike into marching behind your efforts to make the U.S. more of an authoritarian regime than ever before. Ugh, the thought makes it difficult to keep my coffee and chocolate granola cereal down.)

Obama is a politician first. With a degree in Government, I never lose sight of this. While Democrats fall in love (and Republicans fall in line) we must not forget that politicians must operate within the existing confines of the Washington Dance. This will inevitably lead to widespread disapointment with Obama, when he’s president, because he simply cannot please everyone and will have to compromise in order to accomplish certain goals. A president must make decisions when no option is the right one. It’s a hard gig - the hardest one in the world; I thoroughly recognize this.

However, much of my free time this week has been spent trolling the internet for a reasonable justification for Obama’s approval of the new FISA Act of 2008. Of course, I already have my fair share of underlying bitterness because the Democrats have performed disgracefully since taking control of the Congress. They are inexplicably banner ankle-grabbers again and again despite Bush’s record disapproval ratings. Yes, they do not want to seem weak on national security, but they are greatly underestimating the American people’s desire to have their civil liberties protected in this era of heightened danger.

Congressional members have far more concern with the length of their federal careers than casting the appropriate vote - rendering them impotent in the areas of war profiteering (Diane Feinstein’s husband is a defense contractor and why she still enjoys support in California, I have no idea. BTW, she vote AYE on FISA as well), criminal activity at the executive level (erasing emails, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers refusing to testify, Valerie Plame, fixing EPA reports and much, much more), reforming health care and national energy policy, policing unfair lending practices and allowing the establishment of a credit industry that works against the American people, not for them. It inexplicable that Congress has utterly failed to inhibit Bush’s harmful activities when the majority of Americans do not favor his policies in the slightest. It is frustrating and goddamned ridiculous.

So, Obama is Change personified, right?

Apparently, not so. Yes, I have read his blog on The Huffington Post regarding his FISA vote, which proffered no substantial logic for his approval of the bill. A few gems from the piece are:

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

The problem with our agreement on the vast majority of issues is that his vote on the FISA bill illustrates his inherent weakness and willingness to compromise when no comprise is needed simply to prove (which he fails to do with this vote) that he is strong on national security. This “aye” was unnecessary, dangerous, wrong, hurtful and potentially, yes, a deal breaker. Especially when assessing the guts of the bill, along with those who voted against it. On The Huffpo website, David Bromwich provides a very concise, yet in-depth look at the governmental powers granted with this legislation. I strongly recommend reading the blog and the readers’ comments below.

Among the senators who opposed the vote are Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Clinton, Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and Levin.

The bottom line is that political agreements with a candidate are moot if the candidate does not have the political strength or fortitude to operate in accordance with that agreement.

Of course, Obama’s folding on FISA was a political calculation - that’s practically consensus. And I wish he could offer an honest defense of his vote; but, alas, this theater of election season would lead any such candor to damage the candidate.

Obama will be elected president barring any unforeseen, intensely damaging and highly unlikely circumstances. Though the media portrays the presidential race as close - it is a facade. McCain’s chances of succeeding in November, in my opinion, are around 1 in 5. Incumbent parties do not win when the economy is in the tank - mentally or not (and it’s not mental, Phil, when milk, bread, cereal, gas and all other necessities are more and more expensive and the dollar is weaker and weaker). McCain is not galvanizing and voter trust of most election issues points toward Obama. I wish Obama the best and will be hopeful as he takes his oath of office.

Furthermore, I applaud Obama’s willingness to work across the aisle and understand there will be areas in which he will break with Liberals. Support of faith-based community initiatives, for one (and this coming from an agnostic).

The FISA Act, however, is so detrimental to democracy itself, my respect for not just Obama himself, but the very idea of Obama has been irreparably damaged. I would encourage hardcore Obama supporters to keep this particular vote of his in mind when daydreaming of the days to come as he takes on the heavy mantle of President of the United States of America. Perfection at this level does not exist and any romance with a candidate will certainly abate over time.

