The real division in America...

...is not Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal.

The real division in this country is between those who think and value education, scholarship, reason and wisdom in our leaders, and those who think any old Joe the plumber or snarky Sarah can pontificate about foreign policy or lead the country.

Thinking Republicans and conservatives, for instance, even if they support McCain, have determined that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president. The latest is former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger. While he still supports the Republican ticket, he says he prays Palin would not have to take over the presdidency. Colin Powell, who does not support McCain, also thinks she is a disaster. Other Republicans have come out for Obama, or expressed concern about Palin's knowledge and wisdom, and I imagine many more who say nothing will silently vote for Obama in the privacy of the voting booth.

Newspaper endorsements are going more than two to one for Obama, even in some right leaning papers. Educated people, by far, are supporting Obama. People in cities are supporting Obama. The demographic that appears to be the strongest for McCain is the rural, uneducated and "low information" voter. Of course, some are voting for McCain simply out of party loyalty, while others still maintain Republicans are better on cultural - religious issues.

But in this election year, after eight years of a low information president, a president who has clearly made a mess of everything, it seems the high information voters, the educated Americans, those who think as well as pray, want the most intelligent presidential candidate and the most qualified vice presidential candidate to run the country.

It's no longer good enough to let a good old boy ascend to the presidency. It's no longer okay to say you want a president you can have a beer with - at least to those who value expertise and intelligence.

The history books will say, should Obama win, that Sarah Palin was the final nail in McCain's presidential coffin. In a year when the high information voters (including all those young college students) outnumbered low information voters, Sarah Palin was an insult.

Her crazed supporters may love her because she is folksy and like them, but the rest of us find her presence on the ticket a slap in the face to Americans who have watched a dimwit run the country into the ground over the past eight years. With all the talented people that still remain in the Republican Party, it is astonishing that McCain would choose Sarah Palin and her dysfunctional family to appeal to the rural, uninformed and often racist voter.

John McCain insulted thinking Americans when he chose her, and with that one decision disqualified himself from being the chief decision maker in the country.

McCain is a slimeball

McCain is a slimeball.

McCain is a sleaze-bucket.

McCain has no honor.

Obama has never run any ad even remotely like these.

May McCain get everything he justly deserves for this disgusting attack on an honorable and decent man. And that goes double for Sarah Dolittle.

And may the Republican Party slink off and die a quick death. This is not the America I grew up loving - this is an America where one political opponent lies, cheats and slanders his opponent, not because he cares one whit about the country, but because his quest for power and glory cannot be thwarted.

Christian in name only

It amazes me how many self-described evangelical Christians are rabidly supportive of John McCain and Sarah Palin. How many commandments must McCain and Palin break before these Christian phonies finally reject them?

Let's see. How about the commandment about not bearing false witness, or not lying about someone else? McCain and Palin are outright lying about Obama. Obama is not a socialist. He has no desire for the government to control the means of production. He isn't for state sponsored universal health care, for example. He's for continuing the system of employer sponsored health insurance, with help offered to those who must buy their own policies. That isn't socialism.
Neither is giving tax breaks to the middle class or returning to a more progressive income tax, all policies which have been used for decades in our capitalist system.

So the accusation that Obama is a socialist is a lie, as is the accusation that Obama "pals around with terrorists." First of all Obama doesn't even pal around with one terrorist. He sat on a board with William Ayers, a radical from the sixties who turned himself in and was not convicted of anything. Ayers is now a college professor and a well known advocate for better education policy. If he was once considered a "terrorist," he is not now. (Most real Christians believe in redemption and forgiveness anyway, so why is this an issue?) And Obama has nothing to do with him today and hasn't for years. As for the plural "terrorists," this is even more of a lie. No one has been able to name any former radical other than Ayers or any current terrorist that Obama associates with. So Palin is lying.

How about the commandment to not steal? The republicans are trying desperately to steal the election, by knocking people off voting rolls illegally, by sending out notices that democrats must vote on November 5th, and by using voting machines that have no paper trail and are in some cases recording the votes wrongly.

The republicans in this election (and in the past two) lie, cheat and steal. They slander and whip up hatred in their rallies. Obama, by way of contrast, praises McCain's service, never attacks him for who he is, and tells his listeners not to boo, but just to vote. Obama's behavior is far more Christian than that of Sarah Palin.

I am sick of these "Christians." I am sick of their hatred for gay Americans and black Americans and Mexican Americans, all of whom are children of God. This is a violation of one of the two commandments Jesus gave: love your neighbor as you love yourself.

I am also sick of the gullibility of these Christians-in-name-only who still believe that the republican party will actually do anything to stop abortion. They have had thirty years to do something and they have done nothing. And they never will, because they know there will always be gullible self-righteous "Christians" whom they can deceive into believing that democrats have a "pro-abortion" agenda, which they most definitely do not.

Obama is not pro-abortion, in fact he intends to implement policies to reduce the number of abortions. Abortions generally are reduced in democratic administrations when poverty is reduced, but are increased in republican administrations when poverty levels rise. (70% of all abortions occur in the poor segments of society.) But republicans have decided their one political strategy is to elect "pro-life" candidates who promise to appoint supreme court justices who will overturn Roe V. Wade. There are three flaws with this argument:

1. Republican presidents probably won't nominate justices who will overturn Roe V. Wade because it will mean the end of Republican dominance of the presidency. Once you lose that issue, what else do you have? War and depression?

2. Even if Roe V. Wade is overturned, it won't limit abortions as many states will make abortion legal, and women in states where it is illegal will simply travel to another state, or find an illegal way to have an abortion.

3. Women always have and always will have abortions, legal or not. The legal strategy may change federal law, but it will not likely reduce abortions. Only persuasion and policies to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce poverty levels will do that, and Republicans are failures at all of those things.

Democrats reduce the number of abortions by addressing underlying reasons for abortion: lack of education about contraception, lack of access to contraception, poverty, violent sexual crimes against women. Republicans do just the opposite. They ignore or make worse every possible strategy that could help desperate and vulnerable women, but are all too willing to condemn them when they seek an abortion because someone rapes them, or molests them, or when they are too poor to raise another child but have no access to birth control to prevent pregnancy.

Republicans say abortion is murder. Perhaps so, perhaps not. But Roe V. Wade does not mandate abortion, it simply permits it within the law. On the other hand, war is state sponsored murder. Soldiers are mandated to kill both combatants and civilians. And war waged for false reasons is especially heinous, as is this Iraq War. Yet Republicans, including many "Christians," seem almost universally in favor of both war and capital punishment, two types of state sponsored killing. I find this the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Most democrats I know are morally opposed to abortion and would not have one themselves. But they simply do not think that in the first trimester the government should intervene in a decision a woman makes with her doctor. They also think a woman has a right to protect her life when pregnancy threatens it, and that rape and incest are special circumstances that a woman must be allowed to consider in deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy. No one I know likes abortion. But democrats believe making abortion illegal is a violation of medical privacy, would be difficult to enforce, and would not likely make much of a dent in the number of abortions anyway. On the other hand, they believe the numbers of abortions can be reduced with the strategies listed above.

I'm tired of being preached to by Christians-in-name-only who slander others, lie about political opponents, try to steal elections, and cheer state sponsored killing. I'm tired of them using the Bible as a weapon. And I'm really tired of being attacked by "pro-life" people because I don't think abortion is the business of the state.

I'll take my chances with the version of Christianity I learned growing up. Love your enemies, be good to those that persecute you, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, take care of the poor, and judge not lest you be judged.

And I'm voting for the man who best embodies those principles: Barack Obama.

A woman president

Two women have been on the national stage this presidential election.

Hillary Clinton, clearly among the most qualified candidates ever for the presidency - male or female - had the misfortune of competing in the primary against a brilliant candidate with a superior organization. Had it not been for Barack, she would have easily won the nomination and probably defeated John McCain. While she was a formidable opponent and one whose tactics I condemned repeatedly, once she was defeated she showed real class in throwing her support to Obama and in campaigning enthusiastically for the Democratic ticket.

