Much has been said about the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama and his campaign themes of change and hope. To say that his message is resonating with voters around the country would not be an understatement. He has been compared to a rock star. He has been compared to Bobby Kennedy. He even got Oprah to stump for him. Clearly Barack Obama has star power unusual for politicians. Clearly Barack Obama is an energizing speaker. But there is something else going on here with this man and his candidacy, something that doesn’t happen but once in a great while. What exactly is it? Is it real? Or is it just smoke and mirrors, a clever ploy to gain election yet devoid of substance and ultimately unattainable? To answer this question is to determine whether Barack Obama should become the next president of the United States of America. For me, this is the only question about Barack Obama that matters.

For the record, I’m an “independent voter,” meaning I have no official registered political affiliation. (I must be one of those folks that the pundits like to deride- just not partisan enough for their liking it seems.) My regular readers know that I lean liberal-progressive on social issues, moderately conservative on fiscal matters, and try to take a rational approach to foreign affairs. I vote mostly Democrat, but have voted for Republicans more than once. More often than not, the choice of candidates given leaves me holding my nose with one hand while marking the ballot with the other. I am weary of the stink that is American politics, but am even more loathe to succumb to apathy as so many across this land have. Yet it is apathy that Barack Obama and his candidacy seem to be taking on headfirst. So while the pundits and political foes take turns telling us why Obama shouldn’t be America’s next president, I want to move beyond the “professional king makers” and their opinions and really try to understand the dynamics that have led this little known former state legislator to seek the highest office in the land. Even more, to decide for myself whether his message of hope and change can become reality under his leadership or if his is just a well polished message, taking advantage of the disappointment in American government to get one man elected who will ultimately be like so many before him- full of promise and short on delivery.

The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the
same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we
can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high. – Barack
Obama, Des Moines, IA- 12/27/07

No man (or woman for that matter) is one-dimensional. By this I mean, that certain qualities can be possessed by multiple individuals, but when combined with other attributes, these qualities create either positive or negative outcomes. For instance, political inexperience is frequently thrown onto the list of Obama negatives. But how negative is it really? After all, being a “Washington outsider” was considered a plus for George W. Bush, remember? Clearly, labels can be both objective and subjective. Objectively here because both men have had a relatively short political career before heading towards the Big Chair®. But subjectively because what the Republicans once saw as a positive they now seek to portray as a negative in another. Obama’s Democratic opponents portray his lack of political experience in a slightly different way, but with a similar result. In their case, other candidates do have longer government careers on the resume, and more varied experience at that. But when one takes into account the totality of Obama’s message of hope and change, it is just this kind of entrenched experience that perpetuates the problems with government. As they paint him to be a novice, he paints them all as jaded sell-outs.

For my money, I already know what the status-quo politicos have to offer, no matter what color lipstick they put on the pig. Obama’s political inexperience doesn’t bother me much. He has the kinds of life experiences that build empathy, tolerance, and realistic understanding of the plights of average folks that our current presidential novice never had or will have. Were Obama more Bush-like with regards to his background, I’d never have given him another look. As it is, the lack of political experience is about the only trait they share. In Bush’s case, lack of political experience coupled with arrogance and disinterest to create a maelstrom of mayhem around the world and across this country. In Obama’s case the lack of political experience may be the will that could break the chains of bondage that our democracy has been bound with, reminding Americans that this country is ours to guide into the future, not just for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren and their future generations.

(But) this is about more than George Bush. He’s just the beginning of the change
that we need. These problems didn’t start when he came to office and they won’t
end just because he’s leaving. We’re not going to reclaim that dream unless we
put an end to the politics of polarization and division that is holding this
country back; unless we stand up to the corporate lobbyists that have stood in
the way of progress; unless we have leadership that doesn’t just tell people
what they want to hear – but tells everyone what they need to know. That’s the
change we need.- Barack
Obama, Bettendorf, IA- 11/7/07

Hope and Change. Not all that original when it comes to campaign slogans. Every politician says they’ll make a change. They all offer hope in one form or another. What does Obama mean when he talks about hope and change. Surely he knows that one man can’t change the whole course of a country by himself. Even Bush couldn’t have so drastically changed American politics and world standing without a compliant Congress and battered public. Obama isn’t an idiot, so either his message is just typical political rhetoric or it isn’t. But how to tell the difference? Again, this is the crux of the matter.