I would never cast a vote for McFlip-Flop, nor would I ever stay home and waste a voting opportunity. Also, I am a thorough, complete supporter of a multi-party system. While I wanted to vote for Obama - and was excited to vote for him - my decision was not cast in stone. It still is not cemented. However, the odds I would pull the lever in support of him this November are greatly diminished. Truthfully, I am ever more looking in Nader’s direction.

If Obama’s political contributions continue to decline, I encourage him to address his FISA ‘08 support with increased seriousness. This is no small issue for those of us who follow politics and government activity.

This weekend, I plan on purchasing Obama’s two books and will begin reading them with a large grain of salt. Perhaps this will allow me some insight behind this recent mind-boggling decision of his.

As of this point, Obama is not Hope and he is not Change We Can Believe In. He is merely Better Than Bush, but isn’t everybody else?

Review: Maxed Out

Are documentaries getting better or is it just me? At least, they’re getting more interesting. Last night, I watched Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lending (2006) and must offer my highest recommendations to those considering adding to their rental “queue.”

While this documentary is certainly a biased vehicle through which writer, director, producer James Duncan Scurlock expresses his opinions on the unethical credit industry and the government’s collusion, it nevertheless provides an eye-opening paradigm behind the every-man’s everyday experience with credit card companies. If you think you have it bad, watch this documentary - for real - and you’ll feel like you’re living large and in charge. And happiness is all in the mind, which is why the Danish are on top of the world.

It’s easy to take away from Maxed Out the the significance of the lack of regulation of the unethical credit industry by the government. It’s so cute when the Republicans and Libertarians parade their free market ideals and forget that the human element prevents these theories from successfully materializing, despite all the good intentions and numerical data. And they want to open the health care industry in the same manner - unregulated, free market doctors, medicine, scalpels. Yeah, that will work out real well! Lack of regulation has proven so effective in the housing industry, which has resulted in mass foreclosures and helped initiate a recession, and global trade, which provides us Americans cheap consumer goods by taking advantage of poor working conditions outside of our borders. Don’t ask don’t tell and the like.

What we need is a combination of economics and anthropology. The human element - which differs from culture to culture - inhibits capitalism, socialism or communism in their pure forms. China has had to mix capitalism with their brand of communism. The U.S. will never fully achieve a free market system that does not victimize the lowest common denominator. Until economists and legislators alike realize this fundamental reality and Americans stop falling for the right-wing line that all their taxes and all the government regulation only benefit the undeserving over the hard worker, we’re going to have these economic meltdowns - most especially when a Republican Congress rubberstamps a Republican White House.

But I digress as I often do.

Maxed Out hit home for me especially as I am a poster-child for financial misunderstanding and irresponsibility. To put it mildly, I bit off more than I could chew when I was in college and partied like a rock star in my early twenties. And while it can take a week to ruin your credit, it can take a lifetime to repair it. The cards are stacked against you and the system is designed to squeeze every penny from your cold, dead hands. It’s grotesque.

As a wise, old 30-something (does 30 count as 30-something?), I have seen the light and rectified my ways. What I have taken from my experience, however, is the belief in the necessity of financial training for children - especially teens. We have typing class, calculus, electives, foreign languages and yet the very basics of money-management is exempt from regular school curricula. I’m very happy to have learned about STD’s and what PCP does to the human and mice brains. But the development of my adulthood would have been greatly improved had the Texas School Board of Education seen fit at some point to include information on CHECKING ACCOUNTS, OVERDRAFT FEES, FICO SCORES, etc., etc., etc…

Few other skills in life rank above that of money management and merely having a weekly allowance doesn’t cut it. I have no idea why there are not parents at every PTO meeting calling for the inclusion of such education. We are left to our own devices and my devices were fairly shitty. I’m improving bit by bit (my stepdad gives me a subscription to Money Magazine), but you know it’s a long, hard slog and watching college loan payments the size of luxury car payments head into the wind every month still stings.

Quality of life is determined by the quality of our decisions and the quality of our decisions is largely dependent on the quality of our training and education. I knew nothing of finance when I entered my twenties, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to let avoidable circumstances dictate the outcome of my financial existence.

So, be smart, get learned and watch Maxed Out. Cause that shit is crazy.