The other candidate pales in comparison. Sarah Palin is clearly the least qualified candidate to ever run for the vice presidency. A radical right wing no-nothing, she has become a joke and an embarassment, not just to the McCain campaign, but to all the women of America who hoped for someone bright and experienced to represent them. No matter how much the Republicans claim she has experience, being governor of Alaska is like handling a state in the 1800's. It just doesn't qualify you to understand and be prepared to handle the enormously complex economic and foreign crises of the twenty-first century. And as the campaign realizes it is losing, possibly in a landslide, Palin is not remaining loyal to McCain. She is going her own way, speaking her own mind, rejecting the advice of her handlers and the presidential candidate, and causing dissension in the ranks. She cares only for her own repuation and her quest for power, even as she throws John McCain overboard.

Unless Palin consolidates power within the Party (and she is more likely to cause it to fracture) I doubt we will see a female Republican candidate at the top of the ticket for a long time. On the other hand, we may see Hillary or some other qualified Democrat in 2016. Hillary has conducted herself well and proven a woman can be a terrific candidate. Palin has conducted herself poorly and proven that a woman can also be merely an ornament, a well-dressed, well-coifed Barbie doll, with little intelligence but a lot of bitchiness.

Sarah Palin is not the kind of woman I want to be the first female president. Palin is the anti-feminist, someone who rejects feminism even as she has only gotten to where she is because of the feminist movement.

I want the first woman president to be a feminist, someone who understands how to be a strong woman without being a bitchy woman, someone who has intelligence and wisdom, grace and poise - not someone who simply has good looks.

And I want the first woman president to be a Democrat. If Hillary wants to run in 2016, that would be fine with me.

Sarah Palin must not just be defeated on November 4th - she must be permanently marginalized

Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, discusses Sarah Palin's anti-science and radical religious views, which remind me of the views of some other people I know.

He closes with this:

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.

I particularly like his reference to "theocratic bullies." These are people who knock on your door and try to sell you their god, or accost you on your way out of K-Mart with their propaganda. These are people who are so convinced of their own righteousness and the inerrancy of their literal interpretation of the Bible (which is the only thing they have ever studied), that they use scripture as a weapon in political arguments and want the entire nation to adhere to their fantasies of witchcraft and demons and end of days theology.

It isn't enough to defeat Sarah Palin at the polls in one week. She must be stopped from ever entering the national public arena again. She, and those like her who want to make America a theocracy, must be marginalized permanently.

People first!

John McCain's campaign slogan is "Country First."

I'm not exactly sure what that means, and suppose it is deliberately vague so you can read what you want into it. But it strikes me as typical Republican uber-patriotism - similar to "America right or wrong" and "You're either with us or against us."

It signifies all those things Republicans demand of leaders: wearing a flag pin, being for a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, insisting on victory in Iraq and anywhere else America fights, supporting the troops, never criticizing your country, never opposing war, etc.

None of these things - except supporting the troops who are being abused so terribly by this administration - are important to me. None of them help any of my fellow citizens solve their problems. In fact, some of them actually create problems for my fellow citizens. Demanding "victory" in Iraq, for instance, which is something McCain does, is simply an excuse to keep troops on endless rotations in that god-forsaken country, because no one has any idea what victory actually means. And I guess it is something different from "Mission Accomplished."

But then I'm a Democrat - a defeatist, a blame American first person, according to Republicans.

Actually, as a Democrat, rather than putting "Country First," I put people first.

This government we cherish does not exist to protect a configuration on a map or an ideal in the minds of Americans. It exists to protect the people of that land and to help solve their common problems. It exists to provide both safety and prosperity for all the people, or as the Preamble to the Constitution puts it so well: to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." To do those things, one must put people first.

So, while McCain's supporters wave signs saying "COUNTRY FIRST," Obama's supporters might legitimately carry signs saying "PEOPLE FIRST."

Because that's what the Democratic Party stands for: putting people first.

A less insular nation

Nate Silver's latest map is below. If this projection holds, it shows something very interesting.

We have long recognized that the two coasts are far more liberal and democratic than the South and the prarie states. But it now seems that, with the exception of the old Confederacy and the states heavily populated by Mormons, the rest of America may be becoming less conservative.

Western states that border Mexico are blue (were John McCain not running it is likely that Arizona would also be blue) and Northern states that border Canada are blue or pink (only leaning Republican). So all the states, again with the exception of the old Confederacy, that are on the border of oceans or other countries are moving in a more progressive and less conservative direction.

This has everything to do with being exposed to other cultures and new ideas and being less insular. In a global community, this is essential. It's hopeful to see it happening.

One thinks of Lincoln, on the verge of greatness

Obama in Colorado today.

The crowd exceded 100,000.

The nation is hungry for the hope he offers.

I am overwhelmed by this moment in history.

Republicans are killing my mother

My mother, who has leukemia and depends on visits to the hospital infusion center for blood transfusions, was told yesterday that the center is closing as of next Friday. The hospital recently expanded, adding a huge emergency room and maternity center, but they claim they can no longer afford to keep the infusion center open.

My mother has Medicare and a great supplemental insurance policy and her transfusions are paid for, but too many people without health insurance are coming to the emergency room, where they can't be turned away, and too many people are suffering from this terrible economy and cannot pay their hospital bills. And so, the hospital has decided to no longer pay for infusion nurses and is shutting down the center that not only provides blood tranfusions, but also chemotherapy to hundreds of patients.

To my knowledge, there is no other infusion center in this area.

So my mother, who cannot travel long distances and who must be close to my father who is disabled, will die sooner than she might have with proper care at an infusion center.

Thank you, Republicans. You are responsible for this.

You have been adamantly against health coverage for all, causing hospitals to lose money when they treat the uninsured. The moron in the White House said people without health insurance still have health care - all they have to do is go to the emergency room. What the moron didn't say is that these people often don't pay their emergency room bills, causing financial hardship to the hospitals who must pay for staff salaries and medical supplies regardless, which then causes them to cut back on other services or even close.

You have also been idiotic advocates of a failed economic policy which, rather than causing wealth to "trickle down," has caused a wasteland of poverty and job loss and bank failures and stock market collapse. This, too, affects a hospital's ability to remain financially solvent.

So, in addition to increasing poverty, enriching the top 1% of the population, depriving Americans of health insurance, waging immoral wars, and ruining the economy with an ideology that even Alan Greenspan now says was flawed (if you had listened to us you would have seen it coming, but you are such arrogant, ignorant lemmings that you refused to listen), you are also killing people.

Congratulations!

You have not even begun to see my rage.

Grief and hope

I just looked at the last time I posted (five days ago) and realize some of you may be wondering where I've been.

My father in law died last week and this Wednesday was the funeral. He would have loved the send-off. His six children and almost all of his grandchildren and many great grandchildren were there. A fire truck accompanied the funeral procession of this well loved retired Battalion Chief. The party afterwards was lovely, with many stories about him told with love and happy memories. My grandson Sean didn't attend the funeral, but came to the gathering afterwards and asked why everyone has a "party" when someone dies. "Did you expect that everyone would be crying and sad?" I asked. He said "yes." It was an opportunity to tell him that when someone dies, we cry, but we also get together to celebrate his life. He then went on to eat everything in sight and chase after some of his cousins.

The funeral was only the midpoint of a dreadful week. On Monday, my mother awoke with a terrible pain in her side that got progressively worse. I took her to her blood test and then on to her primary care doctor who did a number of tests and was wonderful to her. She even put her in a wheelchair and walked her out to the car herself when everyone else had gone out to lunch and there was no nurse to help us out. We went home with pain pills and antibiotics and then her oncologist called with her lab results and said he wanted us to come in the next day. My husband and I spent the night to watch over her and help her and my disabled dad, and got little sleep.

On Tuesday, we visited the oncologist in the morning, who told us my mom's chemo was no longer working and her leukemia cells were increasing. Her pain, he thought, could be her spleen, although by the time he saw us the pain was going away. It could have been a slight tear in the spleen, a bleed brought on by her low platelet count. She needed a platelet transfusion that day as well. In the evening, my two sons from Seattle came in and my San Diego son picked them up at the airport and brought them here, then we all talked for a while and got to bed late. I had arranged for a caregiver to spend the night and the next day with my parents so I could go to the funeral.

I left the funeral early to be with my parents, and wait for my husband and sons to finish visiting and join me there later. My Seattle sons had not seen their grandmother since January and they had a nice, though short, visit.

On Thursday, I took my mom to her blood test and then my husband and I took our sons to the airport, came home and collapsed. I awoke at 1:30 and couldn't get back to sleep.