But wait a minute…Obama isn’t telling us that HE is going to do all the changing, but that WE need to work together to change. He is saying that we need to put down our petty partisanship to solve the things that need to be solved now, today, things that can’t afford to be ignored any longer. He is telling us that we need to change our outlook from one of fear to one of action. He is reminding us that American’s have more in common that not, more shared goals than not, and a larger sense of justice than most. Obama isn’t offering us change in a Magic Eight Ball, he’s telling us that change comes from within. He knows it won’t happen overnight, but he also knows that until the halls of Congress are filled with a new breed of American politician- a generation of leaders empowered by necessity, forced to make tough decisions to benefit the many over the few, left to clean up the mess of their elders- that change is just a word. At this moment in time, Obama is a mere cheerleader for change, and he must know it. But if elected to the office of president, he could be a bullhorn for change, forcing politicians to adapt or depart. This still sounds like rhetoric, but it’s a far cry more hopeful than most rhetoric I hear. And in this case, if the electorate elected like-minded members to Congress, the rhetoric could transform into reality. This is the message- change is possible. He wants to lead it. But we have to want it.

But his message, while popular, doesn’t strike me as populist in nature. While exciting and inspiring, telling Americans they need to be the ones to change politics (of all thi
ngs) isn’t exactly a crowd pleaser. Americans are lazy, apathetical, and ignorant of their government. In a country where more people are incensed by seeing Janet Jackson’s nipple than they are by a senseless war, asking folks to find and elect people who will really turn America around isn’t likely to make you popular. At least not when they realize you really want them to get involved. Obama is a great speaker, and may indeed get more people involved in politics, but for most folks, they need to see results before jumping on board. In this aspect, there certainly seems to be an aura of naïveté about the message.

So there is rhetoric. And there is naïveté. But there is also the promise of something else, something that if realized would turn naïve into common sense. Something that if achieved would turn rhetoric into reality. I guess the answer is “all of the above.” But no other candidate in either party holds the kind of promise, the kind of vision that Obama professes to have. No other candidate is as far from the entrapments of political entrenchment as Obama is, and thus none can truly wish to dismantle that which gives them such power. No other candidate has been able to generate such a cross section of excitement. And no other candidate has had their loyalty to America called into question in the way he has and been able to maintain the dignity to ignore it.

Barack Obama isn’t a saint. He isn’t a hero. He isn’t the next best thing since sliced bread. But he does seem to be something unique in American politics, something we don’t get to see all that often- a candidate that has bright visions for America and the ability to energize the public to act.

Could Obama really bridge the partisan divide? Consider this: Two of America’s greatest presidents were related. One was a Republican and the other was a Democrat. The Republican fought for environmental protection and against big corporations. The Democrat fought against world tyranny and economic depression. Funny how things turn, isn’t it. Americans aren’t really that far apart on most things they want and value, just in how they get or keep them. As you can see, history shows the parties themselves flip-flopping more than once.

Hope and change. Just words? Or words with meaning? I think that in this case, the messages of hope and change represent what could be as well as what will be, if only enough of us remember what kind of government we have. One that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Proving once again to have their collective finger on the pulse of what really matters, the federal government has begun dispensing $40 coupons to households in the effort to make sure that no American will go without their precious television shows. All told, up to $1.5 BILLION has been set aside to protect the interests of electronics manufacturers, broadcasting networks, and pretty much anyone who has a commercial to run on television.

For years, the public has been told about the upcoming conversion to digital transmission for television signals. Of course, this is a topic that is about as interesting to the average person as the molecular make-up of peanut-butter (which may account for the fact that 51% of people still have no idea that this is coming.) In fact, the switch is coming soon- February 18, 2009 to be exact. On that day, any person who does not own a digital telelvision set and still gets their television signal “over-the-air” with an antenna will suddenly be greeted with static and snow when they turn on their set. Imagine the horror! Imagine the fear! Imagine the mass panic! What the f%#k happened to our TV???

Fortunately, Congress in its infinite wisdom, foresaw such a widespread panic in the making and has worked ahead of the curve to provide a solution. Because of this coupon give-away program, there should be no reason for any American to lose even a second of life-giving television viewing when the switch is made.

For the record, I work in the television industry. Television literally pays my bills, so of course I am happy in a sense that so many people prefer to sit for hours in front of their sets instead of doing other things. So for my own personal reasons, making sure that everyone can get a TV signal is a good thing. But to spend $1.5 BILLION of federal tax money to make sure that people don’t lose their signal? Give me a freaking break! This is beyond ludicrous, it’s obscene.