Freaky Friday: John Edwards & Karl Rove to Debate

Did anyone catch this last Friday? The Buffalo News has learned that the University of Buffalo intends to include in its Distinguished Speaker Series a debate between John Edwards and Karl Rove on September 26. John Edwards and Karl Rove. Naturally, my mind immediately searches for the nearest comparison to such an unpredictable and unlikely competition of the minds (I use that term loosely).

The fastest duo to surface is, of course, Dopey vs. Beelzebub. But that’s too easy. I’m looking for something more nuanced. More apropos. Barbie vs. Cobra Commander? No…. Nemo vs. Ursula? No…. Luke Sykwalker vs. Jabba the Hutt? No! Not even close. John Edwards has no Force.

Gumby vs. Squealer from Animal Farm. That’s it.

Yes, I remember that John Edwards is a former trial attorney, but the images of him getting smoked by Dick Cheney in 2004 are seared into my brain. And while Karl Rove may have the morality of a dung beetle, his ability to misrepresent facts with a straight face is supernatural and would require Edwards to acquire an encyclopedic knowledge of politically-related statistics and their sources to properly refute Rove’s machinations. My not-so-amateur prediction is that John ain’t got the stuff. And I’m being kind.

If the debate is televised, I will certainly perform the masochistic duty of viewing the event - with a fist firmly planted between my teeth. Naturally, I try to avoid having Rove’s visage offend my home from the television and relegate my involvement with him by reading his erroneous comments online. Blech.

In the meantime, I’m going to entertain myself with paint.net and make fun graphics with hopeful themes.

john edwards crushes rove's head

I made Rove’s eyes red, but they may be too small to tell.

And did you see the headline on The Huffington Post this morning that Rep. Henry Waxman is considering legislation that would prevent a White House employee from being paid by taxpayer money to work on political affairs? He might wait until Obama is elected to launch this legislative attempt.

I’m encouraged by the possibility that Obama will roll back a number of powers Bush and Cheney concentrated at the executive level. McCain, of course, would not. Checks and balances are so silly, aren’t they?!

And one last tidbit of morning news - let’s give Howard Wolfson a big round of applause and wish him good luck as he joins Fox News. In a way I get it - he wants to bring a democratic voice to the network. But I also think he’s selling his soul to do it. Although, he seemed comfortable bending the truth when he worked for Hillary, so maybe he’ll fit right in.

Anti-Intellectualism Half a Century Ago

History repeats itself - an oft-repeated proverb warning us that the the lessons of the past are once again the sins of today. Certainly, I found myself mentally saying a church-worthy Amen! to this proverb as I began reading the Pulitzer Prize-winning Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter, published in 1962, 1963.

Let me just say that if this weren’t a library book, I’d be highlighting the hell out of it. Instead, I’m reduced to tearing post-it after post-it to mark all the points of interest. And I haven’t started Chapter 2. My consumption of this work is a result of research I’m conducting for my own respective book, but Hofstadter’s observations have already shocked me into open-mouth disbelief as his descriptions of the anti-intellectualism of the 1950’s readily apply to today’s culture clash between the learned and the petrified. The author does assert that anti-intellectualism suffers cyclical fluctuations and will never fully abate to the netherworlds of silly history, with other theories such as “the sun revolves around the Earth” and “the 2008 election will be between Giuliani and Hillary” (yeah, that was my own Nostradamus endeavors into electoral predictions).

So, please forgive the length of this blog as I indulge myself by providing a few (a bunch?) unusually relevant excerpts from Chapter 1, with my intensely insightful commentary to follow.

…the launching of Sputnik by the Soviets precipitated one of those periodic surges of self-conscious national reappraisal to which the American public is prone. The Sputnik was more than a shock to American national vanity: it brought an immense amount of attention to bear on the consequences of anti-intellectualism in the school sysytem and in American life at large. Suddenly, the national distaste for intellect appeared to be not just a disgrace but a hazard to survival. Pg 4-5.

