As I've thought about Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative designed to deny gays the right to marry, and what I could do to oppose it, I've continued to come back to a missive I wrote nearly eighteen months ago. I'm of the mind that in order to discuss gay marriage, one must understand the state and meaning of marriage as it exists today, what impact, if any, gay marriage may have upon the institution of marriage, the progression of gay culture, and what is at stake for the gay community.

All too often, those opposed to gay marriage speak of it in terms of the harm it will do to their marriages. I summarily reject that premise...contending instead that whatever ails marriage has little, if anything, to do with homosexuality. It's also true that the quality of love isn't heightened with the attachment of a state approved license any more than it is diminished by its absence. Notwithstanding, the decision to deny that affirmation to gays is a tacit rejection of the merits of love.

I can't force anyone to support gay marriage...but I think I can argue that a recognition of love should not be withheld because one happens to be a homosexual. In suggesting as much, it should be apparent that efforts to deny gays the right to marry is antithetical to love. Should you conclude the same after reading the following words, I implore you to consider making a donation to oppose Proposition 8.

LINK TO DONATE

Does Where You're Going Depend On Where You've Been?

I was gay when being a homo was a mental illness...when queer sex was illegal...when you didn't discuss being a faggot with your doctor...when sodomites were chased down and thrown out of the military...when AIDS was god's punishment for being a fairy. I was gay before being gay was remotely fashionable. Nonetheless, I was always just me.

Perhaps the most shocking part...I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to returning to those days if given the opportunity. Not because I enjoyed being a mentally ill criminal who was likely to die well before my time...not because it was easy to hide my identity and live in secret...not because I might find myself the victim of hatred and violence.

No, I would return to those days to remind me why I must still fight today...why it isn't enough to no longer be a mentally ill criminal destined to die young...why it isn't enough to be allowed to serve in the military if I just keep quiet and conceal my lifestyle...why it isn't enough to be an acquaintance that hip heterosexuals get to namedrop at a dinner party like a new pair of Pravda shoes...why I don't want to abandon my gay culture in order to have a place at the insiders table...why I don't want the right to marry to be held over my head as if it were the Holy Grail.

I don't accept that my destiny is to assimilate myself into heterosexual culture such that I no longer create discomfort for those who demand homogeneity over homosexuality. I don't want the music I hear in gay clubs to be the same music I hear everywhere else...I don't want my sense of fashion to be identical to that of my straight counterparts...I don't want heterosexuals to understand everything I say...I want gay slang to remain gay slang. I don't want to have a party that is so nondescript that the neighbors can't tell that a gay man lives on the same block.

Let me be clear. I don't say this to reject heterosexual culture or to assert the superiority of gay culture...I appreciate and honor the validity of all cultures. I say it to remind myself and my gay brethren that acceptance need not come with capitulation...the world is large enough for every cultures to exist...and the world ought to be educated and enlightened such that acceptance equates with the ability...no, the desire and the demand to embrace and celebrate them all.

If society is akin to the palette of an artist, then it is essential that all the colors remain...lest we become a canvas absent contrast...imbued with the blandness born of banality. America may be the proverbial melting pot but our greatness results from the soup we serve from that pot...a complex soup that maintains an array of distinct flavors...all perfectly blended such that each maintains its identity and each is enhanced by the presence of the others...not overwhelmed or masked such that the independent flavors are indistinguishable.

The need for acceptance is no stranger to trepidation. How one responds to that anxiety may define the degree to which the achieved acceptance is authentic or, conversely, it may define the distance one has traveled from one's authenticity in order to obtain enough acceptance to mitigate the trepidation. The distance between the former and the latter may well describe a journey of betrayal that is predicated upon the need to extinguish discomfort at the expense of preserving identity.

That which is authentic need never become inauthentic to achieve acceptance. Any society that expects as much becomes a faceless, colorless canvas which consumes itself while feeding upon its fears. The same is true of any subset of that society which would accede to those expectations.

The issue of gay marriage is an excellent case in point. Marriage has become the gauntlet upon which the war for acceptance of homosexuality and the associated authenticity of our existence and our relationships is being waged. I reject that premise. So long as we allow marriage to define the legitimacy of our relationships, we enable the opposition to defile us.