America has many more pressing problems that could be helped with a billion and a half dollars. Dilapidated schools. Hospital shortages. Food pantry closures. Making sure our veterans don’t get screwed every time they turn around. I could go on and on and on. The last thing we need to be throwing money at is television converter boxes.

Let’s face reality here. Americans are already so addicted to television that they will go out and buy the damn boxes themselves. Even the people who can’t really afford to. The anecdotal proof is in the pudding- I can’t tell you how many times my wife or I have been to the grocery store and seen a family ahead of us splilt their purchases into two piles: one pile of food that they pay for with food stamps, and one pile of dvd’s and video games and beer that they pay for with cash. Or how about the fact that most people consider someone who lives without television to be really wierd? In the land of the free and the home of the brave, even the poorest houses have at least one television. So when the government starts throwing out money to “help people keep their television’s working” I want to wretch. Because this is a program that is unnecessary, wasteful, and offensive in a time where dollars are short and there are many things more important to fund.

Of course, politicians need television, and they need people to get television signals, so this is as much self-preservation for them as it is a nod to their contributors and a give-away to the public. But hey- who am I to rage? When it’s all said and done, the Great Television Coupon Give-Away of 2008 may well end up being the most popular thing that the 2006 Democratic Congressional winners can produce. After all, if there’s one thing every American would probably agree on it’s that life without television is just, well, un-American.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In the first presidential primary of 2008, Iowans have sent a message to the MSM, their fellow Americans, and the candidates. That message: Don’t tell US who to vote for! We’ll make up our own minds, thank you.

For the last year, the MSM has been non-stop in promoting its version of the general election: Clinton vs. Guiliani. Sure, other candidates have gotten their face time and exposure, but by and large, ever since they announced their candidacies, Clinton and Guiliani have “been the ones to beat,” at least so far as the media has been concerned. In Iowa at least, the media and the people are not necessarily of the same mind.

Selecting Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in their primary caucus, Iowa pushed Clinton into 3rd place on the Democrat side of things and Guiliani down to 6th, after Ron Paul even, on the Republican ticket. Perhaps the days of media crowned politicians may finally be coming to an end? Too early to tell, but the signs from Iowa are encouraging.

For Democrats, Iowans chose Obama with 38% of the votes, followed by Edwards with 30% and Hillary with 29%. Republicans gave Huckabee a similar margin with 34% of the votes over Romney’s 25% and McCain and Thompson tying with 13% each.

These returns hold some promise for me personally. Promise in that Americans are finally seeming to come out of their self-induced apathy and are taking an active role in their government. If the 2006 mid-term elections were meant to be a wake-up call to the GOP and the president, then 2008 may well be a wake-up call to all the politicians. Clearly voters are less than happy with the path taken by the Democratic majority in Congress, at least as unhappy as with the GOP led debacle of the last 6 years. Their demand for change has gone unheard and unmet by the politicians and this primary makes it more clear than ever that status quo doesn’t cut it anymore.

Clinton and Guiliani are of the same mold as all the leadership in place now. Obama, Edwards, Huckabee and Romney at least appear to Iowans to show promise of a new direction for America, and voters of both parties are grabbing at that chance.

I like Obama and Edwards, much more than I do Clinton. So from a liberal perspective, I agree with Iowans tonight. And while I think that Huckabee is too religiously oriented for my taste, the last time we had an Arkansan in the White House, things weren’t all that bad.

Of course, one primary does not make a nomination, but already Dodd and Biden are throwing in the towel, and more are sure to follow in the coming days and weeks. The battle is just beginning, and with New Hampshire just ahead, this thing is wide open. But I’m glad to see that the first official contest wasn’t a coronation of media frontrunners or politicians who think they are entitled to and deserve the top job just because “it’s their turn and they’ve earned it.”

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

We expect parents to help their children through tough times as they are growing up, but by the time most people become adults, mommy and daddy usually don’t have to worry about picking up the pieces after their kids screw up. But every now and then we come across an adult who never seemed to reach adult maturity, even though they may now be in their 50’s or 60’s. It’s rare that those kinds of people ever amount to much, but surprise of all surprises, one of those idiot adults became the president of the United States, and the damage done by this imbecilic nimrod has been great. So great, in fact, that his daddy, former President Bush, may be tapped to help repair the damage if Hillary Clinton becomes our next elected president. At least, that’s what her husband Bill Clinton, another former president, said Monday.

“Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without
passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former
President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that
America is open for business and cooperation again,” Clinton said.

Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America’s reputation by the current president — Bush’s son, George W. Bush. – CNN Political Ticker

Now you’d think that Bill Clinton, the consumate campaigner, would know better than to say something like this unless he knew it to be true. And since he’s the husband of the candidate, we can assume that he’s not just shooting from the hip. Further consider that Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush have previously teamed up in recent years to provide help to victims of the tsunami in SE Asia in 2005 and to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina. It’s not a far stretch to think that if asked by the next president to go forth and reverse the disaster marked course laid out by W, that these two elder statesmen would do just that.

But the real zinger here is the fact that Bush the elder hasn’t come forth and quieted the not-so-subliminal message that he’s less than pleased with the work of his progeny. In fact, the only statement of any kind from the GOP is this from the RNC:

“In 2009, a Republican president will be working with our friends and allies
abroad to continue to keep our nation safe,” said RNC spokesman Danny Diaz. “The
American people expect our leaders — both current and former — to present
serious solutions to the very real challenges confronting our nation.”

Some may look at this statement and say, “What? They are expecting a republican to win the election.” Perhaps. But this statement could also be construed to reflect the message from Bill Clinton. Indeed, a former republican president could be working with friends and allies…

For the Clinton campaign, such a move could be a clear sign that she is worried about a general election run, where she has few fans in the GOP electorate, and not a stellar reputation among DEMs either. By offering to send her famously popular husband, former president Bill Clinton and a famously experienced former GOP president abroad to help fix the mess that W made, she is telling both sides that her administration would seek to bring balanced sanity back into the White House.

It’s a bold ploy for sure, inviting the father of the current president into her camp. It’s surreal that this “invitation” hasn’t been refused.

Then again, maybe Bush Sr. is just trying to find a way to salvage the family image…..

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

When is a nuclear threat NOT a nuclear threat?

When the Bush administration thinks it IS one.

Despite a current intelligence report that indicates that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003, current and former members of Team Bush continue to assert that Iran is a looming threat to American security and the security of the world because of their continued nuclear ambitions, which Iran insists are being developed for civilian purposes.

Is it just me, or are these the same kinds of warnings trotted out by this administration before the Iraq invasion? The same kinds of warnings that were discredited both before and after that invasion, and have since been proven to be not only wrong, but really wrong? For opponents of the administrations hawkish mentality, this Iran intel reversal comes as no real surprise. That Team Bush would overhype, misstate, or even intentionally lie about something of great importance, like whether or not to bomb the hell out of a foreign country, is simply par for the course for this group of malignant politicos. What is shocking is the fact that the information is seeing the light of day before the bombs start flying. Bush, Cheney, and their “never been to war but happy to send others” cadre of criminals have been building the case for war with Iran for well over a year now, perhaps much longer if you interpret the “Axis of Evil” designation in ’01 to be the start of the ramp up to war. At each turn and opportunity they have been eager to paint a picture of mounting crisis while twisting themselves into pretzels to pretend to be trying all possible means to avoid war. But it’s war they want, make no mistake. And it’s war they’ve been pushing for. And now it looks like they won’t get to play GI Joe in Persia after all.

Sadly for the president (but much less sadly for the rest of the rational world) the debacle that is Iraq, his lies and mishandling of the intelligence for that action, his administrations total lack of post-war planning, the fraud and graft from war profiteeerer’s, the mounting death toll, and the financial house of cards about to collapse had already turned the public into a wary mistress regarding war towards Iran. The new intel that says that Iran quit trying for nuclear weapons over 4 years ago is like the sound of that mistress slamming the window shut on her wayward lovers’ fingertips.

For Bush to continue to push war rhetoric against Iran now, in the face of intelligence that says they are not making weapons and thus present no imminent danger to the United States, shows us more than ever how deluded and myopic this man can be and in fact is.

Reality check: Iran is no friend of the United States. But that’s no reason to start a war. Especially when the intel bears evidence that they pose no real threat to the homeland, nor are they in any position to do so any time soon.

If Bush had any brains at all he’d be making political hay out of this intelligence report. He could be using this newly released information, along with recent “successes” in North Korea (apparently they US does deal with “terrorists” as the Bush administration has been able to secure some concessions from Kim Jung-Il, similar to those extracted by the Cinton administration but derided by Team Bush perviously) to make limited claims of success stemming from Iraq. Bush could be trying to assert that it was his brilliant Iraq War plan that drove these other “Axis of Evil” member states into submission. He could at least stand up and say something to the effect of “Hey, these guys see what happened to Iraq and decided to shape up a bit.” Hell, the public might even buy it. I’m sure our elected Democrats would latch on to that to deflect their own shabby war record. But Bush isn’t saying anything of the sort. Nope…instead he’s saying we need to keep the pressure on Iran to ‘fess up to their deeds.’