Perhaps I’m overreaching in my cocoon of progressive political theory, but I view global warming and the rise in fuel prices as the space race of our day. Before you emit a Moe-esqe, “Whaaaa?”, allow me to explain. While there are untold quantities of hydrocarbon beneath the surface of the Earth in not only the U.S., but also Iran, Russia, the South China Sea and other areas, global energy demands - especially of India and China - are helping fuel the rise petrol prices and will continue to do so.

The U.S. must focus on a transcendent energy policy today in the same manner we did with the space race in the ’60’s. Scientific ambitions aiming at a forward-thinking fuel-efficiency and alternative-energy development will help the U.S. maintain a technological and, thus, economic advantage in global markets. If we can me be a maverick in this area, we just might hold on to our hegemony a bit longer - though that need not be the main goal. We need to ride the wave of motivation high gas prices are providing toward cleaner energy and end our reign as Pollution Bastards of the World (especially as China will pick up the slack and more).

The labels of Intellectuals and Anti-Intellectuals were thrown around in the 1950’s in much the same way Liberal and Conservative are today. They were used as bad words by those who hurled them against their opponents and worn as badges of honor by those they described. Obviously, Hofstadter was an intellectual and the examples of anti-intellectual rhetoric he presents are laughable in this day and age - hopefully in the same manner Creationism and Intelligent Design will be laughable in another half century. If you haven’t chuckled today, allow me to send some historical fodder from Anti-Intellectualim your way that will surely entertain:

Novelist “of the right-wing persuasion,” Louis Broomfield, pg 9:

Egghead (euphemism for intellectual): A person of spurious intellectual pretensions…Fundamentally superficial. Over emotional and feminine in reactions to any problem. Supercilious and surfeited with conceit and contempt for the experience of more sound and able men. Essentially confused in thought and immersed in mixture of sentimentality and violent evangelism…

President Eisenhower’s definition of an intellectual, pg. 10:

…a man who takes more words than are necessary to tell more than he knows.

The disdain for intellectualism opened education and the education system itself up for the attacks from the more conservative commentators of the day as well.

Billy Graham, pg 15:

You can stick a public school and a university in the middle of every block of every city in America and you will never keep America from rotting morally by mere intellectual education.

[In place of the Bible] we substituted reason, rationalism, mind culture, science worship, the working power of government, Freudianism, humanism, behaviorism, positivism, materialism, and idealism. [This work of ] so-called intellectuals. Thousands of these ‘intellectuals’ have publicly stated that morality is relative–that there is no norm or absolute standard…

Arthur Bestor, junior-high school principal in Illinois, pg. 17:

When we come to the realization that not every child has to read, figure, write and spell . . . that many of them either cannot or will not master these chores . . . then we shall be on the road to improving the junior high curriculum.

(This is the best part) Between this day and that a lot of selling must take place. But it’s coming. We shall some day accept the thought that it is just as illogical to assume that every boy must be able to read as it is that each one must be able to perform on a violin, that it is no more reasonable to require that each girl shall spell well than it is that each one shall bake a good cherry pie.

I’ve never made a cherry pie, but I can make a mean cherry cobbler. Does that count?

Jack Schwartzman, of the Freeman, pg. 13:

Our universities are the training grounds for the barbarians of the future, those who, in the guise of learning , shall come forth loaded with pitchforks of ignorance and cynicism, and stab and destroy the remnants of human civilization…

If you send your son to the college of today, you will create the Executioner of tomorrow. The rebirth of idealism must come from the scattered monasteries of non-collegiate thought.

Does it get any better than that?! This quotation thoroughly tickles my funny bone because I have a close family member, who recently turned 70, who continually blames my political viewpoints on the fact that I attended “one of those liberal universities.” I had no idea the University of Texas was a cesspool of left-wing larva ready infiltrate governmental policy-making (don’t tell the frat boys!). In fact, he repeats that these “liberal colleges” are why young people tack liberal and why this world is going to hell in a handbag. I continually try to remind him that I retained nothing from college classes. Especially French.

And perhaps to close, this final quotation from Hofstadter himself that proves yet another proverb: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Pg 12 - and keep in mind, he wrote this in 1962:

Far more acute and sweeping was the hostility to intellectuals expressed on the far-right wing, a categorical folkish dislike of the educated classes and of anything respectable, established, pedigreed, or cultivated. The right-wing crusade of the 1950’s was full of heated rhetoric about ‘Harvard professors, twisted-thinking intellectuals . . . in the State Department.’