Are we entitled to the rights afforded by marriage? Absolutely. Should we wage the battle for gay acceptance on that platform? I don't think so. Let me explain. At the core of a large share of the opposition to gay marriage is an inherent bias and prejudice against homosexuality. The message sent by those opposed to gay marriage is that we refuse to give your lifestyle the legitimacy afforded by such state sponsored recognition...your relationships are lesser than ours and we intend to maintain the institutional constructs to demonstrate as much.

Simultaneously, the dialogue that opposes gay marriage is couched in the argument that it would represent an affront to family and longstanding societal and religious traditions. By design, this is intended to steer voter debate around and beyond the realm of civil rights and the basic notion of equality. It also leaves gays on the outside asking to be let in...and nothing communicates the perception that I'm not as good as you as demanding another admit, acknowledge, and accept that I am.

An example is warranted. If you've ever watched a group of children playing, you've seen the situation where a couple children form an alliance that excludes another child or group of children...and they often flaunt a possession or a privilege...telling the outsiders they have the newest Game Boy or their parents take them to the country club on the weekends. The goal is to establish a distinction of inequity whereby those on the outside long to be included.

Fortunately, circumstances can change and the excluded can become a sought after commodity...maybe it results from a discussion about animals in a science class whereby it is exposed that one of the outsiders lives on a farm with horses...and the teacher elects to take the class on a field trip to the farm. That can lead to realignments such that some children choose to befriend the child with horses in the hopes of being invited to go riding after school. You get the picture.

Coming back to gay culture and the issue of gay marriage...beginning in the early nineties, society became fascinated with all things gay...gay music, gay fashion, gay theater, gay television characters, and many of those elements were mainstreamed...or If I may gently suggest...they were co-opted by society at large.

Conventional thought argues that familiarity breeds contempt...but on the contrary, with regards to being gay, I would contend that familiarity brought a degree of tacit acceptance on the part of society which was followed by complacency on the part of the gay community. In the wake of our perceived assimilation, we ran for the cover of conventionality...embracing many of the means and measures of conformity...which included the traditional model of marriage.

Sometimes, in order to understand one's own progression (the place at which one has arrived)...whether that be individually or collectively as a group...one must consult the perceptions of those with whom we now consort. During a past airing of This Week with George Stephanopoulos, I was struck by a comment made by George Will as the panel was discussing the issue of gays in the military. Mr. Will remarked, "The culture is moving anyway...I have a daughter...26...in her cohort...being gay is just like being left handed...it's just boring".

In terms of acceptance, perhaps that is a good thing which will ultimately, by default, manifest itself in the full granting of recognitions...including gay marriage. Call me a skeptic, but while many heterosexuals worry that including gays will diminish the integrity of marriage, I worry that our acceptance of marriage as the means and the measure by which we define our relationships may in fact diminish the fundamental premise of those relationships.

Perhaps loving someone in spite of society's validation of that love is an added demonstration of love...a love that must be found and fostered absent the endorsements and benefits that society grants when recognizing an announcement of marriage. Frankly, I'm not convinced that marriage, in its current iteration, requires much more consideration than we bring to bear on the purchase of a new automobile. It seems to me that marriage has become another commodity in this zero-sum equation that typifies our consumption crazed society.

As such, when gays bestow idyllic attributes upon the acquisition of marriage rights, do we not endorse a failing system and in the process begin to minimize the relationships we chose to form in spite of their rejection by society? I, for one, reject the notion that society, in its current form, represents the best we can do and I believe that the state of marriage no doubt supports my premise. Gays should not accept the role of villain with regard to the state of marriage and they should not seek its sanction if it simply becomes a vehicle for their ongoing victimization.

If acceptance and the affording of full participation in society were to require we give up portions of our cultural identity...or if we were to succumb to the premise that it does in order to best achieve our objectives...then I would opt to remain detached but whole. Unfortunately, I'm worried our history and our heritage may be slipping into the abyss...exacerbated by the loss of a generation to HIV....a generation that facilitated so much of the progress we've made by standing strong and living large.

At the same time, I'm inclined to reject the current state of America's morality...a morality that is worn as an external badge upon hollow human holograms of holiness. Our proximity to hallowed temples on Sunday is not a measure of our piety any more than another's absence is a measure of their dedication to the devil. Morality cannot and should not be reduced to a sexual preference scorecard, a campaign slogan, or policies that deny or impose.