On Friday, a hospice nurse came to see my mom, dad and I to talk about what they could provide. And then my mom went to the hospital for a transfusion and I came home for a much needed nap.

There is much more to say about what happened at the party after the funeral, in terms of political arguments that were started with my husband and one son because family members (conservative republican McCain supporters) saw our Obama bumper stickers and felt the need to challenge us. I wasn't there when it happened, but word got back to me. I will have much more to say about that tomorrow, after a night's sleep.

Don't give up on me or my blog. I'm going through a lot, but the one bright spot is that when I was up in the wee hours this morning, the news channels were showing clips from last night's Saturday Night Live special. Oh...and Barack Obama has a huge lead in the polls.

I can endure a lot if I know our country is finally going to be in the hands of a wise and gifted leader.

I am beginning to hope and while my husband and I are losing our parents, members of the "Greatest Generation" I see good things for the next generation, things I can't wait to write about.

2008 is light years away from 2004

In the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, the Republican Party had an effective strategy for victory involving several factors:

1. Ground game
2. Framing
3. Cultural Divisiveness
4. Money advantage
5. Disenfranchisement of minority voters
6. Smears

In 2000, this strategy actually lost them the popular vote, which they interpreted as deficits in numbers 1 and 3. Rove decided too many evangelicals stayed home because they weren't as excited about Bush as he wanted them to be, because of a ground game that was good, but not good enough, and because Bush wasn't culturally pure enough. But they managed to steal the election, primarily because of the disenfranchisement of minority voters in Florida and other deceptive practices.

That deficit was fixed in 2004. By then, Bush's speechwriters had written enough evangelical code into his speeches and Bush was promising a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Also, anti-gay marriage amendments were on several state ballots. By then, Bush had proven to be the handmaiden of the radical religious right and so the ground game included a push by many conservative churches and pastors.

By 2004 the smear machine had improved as well. So in 2004, Bush grabbed the popular vote as well as the electoral vote.

All the other elements of Bush's two "victories," including a money advantage, favorable framing of the issues, and disenfranchisment of minority voters (improper scrubbing of voter rolls, and inadequate number of voting machines in minority, Democratic leaning precincts) factored into the 2004 victories.

This time, everything has changed. The Democrats took notice of Bush's strategy and were determined not to let it win out again over what they saw as their superior message.

In 2008 Obama has a distinct money advantage, having decided to opt out of public financing. McCain is criticizing him for it, saying it will lead to corruption, but what McCain fails to see is that the majority of donations to Obama are small, and that therefore the number of donors to his campaign is huge. It's hard to imagine corruption resulting from millions of average citizens donating to a campaign. This gives him an advantage not only in dollars, but also in supporters.

This leads to the second advantage: Obama's superior ground game, with a record number of paid staff and volunteers. Obama is inspiring people everywhere to get out the vote, and so volunteers of all ages and all walks of life (including my daughter who drove from California to Las Vegas, leaving her three children in the care of her husband for a weekend, to "turn Nevada blue") knocked on doors and picked up phones to spread the word.

Obama also has a team of 5000 volunteer lawyers who will be monitoring the polls on election day, and who are even now filing lawsuits to prevent the dirty tricks the Republicans are so famous for. Recently, they helped the Democratic Secretary of State of Ohio in her appeal to the Supreme Court to allow 200,000 new voter registrations. Reports are already coming in from North Carolina and Virginia of voting machine "malfunctions" wherein votes for Obama are recorded as votes for McCain (sort of a techno-butterfly ballot), but the lawyers are on it.

The cultural divisiveness and the smears from the right are in full swing as we all know, but the people seem less vulnerable to them this time. Sure, there is a wing-nut contingent that falls for the demonization of Democrats every time, but fewer seem vulnerable this time. Maybe thinking people in the country are tired of division. Maybe the huge problems facing us are just too important for us to fall for Republican pettiness again. Or maybe Barack is simply too inspirational for the smears to stick. In any case, they haven't yet turned things in McCain's favor.

Finally, framing. George Lakoff has been saying for over four years that the Republicans frame issues and campaigns and the media ends up adopting their frame and dooming Democrats. Even this is different this year. Obama's "change" frame has worked, as has his claim to have the better temperament.

This time, not only do the Democrats have the better message and the better policy prescriptions, but they finally have the better campaign. And that is why Obama will win, in spite of the pockets of racism that still exist, that are actively being exploited by the McCain campaign.

Maybe the divide and conquer strategy Republicans have used since Nixon is finally dying. Maybe the American people are sick of the Republicans playing them for fools and idiots. Maybe they're tired of the hate and fearmongering. Maybe a majority of the American people yearn for a real "uniter" and a nation that gets to work to solve its problems.

Maybe the years of Republicans divisiveness and smear are over. Maybe America has finally grown up.

Will we be a great nation again?

I almost don't know what to say.

The swift boating of John Kerry in 2004 was nothing compared to the slime and slander being directed at Barack Obama. He is being linked to "terrorists," called a "socialist," and has already been called a Muslim and an Arab, neither of which ought to be a slanders, but in this very paranoid and prejudiced nation, apparently are.

John McCain and Sarah Palin are throwing everything they can at Obama in an effort to win. They are also disenfranchising as many voters as they can, even as they try to pin a bogus claim of voter fraud on Obama's supporters. What they are doing to a good and patriotic American, who happens to be black - which is apparently the real problem they have with him, is sickening and disgusting.

I have no qualms about skewering sacred cows. I have criticized my government for the past eight years, and expressed my disgust at Catholic clergy. I even dared to speak up against Saint Ronny Reagan. So I'm willing to skewer one more: the former POW, supposed war hero, John McCain. In my opinion, this man is not a patriot. Perhaps he was at one time, though I must say bombing civilians for one's country is problematic. Perhaps at one time John McCain had courage as well. But John McCain does not have courage now. How much courage does it take to run a disgusting campaign? How much courage does it take to be so scared of losing that you would give up any principles you might have once had? How much courage does it take to be a racist, to falsely accuse your opponent of treason, to do everything you can to play on people's fears and prejudices and divide the people of the nation against each other?

It takes no courage. In fact, John McCain is so afraid of losing that he will do anything in the effort to win - including destroying any semblance of decency and any hope of unity. He is willing to tear us apart, brother against brother, not because of any noble intent, but just to satisfy his own ego. This makes him neither patriot nor hero.

As for Sarah Palin, she is being hailed as a courageous woman who gave birth to a child with Down syndrome when she could have had an abortion. This is, of course, absurd. Sarah Palin could not have had an abortion as she considers it evil. Sarah Palin simply followed her conscience. Are we all to be hailed as courageous just because we don't violate our own ethical and moral codes? Am I courageous because I don't rob the local 7-11 or murder my neighbor?

And now, Sarah Palin, unaware of just what an unqualifed and intellectually dull woman she is, is also desperate not to lose. Since she's more than willing to lie - perhaps honesty isn't part of her moral code. She is accusing Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" and all sorts of other nefarious activities. And like her fellow fake maverick, she doesn't care what she does to the country in the process.

Barack Obama has a lot of enemies. All good people do, because they threaten the status quo, because they draw people to themselves, because they offer change, which scares the hell out of some people. Barack Obama also has enemies because of his skin color, which is just more sad commentary on the white supremacy that infects too much of this country.

Obama is still ahead, and hopefully will win. But John McCain will use ugly tactic after ugly tactic to stop him. I suppose he could overcome the message of hope and change and unity that Barack offers, with fear and status quo and division. If he does, and he gains the presidency by a combination of trickery, deceit and outright theft, a lot of people will never forgive him.

I, for one, will never forgive the citizens of my country for being so easily decieved, so ignorant, so racist, so fearful, and so willing to embrace their shadow side.

We finally have a chance to turn the page, to start again, to renew this country, as Colin Powell reminded us today. If we let John McCain's ugly tactics and lack of patriotism win, we deserve every terrible thing we get from a McCain presidency.

On the other hand, if we reject McCain and Palin and their slimy disgusting strategy, if we get in touch with our better selves, if we once and for all reject radical wingnut conservatism and the hideous politics of personal destruction that have controlled our country for decades, we might have a chance for a decent future. We might once again be a great nation.

Insane McCain

John McCain is insane. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, and both sides lie. He is either a mulitple personality or a complete cynic. His political future must be absolutely destoyed!