Am I the only one who feels like they’re in the Twilight Zone? George Bush thinks the jury is still out on global warming AND evolution. Hillary Clinton somehow warped into the working man’s candidate (talk about shape-shifting) and decried “experts” who opposed her gas tax holiday. Schools across the country are peppered with teachers who want to assert Intelligent Design as a scientific principle when it’s the absolute antithesis to the definition of science itself.

When will these perverted objectors realize that science, math, literature - EDUCATION - is what provided them their military weaponry, their computers, their energy capabilities, every day conveniences, “free market” dreams, and overall U.S. success and domination. It is a shame that people have to suffer when factories close and the jobs that require less education go overseas. As it is natural for species to go extinct in biological evolution and so is the case with jobs during economic evolution. Would the laid-off factor worker rather keep his job, yet amputate the very tools with which the U.S. retains its global position and military domination? Well, that would be unpatriotic.

Anti-Intellectualism is an embarrassment that has enjoyed many a decade hindering the development of humanity. For some inexplicable reason, Americans tend to wallow in more than their fair share. I suppose fear of change and development is at the heart of the matter, though it is hard for me to reconcile the “Great American Dream” with this entrenched detestation of progress and reason.

I do, however, think we’ve come a long way since Hofstadter penned his academic opinions. College education is ever more the norm and I’m sure 50 years from now we’ll laugh at the crazy old people who didn’t want the gays to marry and thought someone having a college education was a clear indication of an elitist in their midst. And I appreciated a sentiment by James Carville (who has stoked some of my ire during the current primary season) who said on AC 360 the other evening, “Competence is patriotic.” Well, halle-freaking-lujah.

I can tell I’m really going to enjoy the rest of this book. In the meantime, let’s get-to on those alternative energy sources!!

High Gas Prices are, Indeed, a Good Thing

At least, when it comes to the environment and America’s legendary wastefulness.

We’re not a country of people who like to be told what to do. Janet Jackson railed against her parents “Control,” Madonna pleaded with her papa not to preach - she’s keeping her baby. I’m dating myself. Wait - I know Sum 41 doesn’t fall in line and become a victim of conformity. Shit, they’re Canadian.

ANYWAY. As Robert Reich said in The Work of Nations (if I remember correctly from college and i may not. the year i smoked the most weed, i made the dean’s list.), wealth is a relative term determined by what your neighbor either has or doesn’t. And Americans want to be wealthy. We want cavernous houses with rolling yards that require us to live far out of town.

Last August, the Gallup Poll reported the average American commuted 46 minutes on their way to work. Eighty-five percent of those polled said they drive themselves. For our commute, we choose Yahoes (Yukons or Tahoes), Hummers, and - here in Texas - massive trucks that don’t even fit in the average parking space, forcing the driver to slant their truck across two spots, giving me a crisis of conscience every time I feel an almost-unstoppable desire to key the offending truck. For Father’s Day, Nissan has been playing an ad in the DFW area, calling the Armada “Dad Big.” WTF??

We want to buy cheap products from China who use their low-cost labor, lack of consumer watch-dog, and terrible environmental standards to stock Wal-Mart’s shelves with every product imaginable and pollute more than many developed countries combined. Our celebrity royalty with their private jets have left carbon tread marks in the skies between L.A. and N.Y. Yet even the rich live paycheck to paycheck, relying on credit for the mini-mansions and gas-guzzlers, voting Republican and denying the existence of global warming (which is akin to, I don’t know…denying evolution, which even our glorious president does). We all know the song (shout out, neil diamond).

And as out-of-control gas prices portend a coming credit crisis, cause consumer goods to cost most families their first-born and lead to an increase in the foul language used at gas pumps across the nation - there is a reason to celebrate.