Looks to me like there’s not much to fess up to, unless you want their president to apologize for his rhetoric. But asking for that would be too hypocritical for even Bush, now wouldn’t it?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Higher fuel costs are increasing the cost of food. The push towards corn-based biofuels has increased the cost of food too. And a stagnant economy has tightened the budgets of Americans everywhere. Economic numbers put forth by the government never account for food and fuel costs when determining the “state of the economy,” allowing them to pretend that financial times are fine for most folks, but the soaring fuel and food costs are really starting to hurt average Americans, especially single-parent families and those at the lower rungs of the payscale. As families are forced between paying the bills and feeding themselves, more and more are turning to the nation’s food pantries for help. Sadly, many of them may find that those cupboards are bare too.

Across the country, food pantries are running out of stock. Donations are dwindling, in part because families can’t afford to donate as much or as often, but also because manufacturers have focused on better, cost-cutting production methods, leaving less overstock for donations. And the third factor at play is the federal government, whose practice of buying food from farmers (read subsidies here) to stabilize prices has decreased over the last few years as farm prices have stayed stable. Less government buying means less goverment donations. USDA donations to food pantries has declined 70% over the last three years.

Just as the lack of water in the southwest is a harbinger of tough times ahead, so too is the decrease in available food for the needy at a time when the number of needy is on the rise. In years past, my family has always participated in food drives from the post office. We’ve donated money to local food banks around the holidays. We’ve tried to do our small part. This year though, we’re going to have to cut back on our giving. We’ll still be giving, but not as much and not as often. We’re not going hungry, but we need to tighten our belts like everyone else. And I suspect that this scenario is being repeated in millions of homes across the country. People who used to give a lot are cutting back. People who used to give a little aren’t giving at all. People who couldn’t afford to give before may now be the people standing in line.

With Thanksgiving just a few days away, remember to actually be thankful if you have enough to eat. Fact is, most American families are just one major medical problem away from standing in line at the food pantry. Fact is that many American families are now cutting food budgets to pay for gas so they can get to and from work, and the grocery store. As fuel and food prices continue to increase, many more may join the line.

And yet in Bizarroland, aka Bush’s America, the president today praised the economy as he pardoned two turkeys in the Rose garden. Here are a few of his comments:

“This Thanksgiving, we are grateful for a harvest big enough to feed us all
— and millions more.”

“We’re grateful for working Americans who have given us the longest
period of uninterrupted job creation on record and a prosperity that lifts our
citizens. “

These comments, sprinkled into a speech about pardoning turkeys, show America just how out of touch their president really is. Bush may have spared the lives of two turkeys today, but he obviously doesn’t have a clue about the lives of actual people, and I don’t think he really cares.

The vocal minority that is the religious right would have you believe that homosexuality is an evil plague that will destroy the fabric of America. They have spent the last decade trying to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and, failing in that, have taken their fight to state legislatures. That they have succeeded to a degree in maintaining the prejudicial practice of marriage discrimination gives them hope that their position will maintain. I submit that their only real success has been to convince lawmakers (who, we must always remember, care only about re-election and retention of power) that to vote for total homosexual equality would be to vote themselves out of office.Interesting then that a newly released study shows that the number of same-sex couples has increased quintuple-fold since 1990, from 145,000 self-identified “unmarried gay partners” in 1990 to nearly 780,000 today. That is an increase 21 times faster that US population growth in that same period.

Even more interesting is the fact that the largest number of “new gay couples” live in traditionally “conservative” bastions of the nation. The report, issued by The Williams Institute of the UCLA Law Center, shows the biggest increases of self-identified same-sex couples came in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippe, and Tennessee, with a combined increase of 863%. Traditionally conservative mountain states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah and Nevada) showed an increase of 698%.

Clearly the effects of gay bashing are not having the desired results for the Religious Wrong. In fact, those states that do have laws on the books banning legal acceptance of same-sex couples had larger increases than those states who already formally recognize such unions. From the report:

-From 2000 to 2006, states that banned same-sex marriage had increases in
same-sex couples of 37%, exceeding the national pace of 31%.
-Places that
actually had voter referendums had even larger increases of 41%.
-Places with
no bans had an increase of 27%, below the national average.
-Conversely,
states that created formal recognition of same-sex couples had the lowest
average percentage increases in same-sex couples of 23%.