Here's the latest:

McCain has decided that if he can't get you to hate Barack Obama for raising your taxes (because he won't raise your taxes) he'll try to get you to hate him for NOT raising your taxes, for in fact giving you a tax cut.

For weeks, the McCain campaign has been telling the people that it is wrong to raise taxes in an economic downturn and that Obama is going to raise everyone's taxes, even those who make as little as $42,000 a year. He hammered on that for a while, but Obama hit back, making it clear no one who makes less than $250,000 will have their taxes raised.

Then he recruited Joe the imaginary Plumber to complain that the imaginary business he wanted to buy would earn him more than $250,000 imaginary dollars a year and he would have to pay taxes. McCain said that meant Obama would destroy Joe's imaginary "American dream."
But Obama refuted that handily in the debate and afterwards, (Even Joe said Obama would reduce his taxes) so today McCain is saying Obama is indeed cutting taxes and that means he is a socialist. (I thought it was okay to be a socialist now. Didn't that great radical conservative Republican, our current idiot president George W. Bush, just make us all socialists by nationalizing the banks?)

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it.

"At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives," McCain said in a radio address. "They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway."

Quote of the week

Sean Miller, my 7 year old grandson, said this while watching Wednesday's debate:

You know, I think McCain isn't necessarily BAD, but he wants to win, and he's a sore loser.

Racist Riverside

In my last post, I spoke of overhearing a racist conversation at a diner in my neighborhood. I live in Riverside County, California, sometimes known as the "Inland Empire."

An Inland Republican women's group sent out this racist mailer. I guess the racists I overheard in the diner have a lot of company.

A time of sadness

Yesterday was a rough day so I was in no mood to write. I already have a heavy heart as I am watching my mother suffer with the disease of leukemia and my father's abilities deteriorate as he copes with a devastating neurological disease.

Yesterday, we had another blow. My father in law died and the family, of course, gathered at the home of my mother in law. He was a good and decent man, a man who served in the army during World War II, working on military aircraft. He met my mother in law then, and they had been married for sixty-four years. He was a fireman for most of his working life, and mostly because of that, two of his sons became firemen. He and my mother in law raised six children together, all of whom are upstanding citizens and good human beings. My husband is the eldest, and was inspired to became a civil engineer partly because that was something his father would have liked to be. He and his father shared an intertest in science, math and engineering.

The next few days will mostly be focused on family and so I won't be doing much writing, but something happened this morning that made me incredibly sad, especially when I put it into the focus of life's many tragedies.

After getting home late last night, my husband and I dragged ourselves to a local coffee shop this morning to have breakfast. We'd hoped to just relax and plan out the next few days, including getting airline tickets for our sons to fly down for the funeral. We sat in a booth next to a man and three women (all in their seventies, it seemed) who were having a loud conversation about the election and the current financial crisis. The man was holding his own little seminar, spewing his Rush Limbaugh-esque talking points to the women who seemed to be deferring to him. Everything was about "the blacks." The financial crisis was the fault of "the blacks" because, according to him, the Democrats and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had given all those sub-prime loans to "the blacks." "The blacks" in Chicago had been conspiring for years to put up one of their own for the presidency and they had been grooming Obama to run. "The blacks" were going to take over. It had all been a plot.

My husband and I stared at them, unable to believe there were actually people in our neighborhood who could be this vocally and publicly racist. When the waitress came by, we asked to move. She asked if there was anything wrong with the table, and I told her I simply couldn't enjoy my breakfast sitting next to racists. I don't know if they heard me, but I didn't whisper it.

Soon they left, and a lovely African American family with two small children walked past them as they filed out. I thought it only fitting, and I was happy that the family didn't have to hear their bile. I did notice as they left that one of the three women was wearing a gigantic cross. How lovely, I thought sarcastically. How "Christian."

My father in law was a Republican, having changed his party affiliation after my mother in law, who has a strong libertarian streak, convinced him he shouldn't be a Democrat. We have had many heated debates in the family over politics, but one thing I know for sure. The good and decent man who left this world on Thursday would never have had such a conversation as I overheard today, in public or in private. He may not have voted for Obama, but he was not a racist, and his vote would have been ideological.

When you stop for just a minute and think, you realize that we all suffer the same pain of loving and saying good-bye to those people we love. Whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, it doesn't matter. We all suffer terrible grief at one point or another. Barack Obama never really knew his father, and lost his mother to cancer when he was in his thirties. Just because he is a different color does not make him or his feelings any different than those people sitting at that table in the diner.

How dare they talk the way they talked! How dare they think the way they think! How dare they have such disregard for the people in the diner who heard them, people like us who are feeling grief and sorrow. Their utter disregard for anyone who heard their bile was simply a sacrilege.

I will give anyone $100 who can prove to me that Barack Obama or anyone on his staff, for that matter, ever said anything so vile and despicable about "the whites" as these four said today about Barack Obama and African Americans. I'm not worried I'll lose any money. No one in Barack's campaign would stoop this low.

White citizens, like those four, disgrace themselves and a certain segment of the population. Yet Barack, who is as much white as he is black, knows there are many white people who are not racists. Let's hope they are soon relics of the past.

Both of my parents are Republicans. Both have sent in their absentee ballots and both told me they voted for Obama. (My father hasn't voted for president for sixteen years - he didn't like Clinton and he didn't like Bush, but Obama won him over.) My father, however, fears Obama won't win because of people of his generation. "You may have to wait until we are all dead," he told me a while back, "before someone like Obama can be elected."

I hope both he and my mother live to see that he is wrong. I hope the four people I overheard today are already outnumbered by people who are more intelligent than they are. Once Obama is elected and is a fine president, I hope they remember their words and are profoundly ashamed.

??????????? - Picture of the day

McCain's poor health is a real issue

An evaluation of the health of the two presidential candidates by a medical doctor.

Electing McCain would almost ensure a President Palin.

Giving information to "low information voters"

Via Andrew Sullivan, a video of responses by Palin supporters at a rally in Ohio.

Thought I'd try my hand at responses to their statements. Their statements are in bold. My responses in italics.

"I'm afraid if he wins, the black [sic] will take over. He's not a Christian! This is a Christian nation! What is our country gonna end up like?"

Were you concerned for the past two hundred fifty years when the whites were in charge and denied blacks equal rights? Obama has a white mother and white grandparents, why would he do anything to make them second class citizens by letting the blacks "take over?" Obama has been a Christian for twenty years, converting as a young man after having been raised by a mother who professed no religion. This is not a Christian nation, it is a secular nation, with no religious test for national office and no official religion. The majority of citizens here are Christians, it is true, but the first amendment guarantees that there will be no establishment of religion and that all may practice their faith here, regardless of what that faith is.


"When you got a Negro running for president, you need a first stringer. He's definitely a second stringer."

Are you kidding me? First of all, many of our presidents (all white by the way) were anything but first stringers. George W. Bush, for instance, failed at every business he ever got involved in, and did poorly in school. Bush couldn't even make the team. As for a "Negro" having to be a first stringer, how ridiculous is that, especially when you consider Obama having graduated first in his law class at Harvard and being elected president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, where he worked amicably with both conservatives and liberals. Have you paid any attention to his campaign? It is nothing short of genius. Obama is definitely "first string," so you apparently haven't been paying attention.

"He seems like a sheep - or a wolf in sheep's clothing to be honest with you. And I believe Palin - she's filled with the Holy Spirit, and I believe she's gonna bring honesty and integrity to the White House."

Palin wouldn't know honesty if it hit her in the face. She lies about Obama and about herself. She hid her daughter's pregnancy, called Obama a "pal" of terrorists (which he is not - he has had a few inconsequential contacts with a former radical who lives in Chicago where the man associates with hundreds of political figures, both Democrat and Republican), she continues to lie about troopergate, saying she was cleared of legal and ethical violations when the first sentence of the report says she clearly violated the ethical requirements of her office. How does one judge whether or not one is "filled with the holy spirit?" And in our country, it is more important to be filled with knowledge, wisdom and experience (none of which she has) than to be "filled with the holy spirit," however you judge that. As for Obama being a wolf in sheep's clothing (which you no doubt got from one of McCain's sleazy ads), all I can say - since this is so ridiculous - is that Sarah Palin knows a little about wolves - she shoots them from helicopters.

"He's related to a known terrorist, for one."