The Department of Transportation said yesterday Americans drove 30 billion - that’s BILLION - less miles between Nov. ‘07 and April ‘08 than during the same period the previous year. SUV sales were down 38 percent this May over last year (disclaimer: I say this while planning an SUV as my next vehicle purchase. However, it takes me, like, a whole year to drive 3,000 miles.) The media has ubiquitous reports of Pruises selling like hotcakes and the American Public Transportation Association reported June 2 that Americans took 85 million more trips on public transportation during the first quarter of ‘08 than during the same time the previous year.

Perhaps these high gas prices will continue to decrease our wasteful use of hydrocarbons and encourage us to live closer to work - even if in smaller houses - and drive less. I have to say the most annoying, yet beneficial idea that has emerged out of this crisis is the “staycation” which Urban Dictionary defines as: A vacation that is spent at one’s home enjoying all that home and one’s home environs have to offer or a vacation close to home. As a lake girl, I’ve long been a practitioner of such local enjoyment. Texas has the best lakes - nice and warm and perfect with a cooler full of beer floating beside you. This year, we only plan on traveling to Vegas - and that’s to tie the knot, which I think justifies expanding our carbon footprint out of state. God, I love Vegas.

In the meantime, whenever I spot a Smart Car, I’ll give a silent hoorah to the driver.

And I’ll think “Holy Crap, that Commuter Car is crazy awesome!” Seriously - go to the website, the photos are insane.

Personal Note: You guys at FireSociety Forum who started Carbon Belch Day are going to hell. I mean, I know I’m going to hell - but for other reasons, like if “Carbon Belch Day” had been a joke, I’d think it was hysterical. But, from what I can tell, you guys are for real. Even if you don’t believe in global warming (and, not to be judgmental, but that means you’re an unresearched, closed-minded schmo of ridonkulous proportions), it still makes sense to operate as environmentally-friendly as possible simply to cut down on waste and smog. You must be poor decision-makers and it is well known that poor decision-makers tend to have shitty lives and either end up in prison (in which your carbon footprint would be reduced anyway) or on Judge Judy. Either way, I’ll see you in eternal damnation, biotches (the use of that word dates me as well, doesn’t it?).

Rummy Declines to Endorse McCain

Looks like there’s dissent in the dysfunctional elderly Republican sandbox. When asked by The Hill whether he would support McFlipflop for president, former disastrous Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not offer an answer.

Afterwards, lightning struck the former SoD when he claimed he was not following the election and instead focusing on his private foundation. Not following the election. And I’m a size 2.

Rummy was not injured by the lightning strike. Apparently, he built up an immunity to lightning strikes during his latest White House cabinet tenure whenever discussing the Iraq War.

This photo, taken in July 2002, shows the bandaging required during Rumsfeld’s testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The explanation given for the cast was “arthritis surgery.” We know the truth.

According to a Senate investigation, it was during this time that Rumsfeld started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions and sensory deprivation.

Hall of Shame II: Crazy Hillary Extremists

I have reached the conclusion that any extremist on any side of the political prism is harmful to the democratic process. Once a person reaches the conclusion that their ideals are the correct ones and solidifies the certainty of their philosophy, they no longer are capable of learning. And to make good decisions, one has to learn and be informed on a continual basis. A person incapable of learning, questioning or investigating has a paralyzed mentality and should excuse themselves from the participatory stage of elections and governing.

FRINGE ELEMENT

And every candidate, every party, every philosophy has their crazies. Whether they are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage OR the Ron Paul Nutters OR self-immolating monks OR rawtarians OR the Elvis Lives Fan Club, there are groups of people who have skirted the limitations of reason and become what we call “The Fringe Element.” Obama has them, too. In the footage of his rallies, you can spot those wily-eyed supporters who see nothing objectionable, offer no criticism and refuse to view the Democratic nominee through the lens of reality. They, however, never threatened to abandon the Democratic party if he did not receive the nomination.

And this is where we address another “Fringe Element” garnering media attention. A man named Ed Hale has launched a website, hcsfjm.com, which apparently represents The National Organization of Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. He essentially wants to unify people who would do their utmost to keep Obama from reaching the White House. Hale claims to be “one of them bible thumping, gun toting red necks and dam [sic] proud of it” who wants his grandchildren to be free from the fear of being killed by a terrorist. Apparently, if Obama is elected, at the very least, our fear of a terrorist attack would skyrocket because his version of security would create another Baghdad here in the USA. Compelling, I know.