The state of grace must be our goal. It holds the power to promote change and to heal hearts. Graciousness is a conscious choice that is elected when innocence has been lost...an innocence that has long since evaporated but remains forever valued and painstakingly imitated. It is not an emblem we acquire...it does not flow to the winner of an election...it is an endeavor of example whereby words are not sufficient...it must be lived.

Our gay authenticity is no different and it mustn't be wagered or mortgaged for any imagined or perceived prize. We must never accept that homosexuality and morality are mutually exclusive. Morality is an internal state; not a litany of state installed mandates. Morality maligned by the majority is nothing more than the manifestation of institutionalized immorality.

One's love for humanity requires no higher being, no promise of salvation, no threat of damnation...it should be unconditional and absolute. It need not elevate nor annihilate those who are similar or dissimilar. It honors humanity simply because it is humanity. It seeks no special treatment nor does it require one to adopt any specious identity in order to find acceptance. We humans share the same origin but we also possess different identity's...which is as it were intended. We mustn't forget.

I love beauty queens and drag queens...I love girls who are cowboys and boys who are cowgirls...I love tin soldiers, toy soldiers, and our soldiers...I love rednecks and red lipstick...I love drama whether it's on the big screen or just plain old big drama...I love cry babies and babies crying...I love hetero sexy and homo sexual...I love girls with big boobs and boobs that are big girls. They give us our texture, our color, and our depth.

I'm reminded of the words from an old song that have always spoken succinctly and eloquently to these issues that I hold near and dear, "Don't make me over, now that I'd do anything for you...Don't make me over, now that you know how I adore you...accept me for what I am...accept me for the things that I do". May I suggest that there is no finer song to honor the sanctity of our shared humanity?

No individual...no sexual orientation...no skin color...no party...no religion...no nation...has a monopoly on goodness. We're all at our best when we embrace the best our identity has to offer. I am not an opinion poll...I am not a debate question...I am not a threat to marriage...I am not that queer homo fairy faggot sodomite gay guy who blogs. I have always been first, foremost, and forever human. I should not need to tell you and you should not need to ask me...I have always been me. I will always be me.

Are gays not human enough to grant them the right to marry? Wouldn't it be grand if we Americans could find a way to embrace and celebrate the simplicity of that which connects us...our humanity? Isn't the affirmation of love the place to start?