Since it is unlikely that there has been an increase in the number of people born with a predisposition towards homosexuality, one can only assume that public and social acceptance of homosexuality is reaching the point where many gay couples feel confident that “coming out” will not lead to the same kinds of backlash they could have expected to receive not long ago. So despite the vocal noise raised by the hatemongers and religiously bigoted zealots, by and large, the public is embracing the fact that some people are gay and that being gay is no cause for discrimination and no cause for personal fear.

There was a time when being anything but white and male were grounds for discrimination in this country. As the years have progressed we have shed many of those attitudes. Finally, we are at the cusp of shedding one of our last barriers to true equality in America. Those who continue to deny justice to homosexuals are being exposed for what they really are- small-minded, freedom hating, dinosaurs. So while real equality has yet to be achieved, it is wonderful to see that homosexuals are no longer content to hide in the dark shadows. It is even more wonderful to see that many, many Americans are helping them come out by admitting to themselves that sexual orientation is pretty irrelevant after all.

(hat tip to Salem-News.com)

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

This week is “Green Week” on NBC, a television network owned by General Electric, maker of all those fine, sparkly things that makes America the most materialistically enjoyable place to live in the world. On one hand, I have to commend NBC and GE for bringing to light the plight of global climate change and humanity’s role in shaping our changing environment. Several of their programs are adopting a “Green” theme during this weeks broadcasts, even including tips on how individuals can aid in fighting over-consumption and assist in recycling and conservation efforts. This attention being given to environmental issues by a national television network can only help raise awareness of the problems of global climate change and ecological destruction among the general public, and that is a good thing.

On the other hand, I can only shake my head in disbelief as I ponder the seeming hypocrisy of it all. Considering that the creation and delivery of television programming requires the efforts of tens of thousands of people and consumes a great amount of energy in the process, if NBC really wanted to show its audience how best to “Go Green” they’d have pulled the plug for a week and sponsored live, local events targeted towards environmental rejuvenation or other similar projects. They could have encouraged their audience to turn off the TV altogether, thus saving untold amounts of energy that would in turn decrease all sorts of atmospheric pollutants. Now that would have been a true example of “Going Green.”

But they didn’t choose the latter option, instead opting to promote “Green-think” during their programming. And guess what? They managed to get some sponsors to get with their program too. Which brings me around to the topic of this post and a concept I’ll call environmental ludicrousness.

During one of NBC’s reality programs last night, contestants had to vie for a spectacularly shiny prize- a brand new Ford Escape SUV. My first reaction to this major prize was, “Are you freaking kidding me? They’re giving away an SUV during “Green Week?”” But then I quickly remembered where I was. As the show host described the fabulous prize and began to expound on how this was a hybrid vehicle that got up to 34 miles per gallon it was all I could do to keep from falling on the floor in laughter. This brand new 2008 SUV is the American automobile industry’s answer to energy consumption? Christ, I drive a 1995 Mazda 626 with over 240,000 miles on it and it still gets around 30 miles per gallon. When I first bought it in 1998 (with 60,000 miles on it) I was getting closer to 38 miles per gallon on the freeway and at least 35 in the city! And my car isn’t anywhere near being hybrid.

And then it struck me like a two by four in the forehead. American’s don’t really want to do anything serious to solve the problems of the environment, problems we had a big, if not the biggest, hand in exacerbating. American’s only want to pretend we’re doing something. And in that vein…voila! The Hybrid SUV! Want to look worried about the environment without sacrificing your roomy vehicle and oversized cupholders? No problem- just jump in the Hybrid SUV! Only in America, I guess…

The fact that most SUV owners have about as much need for an oversized fuel guzzler as I have for my own personal Sherman tank is very much the point, but one that is missed completely in the land of the free and the home of the brave. After all, being American by definition means having whatever the hell you want regardless of the consequences. And when the consequences add up to melting icecaps that you’ll never see anyhow, it doesn’t seem like there are consequences at all, right? So why not buy the biggest, most fuel-inefficient vehicle you can to haul your solo self around the block for another 6-pack of Diet Coke? This is America!

Other countries have different domestic travel dynamics, and as such have incorporated into their national transportation systems many forms of competent public transportation options. Many countries are small in comparison with the United States, and as such have less ‘long-distance” travel internally. Many more countries are economically poor to the point that having personal transportation is considered a high luxury. In the United States, we have a lot of territory and good incomes, so we have highways and personal vehicles. And for decades, we’ve also had cheap gasoline to power our personal vehicles. These factors have helped make us an automobile nation, and even if we had a national desire to change that fact, our infrastructure is designed on the predicate that people travel to get anywhere. So in order to make adjustments in this environmentally challenged age of ours, we’ll have to make significant changes to our personal transportation models. And the Hybrid SUV just doesn’t cut it folks. It’s not even a good effort.