He's not related to any terrorists. His bio is available on the internet and in his books and he has no relatives who are terrorists. His grandfather fought in Patton's army in World War II, his grandmother worked in a factory to support the war. His mother was an archeologist. His birth father was from Kenya and Obama only knew him briefly. His stepfather was an Indonesian. None of them were terrorists. This is a stupid statement, especially considering how easy it is these days - what with Homeland Security, domestic wiretapping and all - to identify terrorists. If Obama had any connection to terrorism, he would not be running for president, he would be in jail.

"He is friends with a terrorist of this country!"

He is also not "friends" with terrorists. He knows a man - Bill Ayers - who was a radical in the sixties (though Ayers killed no one- terrorism is defined by the targeting and murdering of innocent civilians) and sat on one or two charitable and educational boards with him in Chicago (as did many prominent people - one of the boards was funded by a prominent republican who chose Bill Ayers for this position) but he has no social contact with him, and the man has nothing to do with his campaign nor his senatorial staff. Until Sarah Palin came along, men like Bill Ayers, who are reformed radicals from the sixties, were not called "terrorists." They were called "radicals." Palin is calling him a terrorist now to fool you into thinking of Osama bin Laden and that is disgusting and dishonest. Some Christian!

"He must support terrorists! You know, uh, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. And that to me is Obama."

He must support terrorists? Who says? What evidence do you have? What makes you think he "must support terrorists? Because he's black? Because he has an African name? Because Sean Hannity said so? I can assure you, Obama is not a duck, nor does he support terrorists, regardless of what you think he "must" do.

"Just the whole, Muslim thing, and everything, and everybody's still kinda - a lot of people have forgotten about 9/11, but... I dunno, it's just kinda... a little unnerving."

Just the Muslim thing? Obama is not a Muslim. He is named after his father who was from Kenya. His name is African. He is not and never has been a Muslim. He is a Christian. Nevertheless, this Muslim accusation dishonors the millions of peaceful and law abiding Muslims who live in and contribute to this great nation. And I can assure you, no one has forgotten about 9/11. That's what Sarah Palin is counting on.

"Obama and his wife, I'm concerned that they could be anti-white. That he might hide that."

"I'm concerned that he could be anti-white." This is what is called projection - accusing someone else of something that characterizes you. You are most probably anti-black and so you assume black people must be anti-white. You need to examine your own heart and get rid of your faulty thinking. Have you ever spent ten minutes listening to Obama? Obviously not, because if you had, you would see how ridiculous your concern is. Or do you just listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?

Recently taken down from Sacramento County official Republican website

No, they're not inciting violence, are they?

538 projection for 10/15

Nate Silver's latest map: 361 electoral votes for Obama. Only West Virginia white (toss-up) - and many of the light blue states have turned dark blue.

The way to ensure this outcome, of course, is not to get complacent and, above all, VOTE.

Crazymakers and crybabies

The Republicans are crazymakers. They incite hatred and then when the other side tells them to stop because what they are doing is dangerous, they act the victim and demand an apology. It's like the man who abuses his wife and then blames her for calling the police and once the police leave, crying that she doesn't understand him right before he beats her again because she called the police. He is incapable of seeing how the whole problem began with his violence.

The Republicans send out Sarah Palin to whip up hatred against Barack Obama for what she calls "palling around with terrorists" who "bombed the pentagon" and for any number of things that are patently false, and then when her supporters start yelling "terrorist" and "kill him," she acts like it's no big deal. As the crowds get more and more vocal in their violent language, she continues on and incites even more anger.

Then she goes on Rush Limbaugh and says "Rush, I've got nothing to lose in this and I think America's got everything to gain by understanding the differences, the contrasts here between Obama and McCain." There you have it. All she's doing is presenting "contrasts." And she has nothing to lose, that's her only moral compass apparently.

In the meantime, McCain and his surrogates, including that idiot Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, who have no understanding of either history or nuance, are attacking Obama for not condemning civil rights icon John Lewis who said this in response to the hateful rallies of McCain and Palin:

As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign....Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

Lewis recalled the speeches of George Wallace and noted how they incited violence. He said:

During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama....As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy.

This, according to Republican supporters of McCain, is beyond the pale, equivalent to whipping up hatred in crowds. Joe Scarborough says Lewis is comparing McCain to the bombers of the church in Birmingham, which is not what Lewis did. This is where reading and comprehension skills are important. Lewis said McCain and Palin were playing with fire, like Wallace played with fire - and that fire led to terrible events. Lewis made it clear that Wallace "never threw a bomb or fired a gun." Actually the mention of Wallace is interesting in that Wallace is an example of violent words blowing back on the one who utters them. Wallace was the victim of an attempted assassination which left him paralyzed.

Not being African American, not having been jailed because one is fighting for civil rights, not having been bloodied and beaten as was John Lewis, people like John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Joe Scarborough cannot begin to imagine the fear that this kind of hate talk engenders in people like John Lewis. They have absolutely no racial sensitivity, which doesn't surprise me because they have almost no contact with African Americans.

What we are seeing play out here is enormous ignorance combined with lack of true moral character on the part of the Republican candidates. John McCain has done nothing for civil rights, voted against the Martin Luther King holiday, and has obvious contempt for his African American opponent. As an Alaskan, who mostly stays within Alaskan boundaries, Sarah Palin may never have had any contact with African Americans, who don't generally live in Alaska. Their sensitivity is obviously lacking. But they are good at insisting that Lewis' statement makes them the victims of the Obama campaign, even though Lewis made his statement on his own, in response to his own observations, and not in connection with any Obama rally, while the objectionable words connected to McCain and Palin are words shouted out at their rallies in response to their own incendiary words.

John Lewis has earned the right, with his actions and his blood, to remind us that words matter, and that incendiary words can lead to violent consequences. And yet McCain and Palin are acting like crybabies whose guilt makes them change the subject from their own unacceptable accusations and demand an apology from both Lewis and Obama, who had nothing to do with Lewis' statement. This is insane.

At the same time, Palin tells Limbaugh she has "nothing to lose" with her hate talk. And there you have the whole character issue: she only cares about herself. She is only concerned with whether she has something to lose. She doesn't care if America loses, which was Lewis' whole point. This kind of hate speech hurts America and has the potential to hurt Americans in deadly ways. Lewis is trying to warn the campaign to stop the potential harm that can come to the country they say they love.

Lewis is performing the role of an elder statesman. Palin is performing the role of an ignorant rabble rouser, an unsophisticated and immature teenager who doesn't care who or what she hurts just as long as she comes out ahead. And McCain is like a parent who is egging her on. As role models for Americans, these two are disasters. And whether Palin can understand this or not, America has a lot to lose if she continues to incite hatred.

Why Obama is winning

One name: Sarah Palin

There will be volumes written about this election, and mulitple theories about why McCain lost and/or why Obama won.

Obama, as a black man, had to overcome some hurdles that a white candidate would not. And he seems to have cleared them.

But that isn't why McCain is losing. There are a number of reasons McCain looks bad right now including his erratic message on the economy, his negativity, the obviousness of his age and the fact that he is a Republican.

But all of those do not add up to the one thing that caused the public to turn against McCain. That one thing was the choice of Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential candidate.

Republicans point to how she "fired up the base," which only indicates to me that the Republican base is missing a few IQ points, but she has not helped with independents and moderate Republicans, as we can see in the recent polls. Independents and moderate Republicans want more than a pretty face and a nice set of legs and a hairdo that changes as often as that of a Hollywood starlet.

Serious voters wanted McCain to choose a serious candidate to be the vice presidential nominee and he didn't. He chose an air-head who can read a teleprompter and deliver a vicious soundbite. He did not choose someone who is qualified to be president.

In a more prosperous and less dangerous time, an airhead vice president might have worked. But these are not those times.

Furthermore, we just spent eight years with an airhead president. George W. Bush has been the most anti-intellectual, uncurious, unwise president in our history. His lack of knowledge, and adherence to failed conservative ideology, has brought disaster after disaster to our nation and the people are not willing to go there again.

George W. Bush is not smart enough to be president, yet he has been president for eight years because of some clever marketing and a few unsavory campaign tactics. We are now suffering the terrible consequences of having been hoodwinked. Once the public got to know a little (very little) about Sarah Palin, it didn't take long for them to see that, like Bush, she doesn't have the intelligence to be president. And the right wing pundits' attempt to compare her favorably to Obama, whose intelligence is in the superior range, or to say she understands complex issues better than McCain or Obama, is ludicrous. I don't know how they say it with a straight face.