LINK TO DONATE

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

If affectations were authenticity, Sarah Palin's debate performance would have been Oscar worthy. If flirtations were facts, Sarah Palin could transform ennui into an astute entry in the encyclopedia. If muddled mutterings were metrics, Sarah Palin could be a mathematician. If serendipity were substance, enlightenment would emerge from Palin's equivocations. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. If audacity were hope, John McCain and Sarah Palin would be our saviors. Look, by virtually any means of measurement, the performance of Sarah Palin during last nights debate was an insult to voters and a mockery of our political process. While I realize Republicans want to support their ticket and hold the White House, the fact that any American could ignore the utter inanity of her performance last night...and cast a vote for the McCain-Palin ticket...is an affront to the integrity of our democracy. To grant legitimacy to tactical cynicism is to empower the reckless acts of those who would sacrifice our society for their own exigent egotism. The only salient conclusion one can draw from John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate is that he may be the most dangerous man in America. Make no mistake; John McCain's life is the epitome of insolence and self-indulgence. Sarah Palin's selection is simply the exclamation mark. With that said, John McCain is merely a symptom of a far more endemic illness. John McCain embodies a segment of our society that is willing to sacrifice rationality and reasonability for the pursuit of power and profit. Were that the limit of this egregious era of enmity, I might reconsider this recitation. The gravity of this moment doesn't afford that luxury. John McCain and Sarah Palin do not represent the heart and soul of America...they are impostors who wrap themselves in the superficial rhetoric of patriotism, righteousness, and religiosity. They do this by denigrating and casting doubt upon those qualities in others. It takes the form of narcissistic negation designed to deny worth to those who refuse to check their cerebral capacities at the door and adopt their mindless mantras. When I witness the chanting of "USA, USA" or "Drill baby drill" at a McCain rally, I don't hear the collective cries of informed and evolved individuals; I hear and see the summary suspension of identity for the comfort of canned incantations. The fact that this lockstep submission to simplistic circumlocution is being glorified in the disingenuous gesticulations of Governor "give me a frickin' break" Palin is an insult to true patriots, the resolutely righteous, and those who respect religion enough to forego flaunting it as if it were the latest fashion. Yes, John McCain served his country in the military...but the measure of a man must be his motivations...just as is the case with regards to the service of one's God. If patriotism or religion is employed as the means to manipulate others, neither is noble or noteworthy. To understand this concept, and its relevance in discerning the essence of John McCain from the caricature he has carefully crafted, I highly recommend reading <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain">the recent article in Rolling Stone that traces his less than laudable biography</a>. As I read the article, I found myself recalling the story of Forrest Gump. While there may be symmetries in these two men's situations, they begin to diverge at the moment one delves into an examination of the purity of happenstance versus the cunning of calculation. While this exercise in illumination is intended to inform as to the integrity of the individual, it becomes especially insidious when a number of the observers can no longer apply objectivity in identifying the insincerity of the protagonist's executions. Ironically, the juxtaposition of fiction and fact only serves to amplify the premise of my argument...a belief that America is on the verge of becoming a tragic caricature of itself...prosecuted by icons hatched from the thin air of our illogical imaginations. To understand the inevitable outcome of this diminishment-by-denial brand of obfuscation...carried out by and for the McCain-Palin candidacy...take a look at its full and frightening manifestation in <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=">Rich Lowry's summarization</a> of the "performance" of Sarah Palin, posted at the National Review. <blockquote> A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it. </blockquote> Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't the moment at which projection becomes an acceptable substitute for substantive competence and principled character, the moment at which reality has been rejected? The fact that this analysis...deliberately divorced from the fundamental consideration of John McCain's judgment in selecting Palin...can be put forth by Lowry and embraced by millions only exacerbates the erosion of rational thought. As I read Lowry's inanity, it seemed as if this election was being reduced to the kind of manipulations one might expect to witness when a scantily clad vixen engages the unbridled libido of an adulterous husband on the prowl. Ah, yes, nothing better than pecker politics. Not only is this the epitome of a sexist oversimplification, it suggests the Governor is simply an object used as the means to an end. The cynicism is shocking. That brings me back to John McCain and Forrest Gump. You see, the trajectory of the life of Forrest Gump was best exemplified by the flight of a feather in the wind...whereby the unintended acted upon the soul of an innocent. On the other hand, Sarah Palin is an offshoot of John McCain's path...a path that is akin to the clever carpenter cutting corners to build a house of cards...whereby his suspect soul is little more than a hypocritical hologram that puts Palin forth as the purposeful act of a sullied snake-oil salesman. In the progression of the pathology I'm describing, Sarah Palin is merely a distraction offered by the disease in order to further its spread and prevent its detection and destruction. The Rich Lowry's of the world are its toxic foot soldiers and the voting public is its intended victim. In the end, it is insufficient to diagnose the source of our sickness and excise it from our body politic. Absent an aggressive intervention aimed towards inoculating the entirety of the organism, the unseen outposts of our oncology will continue to multiply. Treatment must be comprehensive. The return to rational health must include the rejection of those who would willingly drink the elixir and subscribe to the suggestions that it is an essential element of our identity. Those who consume the potion called Sarah Palin at the behest of John McCain and his minions do so at their own peril. Once the pathogen gains a foothold, prevention will prove futile. America is on the precipice of a pandemic. Those of sound mind and steeled judgment must speak out against the allure of inauthenticity. Sarah Palin is poison. John McCain is pushing and promoting that poison. Stand up and demand that America purge itself of this vile virus. Restoration is coming...rejection is the cure. <a href="http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/10/mccain-palin_the_audacity_of_audacity.php">Cross-posted at Thought Theater</a>

Well I’ve had it with all of the Sarah Palin hyperbole. We’re a better nation than this and we need to stop with the ad hominem attacks on the Alaska governor.

To that end, I’ve taken the time to compile some relevant facts that will set the record straight on the governor’s positions as well as the motivations for her selection by John McCain.

In the interest of efficiency, I’ve condensed the issues into a list of ten factoids.