If appearances were all that mattered, America would reign as king forever. But hypocrisy has a way of catching up. Fuel prices are closing in on $100 per barrel of oil, and gasoline in America is starting to approach prices that have been known in Europe and Asia for decades. And yet American consumers are being told to trade in their old gas-guzzling SUV’s for what? A smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle like the Smart Car? Nonsense! Here’s a brand new SUV model for you- a Hybrid, no less- and it gets great mileage too!

Well, actually folks, it gets mileage comparable to that of foreign cars built a dozen years ago. But don’t think about that. If you’re too busy pondering the depths of the BS you’ve been happily fed forever, you might miss your exit to the gas station. And your new Hybrid SUV is getting pretty thirsty- again.

(cross psoted at Bring It On!)

I recently finished reading a book called The Summer of 1787. It was an historical account of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution based on the writings of (convention secretary and 4th president) James Madison and other delegates to that convention. The book details the struggle to craft a charter for our fledgling government, and explains in some detail the necessary concessions that each of the state delegations had to endure to get to the final document. It is a story of compromise and crafty politicking, and no where is this more evident than in the recurring debates over how the new country would select its head of state.

Always at issue during the convention was the fear between the states that one region of the nation would wield more power than other regions. This too was a factor in the decisions regarding selection of the country’s president. Various plans were put forth and summarily rejected for one reason or another. One plan called for the Senate to select the president from a panel of candidates put forth by state governments. Another called for the House of Representatives to select from the top five vote getters in a national polling of candidates. Popular votes by the people (which of course only included white males at that time) would yield the top five vote getters and then the House would take over from there. Another idea was for a simple national election with the winner of the most popular votes getting the job. Each of these ideas, and others, were debated heatedly. The “Senate Plan” was rejected based on arguments that the people should have some say in who their leader is, else the president become a mere puppet of the Senate or the process would evolve into a sort of aristocracy with the Senate selecting from a small pool of potential contenders. The “House Plan” was similarly rejected too with the argument being that the popular votes would likely yield only final candidates from the most populous states, leaving the “smaller states” un(der)represented in the executive branch. The popular vote was rejected because of the fear that the average citizen would have little to no knowledge about the candidates to make an informed decision. (In the 18th and 19th centuries this was indeed a valid argument due to slow communications. Today, speed of communications and available of information has eliminated that particular concern, yet surprisingly many Americans are just as clueless about candidates today as they were in the late 1700’s.)

Eventually, the arcane system of electors and popular votes was devised, and with some constitutional tinkering in the form of amendments, we have in place the system we have today. State legislators select “electors” who in turn pledge their presidential ballots to the candidates who receive the highest amount of popular votes in their state. After the popular vote is counted and certified, those electors cast their ballots for the official presidential contest with the winner decided from those ballots.

The founders knew that this wasn’t going to be a perfect system, but at the time it was the best compromise they could cobble together. In this plan, they managed to assuage their greatest fears (or so they thought) about selecting a national leader: they wanted to assure that the average American citizen had some voice in who would lead the country and they wanted to assure that the office didn’t become some sort of dynastic throne.

Fast forward to the 2008 presidential election campaign. Witness the founding fathers turning in their graves.

Today’s presidential frontrunners are knighted by the press and accepted by the public much in the way that an infant will put anything into his mouth that is handed to him. There is little critical thinking among the American people and even less even reporting of the potential candidates. There are currently 8 Democratic presidential candidates and 9 Republicans. But the only ones we really hear about are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romeny, and now, Fred Thompson. A few others (Edwards & McCain) get some coverage here and there, but the rest of the field has been largely abandoned by the press. Why? Well, because voters don’t choose those candidates in polls. And why don’t they choose them? Because they don’t know enough about them. Why is that? Because the press largely ignores them. It’s a vicious circle that begins early in the process and pre-selects the final contenders for the public based on press coverage and preferences.