The American people don't want another failed war, more dead soldiers, more terrorist attacks, more Katrinas, and an ongoing economic recession, or even depression. They want someone smart enough to handle the multiple problems that land on the president's desk. They want someone with a brain.

Sarah Palin is a candidate of very little brain. The public sees this and doesn't want to go there again. And that the 72 year old McCain would choose her and continue to say how talented she is gives us an indication that he is a man of very little brain as well. The American people have seen throught the bullshit and won't choose another mental lightweight in a time when great wisdom is needed.

And that's why McCain will lose.

This is the most amazing and innovative campaign ever!

“I can confirm that the Obama campaign has paid for in-game advertising in Burnout,” Holly Rockwood, director of corporate communications at Electronic Arts, the game’s publisher, told me via email, noting that EA regularly allows ad placements in their online games. “Like most television, radio and print outlets, we accept advertising from credible political candidates,” she continued. “Like political spots on the television networks, these ads do not reflect the political policies of EA or the opinions of its development teams.”

Democracy requires us to be "Of this World"

From my latest article on Outraged Citizen:

It is a huge problem in a democracy to say you care only about a possible next life and nothing about this life. That makes you traitors to democracy, that precious gift of self-determination and self-governing. In effect, if you don't care about solving the problems of this world, other than abortion and gay marriage, you are living as the peasants of the Middle Ages lived, uneducated and ignorant, guided only by religion, and caring little about the well being of your fellow citizens who depend on you to make wise choices about many things in elections.

In addition, you set yourself up to be used by those who say they agree with your moral position on issues like abortion, but do little or nothing to accomplish the goals you wish to accomplish. Instead, they use these issues as wedges to divide you from your fellow citizens and to convince you to vote for them so they can implement their greedy trickle down economic ideology and fill their coffers and those of their friends with the money they steal from the Middle Class.

Our democracy was never meant to be an institution that was controlled by clergy or the Bible. It was created to allow citizens to govern themselves, through representatives who would enact policies to ensure safety and prosperity for all. To participate responsibly in a democracy, one must be "Of This World," at least to some extent. One must care about what happens to one's country and fellow citizens in this world, not just what happens in the next.

Why we are liberals

From Steven D. on Booman Tribune:

We are at a turning point once again, when the invisible hand of the market runs up against its inherent limitations, as demonstrated by history. For the past 30 years we have been running an experiment in which the promoters of unfettered capitalism have had their way more often than not. Like the the era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which led to the Great Depression, ideological faith in the power of the markets to generate the greatest good for the greatest number has been proven wrong.

What unfettered capitalism releases is unfettered greed, rampant speculation and one economic bubble after another until that last, largest bubble breaks and the entire edifice of lassiz-faire economic theory and policies premised on the belief that the least government intervention is best for all concerned is exposed as nothing more than a dangerous fantasy.

Economics is not a hard science governed by known, irrefutable mathematical laws, no matter how much Milton Friedman and his acolytes like Alan Greenspan wish it were so. And the end result of our experiment in Friedmanomics and de-regulation of the markets can now be seen by anyone willing to look at the cold hard facts. It - simply - doesn't - work. Not only that, it creates conditions which lead to economic political, societal, and, at its core, moral calamities. Once again we have a great disparity in wealth between the richest people and the largest corporations and everyone else. We have bank failures, yes, and the looming threat of millions of businesses going bankrupt worldwide, but even more importantly we have created untold misery for the vast majority of the people of the world.

In developing countries these economic theories and the policies implemented by conservative politicians, particularly in the United States, have led to economic predation by multinational corporations, rule by tyrants and gangsters, wars, famines and death. In America these policies have led to the worst health care system for any developed country in the world, one which heartlessly allows millions of its people to go without adequate healthcare. They have also led to an increase in poverty and homelessness, higher infant mortality rates and lowered life expectancies.

Yet, perhaps the greatest failure of the "revolution" begun with Reaganomics has been the increase in amorality in our society, an emphasis on materialism and consumerism, and its concomitant reduction of compassion and respect for others which has been engendered in our populace. Disaster capitalism is the phrase coined by Naomi Klein for what the policies of our government's enabling of greed and avarice have accomplished, but I tell you today that capitalism which is unchecked by governmental regulation and intervention, invariably results in a disaster. Corporations, by the very nature of the laws which create them, are established and operated for one purpose: profit at all costs. When there are laws which restrict the manner in which corporations and wealthy individuals may lawfully pursue that goal without costs being imposed, democratic societies can thrive because not all the wealth and economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few.

And when democracies thrive, people thrive. Because governments are not bound to rule for the benefit of the most powerful or those who have the most economic clout. Democracies should have other goals merely than the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. They should be focused on the general welfare of all of their citizens. Sadly for us, we have been governed by politicians over the last three decades who ruled for the benefit of those at the top of the economic pyramid, and falsely assured us that such counter-intuitive ideas as promoting the greed of the wealthiest and most powerful among us would lead to rewards for all.

They lied and we should have known they were lying. Indeed, anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that the ridiculous "trickle down" economy we created was a lie. If history has shown us anything, it is that concentrations of wealth and power do not lead to less poverty, but more. They do not bolster the middle class, they tear it down. They do not lead to greater happiness, but greater misery for all but those who pull the strings of government. They do not lead to more liberty, more equality and more freedom, but less of each of these for most people. They lead inevitably to societies where the wealthy are free to do as they please, and the rest are slaves in all but name.

A great change is coming. It was long overdue. Sadly many will suffer because the wisdom of the past was ignored. Greed, my friends, is not good. And it is especially bad indeed when it is not countered by the moral values of community and compassion and fairness. You know, the real values of our Judeo-Christian heritage that conservatives love to pontificate about but so rarely put into practice. For the good is served not when the individual can get away with anything, not when individualism is considered the only value worth promoting, but when we respect and value everyone and work together for the benefit of all people.

And that is why I am a liberal. Hopefully, the day is at hand when more people will welcome a return to the values that I and so many of us here espouse. We've had enough of "conservative values" to last a generation

The change boat has pulled away from the old man on the dock

I find John McCain's "change is coming" mantra increasingly amusing. He used it again today in a "new" speech aimed at pumping verbal viagra into his flaccid campaign.

However, what McCain and the Winka from Wasilla fail to realize is that change has already come, and that is why they are losing.

More than a decade ago, the world started to change, favoring a global approach to problems, peaceful world solutions rather than war, government sponsored universal health care and education for all. And over the past eight years, this country has also been changing. Now more than fifty percent of the country reject the Bush approach to problems: war, an American superiority complex, and a free market approach to both health care and education. America has become more progressive and has rejected the Republican free market and religious fundamentalism that has so infected our government.

Barack Obama represents the change people have already made in their minds and hearts, so McCain's slogan sort of misses the boat. The change boat has already pulled away from the dock and the old man has only started yelling: "change is coming."

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

The stock market tanks, some people have fun

My youngest son, who is an editor at a business newspaper, and his girlfriend take a break from the insanity of the past couple weeks on the island of Curacao.

McCain concedes election

In his new and retooled stump speech, McCain says of the Obama campaign:

"We've got them just where we want them."

Obama is anywhere from six to eleven points ahead in the polls.

Words matter, as does the truth

Over the past few weeks, Sarah Palin has been throwing around the word "terrorist" a lot, and connecting it to Barack Obama. She is using the very slim relationship between Obama and William Ayers as the justification for her charges. So let's examine who Bill Ayers is, whether he is connected to Barack Obama in any significant way, and whether the use of the word "terrorist" is appropriate.

William Ayers is a co-founder of the Weather Underground, a radical sixties group opposed to the Vietnam War and other U.S. policies. The sixties, as those of us old enough to remember know, was a crazy time. It was a violent time, a time of assassinations and war. Three beloved liberal leaders were killed and another liberal leader turned an advisory role in a faraway Southeast Asia country into a devastating war. The draft was enacted and young men were sent off to a war they either did not understand or understood all to well and condemned. 58,000 men died in that terrible and unnecessary war and young people throughout the country were enraged. A few took it too far and decided to use violence. William Ayers was one of those, his method of outrage a series of bombings of statues and buildings. In his actions, no one was ever killed, except a few Weather Underground members, and all bombings were preceded by written warnings to evacuate buildings. Once the war ended, the group stopped its actions and Ayers went underground himself. After turning himself in, and seeing charges against him dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct, he went on to distinguish himself as a professor and upstanding member of the community. Though he says he believes "we" (meaning all citizens) didn't do enough in the sixties to stop U.S. foreign policy, he does regret the violence he participated in. He has condemned all acts of terrorism, by small organizations and governments alike.