Now, I must suspect that Ed - who is a lifelong Democrat - is actually from that demographic element I wrote of in an earlier blog who is a remnant from the days before Democrats and Republicans swapped demographics. We have many of them here in Texas and they are a reason the Oklahoman governor is a Democrat. These are people who are fundamentally conservative and tend to vote Republican, but their pappy was a Democrat and their grandpappy was a Democrat and their grandpappy’s grandpappy was a Democrat, so they’re a Democrat, too.

Ed is also one of those petrified “fringe element” types. Non-negotiable. Security over liberty. Political promises over character and judgment. I support him in his swap to the McCain camp because he agrees with McCain’s politics more than Obama’s. I get it. Not really a big loss for us true lefties and probably should have been a Republican in the first place if he was more concerned with political philosophy than party loyalty and straight-ticket voting.

REVENGE VOTERS

However, there are many Hillary supporters who are promising to vote for McCain over Obama, not because of political philosophy, but for revenge. They want to see a 2008 McCain victory because they are sure Hillary would run again and win in 2012. These people should be shot.

Exhibit A: In this video, you will see a gay man on the far right, in a brown shirt with a turquoise Hillary signature.

***Currently having technical difficulties embedding the videos.

To view the first one, click here.

He was behind her at the Kentucky victory rally as well:

To view the second one here.

He was also interviewed on the Daily Show episode, which aired June 4, in which he told Aasif Mandvi that he is as gay as the day is long and he’s voting for McCain.

These are not people who disagree fundamentally with Obama, but are simply the sorest of losers. They turned a blind eye to Clinton’s slash-and-burn, flawed campaign which gave Obama a fair and square victory (Michigan and Florida seated or not) and they were not rewarded. Nor should they have been.

Now, they are willing to continue sending our troops to an unnecessary death in Iraq, they are willing to allow our government to continue using warrantless wiretaps, make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, squash the idea of universal health care and give their vote to a monumental flipflopper all in the name of political revenge.

I have no respect for these people who would allow their emotions to dominate a decision that requires the most educated and informed of all logic. Bush has proven that the election of the U.S. president has global consequences. Yet these people prioritize their selfish, self-centered demands over funds for AIDS in Africa, preventing a war of choice on Iran, the increase in unfair trade, environmental protection, and the plethora of detrimental Bush policies McCain would either continue or worsen.

They will have blood on their hands if McCain wins. When polar bears go extinct and children sew soccer balls and the situation in the Middle East continues to devolve, it will be their fault.

Suggestion to all you revenge voters: Pull your heads out of your asses. Thems the breaks. Vote Nader. Vote Bob Barr. But don’t relegate the rest of us to four more years of inanity and tragically pandemic destruction just because your girl couldn’t get her shit together and cared more about her candidacy than unity of the Democratic party - you being the prime example of her political selfishness.

People died and gave their lives for our right to vote. It is no small matter. Obama is most politically similar to Hillary than any other candidate. If you are going to use your right to vote not to express your political opinion, but rather your spite, you are a morally reprehensible being and dishonoring all those who fought for our freedoms.

And if you vote for McCain, fine, you’ll just be a loser again. How’s them apples?

Touchdown! Barack Obama Named Democratic Nominee

Jeeeeeeez. Sigh. Phew.

I think the gloriousness in my emotion is more directed at the fact that Hillary lost than that Barack won, in all truth. Most of my blogs on this issue have focused on her lacking rather than his qualities. I’m sure she won’t go quietly into the night but at least I’m not having heart palpitations with the intruding thought that the presidential contest will be between Hillary and McFlipflop. It’s a good night with a sentiment that will pass quickly as the real mudwrestling begins.

That being said, Obama still has not earned my vote. Now that he has clenched the nomination, it’s time to read up on his books - my mom said she received a right-wing email today that included shockingly racist quotations from his books. I told her to forward it to me so I can check it out, but I’m not holding my breath.