This is surely not the kind of popular vote mechanism the founders envisioned. Certainly it’s hard to think that of the 17 potential candidates that only Hillary or Rudy have ideas worthy of getting them elected president. And in the case of Clinton, the founders’ fears of a “presidential dynasty” come full force. If Hillary were to be elected, we’ll have created a two-family presidential dynasty that covers at least 24 years (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton), an entire generation of Americans ruled by two families. And the worst part of it is that even though the Bushes and Clintons hail from opposing political parties, their basic political tenets are practically the same- none of them actually hold firm positions on anything of import, all are entrenched in the politics-for-cash system of governance, and they all have (or were always) become so detached from the truth of day to day life that they represent few actual Americans or their needs, desires, and concerns.

If American voters really believe that Hillary or Rudy are the best we can get for president then they just aren’t paying attention. Either that or they don’t care enough to make a better decision. Or perhaps they really do believe that 10 second sound bites are all they need to make a decision. Maybe they believe that if a candidate has a “D” or an “R” after their name that that’s all the information they need. However, if America really wants to find a new path into the 21st century then the voters are going to have to do better than this. They’ll have to actually move beyond the TV news reports, take a few minutes to read about the candidates and their positions, and not just accede to the picks of the press.

Is Hillary Clinton the leading democrat because of her qualifications to lead America in a new direction or because she is just the most well know candidate? I don’t think her politics have change much since she was the co-president with her husband. Actually, I take that back. She’s been quite hawkish in the Senate, dedspite her prostetations to the opposite. Personally, I don’t see how I could vote for her, and it has absolutely nothing to do with her gender.

Is Rudy Giuliani the top ranked Republican candidate because he’s the best man for the job? Or is it because he continually uses the 9-11 campaign poster and reminds Americans that he was the boss in New York when the terrorists hit? Is Rudy just riding on the coattails of fear, and if so, how does that make him presidential material?

But the press says these two are the top dogs, so when they trot out a poll or two, the numbers reinforce their coronation and perpetuate the momentum.

American politics, and especially presidential politics, are a farce. The candidates rarely offer a new vision for our country, seldom create a new path to trod. In this, George W. Bush has broken out of the mold- he has radically changed this country and how the world views America. Unfortunately, his vision has brought only death, misery and degraded our national reputation in the eyes of much of the world. If ever America needed a president with vision, with courage, and with wisdom, the 2008 presidential elections are that time.

Too bad we won’t get one.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In return for North Korea’s agreement to take further steps to eliminate that country’s nuclear program, the United States has indicated that it may remove North Korea from it’s official list of countries that sponsor terrorism, a sign that would surely also remove North Korea from the vaunted Axis of Evil club that President Bush created in 2001. If, as it appears likely, Kim Jong-Il follows the example set by Libya’s Moammar Qhaddafi and relinquishes his push for WMD programs, this would mark the second time a country has dropped out of the Axis Program. (The first would be Iraq, which did not leave the club voluntarily, but was bludgened out of it. Insiders in Iraq claim that many local populations say that there should have been a vote after the removal of Saddam on whether the remaining country wanted to discard their membership in the Axis Program or continue on with a new titular head. Unfortunately, at the time, the U.S. wasn’t accepting application into the program.)

Insiders at the White House and State Department say that in light of recent events in the North Korean negotiations, there is considerable concern that the Axis Program will fade away unless new members can be recruited. Of critical concern to the president is the possibility that a shrinking Axis of Evil Program may weaken his ability to lash out at his political detracators and that his pet project, The Global War On Terror (TM) would lose considerable backing among his own supporters without a full contingent of Axis partners.

Iran, the last active member of the original Axis of Evil, has reportedly responded to the Help Wanted Ad (seen above and printed in most of the world’s main newspapers) in a manner befitting their status as ranking Evil Nation. Iranian president Mahmoud Amedinejad was overheard saying that if he’s not consulted about potential new members that he would discontinue his hard-line rhetoric and consider withdrawing his country from the program altogether. Apparently, Amedinejad is concerned that future Axis Program members may be mere “shadows of great tyrants. There are too many despot-wannabe’s out there trying to claim a piece of the action. I want veto power over any new applicants or I will bring fire and death to the world. And then I’ll quit the club too. Praise Allah.”

President Bush is expected to announce that filling the vacant positions in the Axis Program is his new top priority. He has created a committee to provide him with a list of names of those tyrants best suited to the task. Vice-President Dick Cheney will lead that committee, in part because he has the experience in such matters. After all, he did a fantastic job in a similar situation when he compiled the short list of running mates for then-governor Bush, ultimately deciding upon himself as the best of the best. Insiders speculate that Cheney may decide on a repeat performance. An unidentified source in the VP’s office claims to have heard Cheney muttering something about needing a new job in a year or so.