What Ayers did in the sixties cannot be excused. Neither can it be called terrorism, which targets innocent civilians in order to achieve some goal. Ayers was not a "terrorist." He and his group did heinous things - bombing always carries risk and is wrong even if all it does is hurt property - but they cannot be compared in any way to the Islamic terrorists who deliberately target civilians. In fact, Ayers has never been characterized as a terrorist until Sarah Palin came along to rescue John McCain's flaccid campaign. Those who acted as Ayers did in the sixties have always been called "radicals," but saying Obama "palled around" with radicals simply wouldn't have been good enough for Palin. She had to call him a terrorist because when you say "terrorist" people think of 9/11.

The word terrorist was deliberately chosen by McCain and Palin because it fit in with the other rumors supporters have been pushing - that Obama is a secret Muslim, that he is un-American, that he is somehow dangerous. What could be more dangerous than bombings? What could be more dangerous than being close to terrorists? Had McCain and Palin said Obama was a friend of a radical from the sixties, it would have fallen flat, because most voters today are too young to understand the sixties and what radical groups were objecting to. So all they had to do was change Ayers from a radical to a terrorist and they updated everyone's understanding and confirmed the fears of low information and misinformation voters - that Obama was dangerous.

Words matter - the Republicans have been using them cleverly and deviously for decades. "States rights" has been code for allowable segregation and racism. "Pro-abortion" has been used to define those people who don't want to criminalize something, no matter how they disapprove of it on a personal and moral level. "Blame American first crowd" has been used to describe people who are willing to criticize their country when it is wrong. "Free market" has been used to approve of greed.

So are William Ayers and Barack Obama palling around with each other? William Ayers and Barack Obama met in Chicago when they served on some charitable and education boards together, along with other prominent Chicago citizens. Ayers hosted one coffee for Obama when he ran for the state senate. Other than that, there is no connection. They are not good friends and Obama does not (as Palin accused him) "pal around" with Ayers.

So, to put it in simple terms - William Ayers was a sixties radical who destroyed property but never killed or injured anyone. Before this election, he has not been characterized as a "terrorist." Currently he is a respectable citizen and educator in Chicago. Barack Obama served on a few charity and education boards with him (though neither chose each other to particpate on the boards) and hosted one fundraiser early in Obama's career. The two have not had any relationship since 2002. And Obama has condemned Ayers' actions in the sixties.

Sarah Palin peddles nonsense about Obama, but it is nonsense that fires up her radical base, who shout radical (terrorist?) slogans themselves when she speaks. She is either too stupid to know that what she is saying is patently false, or she is deliberately misleading to destroy an opponent. Either way, she has insulted the intelligence of the American people, and done something no true Christian should do - she has lied and slandered a fellow human being, fellow American, and fellow Christian. And she seems to have no shame.

Quote worth remembering

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -

Mahatma Gandhi

Another kind of segregation

Here's what the Research 2000 poll finds:

In the Northeast, Obama leads McCain 65% to 28%.
In the Midwest, Obama leads McCain 55% to 38%
In the West, Obama leads McCain 53% to 39%

But in the South, McCain leads Obama 53% to 41%

What is it with the South? Racism? Lack of education? Poverty? Toxic chemicals in the water? Inbreeding?

The South has always been known for slavery, racism and segregation. However, it now seems the South believes in another kind of segregation - the kind that separates the South from every other region of the country.

The stupidity of Catholic bishops

The Catholic Church and electoral politics are not a good mix. Having been raised a Catholic, I am well aware of how much the Church is inserting itself into this presidential election in ways I consider wrong-headed, irresponsible and just plain stupid. They aren't alone in this of course. Many evangelical churches are acting badly too.

It seems to be all-abortion-all-the-time for some of these jokers, and I call them that because whatever their theological expertise on which they base their instructions to their congregations, they are too stupid to see how the Republican Party plays them year after year after year on this issue and never changes a single thing in terms of abortion. And I suspect they never will, because if they managed to overturn Roe V. Wade (which they will never do) or actually enact any laws that made a difference, they would lose every election afterwards. They would lose for two reasons: 1. A majority of the American people see the Repubican ideology as wrong on nearly every other issue and would cease believing there was a reason to vote Republican once abortion lost its value as a wedge issue, and 2) the pro-choice forces would launch a fierce campaign to protect abortion rights in states and would most likely win most of them.

The current extremist Bishop of Scranton, Pa., Joseph Martino, has sent out a letter instructing all voters in his diocese that

Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign...Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s command. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of the Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.

Now the Bishop lives in a nation that grants him free speech, so he has every right to say whatever he wants to say, but the man is completely wrong about the connection between voting and abortion.

I agree with him that abortion is a significant moral issue - for each individual. I find it interesting, however, that many bishops in this country find abortion to be the only moral issue for which an individual is not allowed to follow his or her conscience. On every other issue of significance - divorce, war, the death penalty, even suicide, the Church offers some leeway in the individual conscience of the person- or at least compassion for the person facing these moral challenges. And the church does not become so unhinged regarding how one should vote on issues related to these other issues, all of which have been issues in elections at one time or another. I also don't recall the Church ever insisting voters had to vote against racism or discrimination or hate crimes - at least not with the same ferocity they use against abortion - or even against war, where millions of "innocents," born and unborn, are obliterated by American bombs.

The fact is that the president has little to do with abortion politics, in reality. Yes, there is the Supreme Court, but here a vote for McCain or a vote for Obama would not be that different. Yes, Obama will likely not appoint conservative judges, but neither would McCain. He knows a Senate with a Democratic majority (and a likely 60 member majority) would never confirm such judges, so he will have to pick moderates who likely will uphold the current law of the land regarding abortion. That being the case, it seems much more sensible to elect the better candidate on other issues, like the economy and the war, two issues that might determine whether or not this country survives. And on these issues, a majority of the people favor Obama.

Another point about which Bishops like Bishop Martino appear completely ignorant is the long history of abortion and what happens in places where abortion is illegal. Simply put, it doesn't stop. Women always have and always will seek abortion. As long as men rape women and molest their daughters, as long as priests molest young girls in their parishes, as long as husbands demand sexual submissiveness from their wives, as long as poverty makes it impossible to feed another child, as long as women's lives are in danger from complicated pregnancies, as long as women in some countries are executed for infidelity or for having been raped, as long as ignorant parents and teachers and clergy and presidents named Bush think you can prevent teen pregnancy with abstinence only education, as long as the Church condemns birth control, women and girls will seek abortions. If they can't secure them legally, they will get them illegally, and many will die in the process.

Interestingly, during the Democratic Clinton administration, the number of abortions went down in comparison to the Republican Reagan and Bush I administrations. There's a simple reason for this: the policies of Democrats are actually more conducive to such reductions. Democrats are better at providing birth control and sex education, and Democrats reduce poverty directly with anti-poverty measures, and indirectly by improving the economy. So while Democrats do not want to outlaw abortion (this doesn't make them "pro-abortion," it makes them anti-criminalization, and there is a big difference), they manage to save more unborn lives than their anti-abortion counterparts in the Republican Party. But Bishop Martino doesn't want people to vote on the basis of reality, he wants them to vote on the basis of theology, which is just one more type of ideology - something that dominates Republican politics, and has pretty much failed over the past 28 years.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church has a terrible track record in areas of treatment of women and sexual morality and therefore, in my opinion, has lost its moral authority to preach on these issues, including the issue of abortion.

I have heard many sermons on abortion, but never one on rape or incest or molestation or sexual responsibility and respect in marriage. When the Catholic Church starts tackling these issues which lead to unwanted pregnancy, then maybe their preaching on abortion will have more legitimacy. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has harbored and enabled pedophiles for decades within their clergy and up through the heirarchy. This also disqualifies them as moral authorities.