Another consideration upon which I now must focus is how strident Republican support and participation is this election and if it’s cemented that Texas will go red in November. Everyone I know says something different and I don’t even want to hope that TX can change gears. Remember, high gas prices are a GOOD thing here.

So, my preliminary thoughts are: if it’s close here in TX, I’ll vote Obama. If it’s not, I’ll vote Nader - which will really be a vote in support of the multi-party system. Only time will tell and with a primary season so cattywampus, who the hell knows what’s going to happen in the general?!

Used paperback copies of The Audacity of Hope are only $7.89 on Amazon right now. Score.

Let’s Talk Scott McClellan

I waited to comment on the whole Benedict McClellan issue until I seen a few of his interviews and how the media reacted and, I have to say, I’m disappointed in our journalistic brethren - but when am I not, really? He’ll be on Hardball later today and I’ll watch that without expectation that Chris Matthews will somehow cunningly extract new revelations from our little Texas pudge muffin.

One of the most important, yet eentzy facts when addressing What Happened? has only reached my ears once amid the media and political brouhaha the book has stirred. He repeatedly says he’s from a political family and, as a Texas resident, allow me to offer you a little history. His mother is Carol Keeton Strayhorn, a well-known politician in our state having served as first female mayor of state capital Austin, state comptroller of public accounts, as well as the first woman on the Texas Railroad Commission (which largely regulates the oil and gas industry) and, lastly, having run for governor in our last election. She started out as a Democrat (most rural Oklahomans and Texans are old-school Democrats from the times before the parties swapped demographics decades ago), but caught up with the times and became Republican in the 80’s. Recently, she opted to break from the state Republican party, who currently suckles at the teat of Gov. Rick Perry (Bush’s Lt. Governor and arguably one of the worst governors in TX history) and register her gubernatorial campaign under the Independent banner. She claimed she wanted to set partisan politics aside. Now we’ve been hearing that theme from her son as one of the main reasons he served Bush and continued to serve Bush while disagreeing with him on weighted issues such as the war of choice that has developed into the quagmire of Iraq.

I’m not questioning the sincerity of their claims of detestation of the partisan politics - in fact, I’m glad to see long-established Republicans breaking from the good ‘ol boy system we have in Texas. However, those in search of an understanding of the motivations behind What Happened? as well as McClellan’s seemingly openness to an Obama vote must look to his status as mamma’s boy, rather than as former press secretary for Bush.

(that’s scott on the left - found the photo in The Austin Chronicle)

One of the assertions I have found helpful in my few efforts to understand Scott McClellan is that he was misused as press secretary and simply wasn’t a good candidate for the position. I concur. Having watched many of his press conferences, his inability to communicate effectively with the press corps and adversarial relationship with it made it painful to watch as he inartfully dodged question after question. Robert Draper, author of Dead Certain (I’ll submit a review of this book soon), characterized Scott McClellan as, “looking like nothing so much as a terrified if well-fed koala bear as he peered out from behind the press room podium and recited his message lines as if at gunpoint.”

While it is true the administration simply used the position of press secretary as merely a buffer from the intrusion of the media and not as a way to effectively reach the American people, Scott still clearly misunderstood the priority of the podium. He repeatedly, almost certainly, used plausible deniability as a justification not to push for information from the administration and clearly underestimated his responsibility as message-deliverer. While he states in his book that Bush convinces himself of whatever he needs to in order to stick to his guns, Scott obviously did so as well.

The mere fact that there is so much “pot calling the kettle black” in this book is quite unsettling. Also, upon hearing the style of speech and grammatical mistakes in McClellan’s interviews, I am almost positive he used a ghostwriter as the quotations I’ve read from the book are incredibly poignant and well-written. Many people write much better than they speak (especially with the help of an editor) and it is not a huge deal to use a ghostwriter, but it is an issue I think he should address in his media campaign. While many of these memoirs use ghostwriters, I doubt Dee Dee Myers, George Stephanopolous, Doug Feith or Ari Fleischer relied so heavily on someone else’s pen. As a writer, I feel this makes a difference in the sincerity of the book.

I do agree that Scott McClellan should have had the fortitude of character to leave the a