As for their treatment of women for 2000 years, it has been despicable. Their approach to abortion is just one more example. Do bishops ever consider the woman's perspective, what it is like to be raped or treated as sexual objects? What it is like to be molested by your stepfather? Can they even imagine what it's like for hundreds of thousands of poor women, married to louts who come home at night with their meager pay demanding the one recreational drug they can afford - sex - and then yelling at the wife if she becomes pregnant?

Of course they can't imagine this. They have no wives, they have no intimate relationships with women. Some have intimate relationships with men, due to the high rate of homosexuality in the priesthood, but they cannot possibly understand a woman's perspective. The fact is that in the Catholic Church, women have only been given two options: nun or baby machine. The Church, as we know, even condemns birth control. For 2000 years women have been second class persons in the Church, much less important than men, much less deserving of understanding and respect. I can grant you this: if men were the ones who gave birth, if men were treated as sexual objects by women, and if men still had all the power in the Church, the entire issue would be handled differently.

There's a lot the Church could do to help reduce abortions without overturning Roe V. Wade - implementing programs for poor pregnant women, compassionate sermons in support of desperate women, programs to educate about respectful sex in marriage, sex education for teens, and changing their ridiculous birth control policy. What won't work is this one strategy to try to influence elections so that Roe V. Wade might be overturned. Because it is not going to happen. No matter who is elected in three weeks, Roe will not be overturned. And in the slight chance that it will, the matter will only return to each state where in a majority, abortion will remain legal.

More and more I see the Catholic Church as out of touch with reality and meddling in politics when they know nothing about women, sex, biology, psychology, history, how our government works, or how the Republican party uses them to win election after election while never actually doing anything.

If they continue with this nonsense of threatening damnation to Catholics who do not vote for the Republican, I sincerely hope they lose their tax exempt status, because they have chosen not to be a church that cares for the people and uses its authority to change hearts. Instead they have become a church that has adopted a legal and political strategy to impose their theology on a democratic nation that frankly sees it differently. Furthermore, in this ridiculous and doomed-to-fail legal quest, they are throwing to the winds the fate of the nation - and are telling their members it doesn't matter how old, how ignorant, how shameless, how wrong-headed, how cruel, how racist, how warmongering, how empty-headed, how callous and crude, how neglectful of the poor, how incompetent a presidential or vice presidential candidate is, if he or she talks the anti-abortion talk, he or she is the only one good Catholics can vote for and not go to hell.

In demanding their flock vote for the "pro-life" candidate, the Bishops who adopt this dictatorial strategy are acting like poker players who know nothing about poker. In an effort to win the entire pot, they are willing to lose all their money on a single hand when they could play more conservatively and at least come out ahead. In an effort to overturn a Supreme Court decision, they are backing an inferior candidate who likely will not reduce abortions at all, though he may kill a lot of innocents in the many wars he wants to wage, and totally condemning the "pro-choice" candidate who will likely be much more successful in other ways in reducing the number of abortions.

One has to wonder whether all they care about is screaming their heads off and making a scene rather than really doing something. Do they only want to win a legal battle, which may not really change anything, or are they actully interested in saving unborn lives?

It seems to me they have made enough of a mess in their own backyard, with their ongoing pedophilia scandal (anyone who thinks this is over is dreaming - as long as celibacy remains the rule there will be sexual bad behavior in the priesthood) and should reform themselves before they insert themselves into the political world.

How did Jesus put it? The beam in your own eye?

UPDATE: An interesting and much more realistic take on the abortion issue from theologian Fr. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame. Worth reading.

Hope in Philly

Dangerous and undignified

When my children were teenagers, they suffered the usual disappointments - breakups of relationships, not making the team, not getting into the college they wanted. From time to time, I would remind them that whatever else happened, they needed to maintain their dignity.

John McCain, Cindy McCain, and Sarah Palin have all lost their dignity over the past few weeks. As their numbers went south, they started acting like jilted lovers, or jealous would-be cheerleaders. Palin started it with her attacks on Obama's "associations" and McCain followed up by echoing her charges.

Then Cindy McCain jumped on the bitter bandwagon by attacking Obama for voting against funding the troops, and using her position as the mother of a soldier to back up her outrage. Of course, McCain himself had voted against funding in a different vote, so her charge was absurd.

If they weren't so dangerous, so willing to whip up violence in their brain-dead, cult-like followers, they would be pitiful.

Fears

The past two days I have been living in a twisted reality.

I called the paramedics two days ago to take my mother to the hospital. She has leukemia, and was feeling very poorly. After spending nearly a day with her in emergency while they waited for a hospital bed to open, I want home to spend the night with my dad, who cannot be left alone because of a crippling neurological disease.

We had a rough night, with me getting only three hours of sleep. That left me grumpy the next day, and living with uncertainty regarding my parents' welfare.

I had only a brief time to see the news on Thursday, but I knew it was bad. The stock market continues its slide towards Depression, and Insane McCain and his sidekick Sarah were again rabble rousing, their mindless followers shouting horrible hate-filled and violent phrases at Obama, phrases that included "kill him."

I have had a sick feeling for two days, a churning in my gut that won't go away. My parents are in bad shape, and my country isn't much better. I wonder if my husband and I will lose our retirement, our home, our future. I fear for my children. I wonder if violence will break out because latent and well-hidden racism has been fueled by a white presidential candidate against an African American candidate.

I am increasingly trusting, however, that a majority of the country does not harbor racism. I believe they will overrule the angry racist mob and elect Barack Obama the next president.
He is the candidate of hope and so I haven't given up yet. But what if he doesn't win? Or what if he does? I trust in Obama's superior intelligence and incredible competence, but I wonder if anyone can fix a dying country.

This is a situation I have never been in before with my family troubles pairing up with economic troubles and political insanity. Not getting sleep only magnifies the fears. And so, yesterday, for the first time in my life I decided we needed to buy a gun. I hate guns, but when I see fear and hate combined with people being thrown out of their homes, I wonder how soon those with possessions will have to defend themselves against desperate people.

Could it come to that? I don't know. Normally, I am a rational person, but I am afraid. For the first time in my adult life, I am afraid that craziness could break out - not in an inner city, but in my own neighborhood. Maybe it's a function of no sleep, or maybe just a reflection of my fears for my parents.

I have never in my life felt that my country had gone completely insane. Never before had I seen such an incompetent lame duck president looking clueless as he deputizes the Treasury Secretary to try to rescue the country's economy even as it slides further into the abyss each day. Never before had I seen a presidential candidate deliberately instill hate and a thirst for violence in his followers, the way Hitler instilled hate in the Germans. Never before had I considered that we could combine the economic depression of the thirties with the potential for sixties' assassinations.

It has become obvious that the Republican Party of Nixon-McCarthy-Reagan-Attwater-Rove-Bush-and McCain is in its death throes, but before it breathes its last, it is apparently determined to destroy as much of the country as it can.

I only hope the rest of us can survive its demise.

At least my mother is feeling better, after transfusions and medication, and is back home with my dad.

The demise of the republic?

The saddest thing in the world is when monumentally ignorant people simply cannot accept their own guilt and responsibility in doing something wrong, committing an immoral act, or just plain being stupid.

My guess would be that the bulk of people getting stirred up by McCain and Palin into violent fits of rage are the very same people who voted twice for George W. Bush and can't bring themselves to admit what a disaster he has been. Such an admission would mean they were profoundly wrong and bear some responsibility for the murderous rampage Bush has been on for eight years - in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in New Orleans. And they also can't seem to connect the dots on how conservative ideology is what has led to this economic depression - instead they are going after Democrats in Congress who have been in power less than two years and couldn't accomplish anything in the Senate because the asshole republicans filibuster everthing. And since most of these people call themselves Christian I have decided I no longer consider myself a Christian because the word has become a label signifiying ignorance, prejudice, racism, hate, and a complete lack of concern for anyone other than themselves.

George W. Bush has destroyed everything he has touched. The country's economy is on the verge of collapse with groups of people expressing hatred that a presidential candidate is hoping will destroy his opponent. There are two ways to assassinate a candidate - with a gun or with words. For now, the attempted murder is with words, but how long before it includes bullets?

I loathe and despise John McCain and Sarah Palin - anyone who does not condemn these hatefilled, ignorant and totally depraved human beings is reponsible for anything violent that happens, including the demise of the republic, which for the first time in my 61 years I see as a real possibility.