NOTE: Snark alert...proceed at your own risk...

Number Ten:

All of this talk about the bridge to no where is so unfair. Everyone knows that Sarah Palin was first for the bridge to no where, then she was against the bridge to no where, then she took whatever money the federal government would allot for the bridge…and spent it on something else. Let’s lay off Governor Palin…she’s assured us that if Alaska needs that bridge, Alaska will build it…and I believe her.

Number Nine:

Sarah Palin is a reformer…she’ll work tirelessly to bring Alaska’s version of corruption and cronyism to Washington. Besides, the White House library needs some updating.

Number Eight:

It’s unfair to say that Sarah Palin speaks out of both sides of her mouth. Nothing could be further from the truth… everyone knows she’s talking to God when she speaks in tongues.

Number Seven:

It’s a good thing Sarah Palin is opposed to earmarks and wasteful, pork-barrel spending…it’s going to be needed to help offset Cindy McCain’s monthly credit card expenditures of over $250,000.00.

Number Six:

Sarah Palin won’t be anything like Dick Cheney. Everyone knows that Dick Cheney is a curmudgeon who spends his time holed up in an undisclosed location. Quite the contrary, Sarah Palin is a pit bull who spends her time holed up at home…collecting per diem from the state of Alaska.

Number Five:

Sarah Palin is a visionary politician. She knows that Alaska is a pivotal state in U.S. foreign policy…and no, it’s not because her state is next to Russia. It’s because Alaska is a religiously defined refuge state and she’s been preparing her state to accept the refugees that God told her to expect from the lower forty eight states when the rapture begins.

Number Four:

Sarah Palin is the dream candidate for millions of women. She’s a neo-feminist…the kind that thinks a raped woman should pay for her own forensics kit…right before she’s forced to carry that baby to term. Now that’s a woman every woman should support.

Number Three:

You have to love the idea of John McCain putting a fellow maverick on his ticket. Just look at the facts…John McCain hired a governor who knew her state didn’t need the expense of a state-owned jet…and he married another woman who told the press that she and her husband need a jet to get around Arizona. Everyone knows travel in Arizona is far more complicated than in the largest state in the union.

Number Two:

It’s unfair to criticize the GOP’s platform position on a woman’s right to choose…they’ve actually proven they will defend a woman’s right to choose…the time and place when she’ll answer any of the media’s questions.

Number One:

We need to stop making light of Sarah Palin’s pit bull metaphor. Everyone knows that the difference between a two star national guard general and a three star national guard general in Alaska is the lipstick on the pit bull’s ass.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Well I’ve had it with all of the Sarah Palin hyperbole. We’re a better nation than this and we need to stop with the ad hominem attacks on the Alaska governor.

To that end, I’ve taken the time to compile some relevant facts that will set the record straight on the governor’s positions as well as the motivations for her selection by John McCain.

In the interest of efficiency, I’ve condensed the issues into a list of ten factoids.

NOTE: Snark alert...proceed at your own risk...

Number Ten:

All of this talk about the bridge to no where is so unfair. Everyone knows that Sarah Palin was first for the bridge to no where, then she was against the bridge to no where, then she took whatever money the federal government would allot for the bridge…and spent it on something else. Let’s lay off Governor Palin…she’s assured us that if Alaska needs that bridge, Alaska will build it…and I believe her.

Number Nine:

Sarah Palin is a reformer…she’ll work tirelessly to bring Alaska’s version of corruption and cronyism to Washington. Besides, the White House library needs some updating.

Number Eight:

It’s unfair to say that Sarah Palin speaks out of both sides of her mouth. Nothing could be further from the truth… everyone knows she’s talking to God when she speaks in tongues.

Number Seven:

It’s a good thing Sarah Palin is opposed to earmarks and wasteful, pork-barrel spending…it’s going to be needed to help offset Cindy McCain’s monthly credit card expenditures of over $250,000.00.

Number Six:

Sarah Palin won’t be anything like Dick Cheney. Everyone knows that Dick Cheney is a curmudgeon who spends his time holed up in an undisclosed location. Quite the contrary, Sarah Palin is a pit bull who spends her time holed up at home…collecting per diem from the state of Alaska.

Number Five:

Sarah Palin is a visionary politician. She knows that Alaska is a pivotal state in U.S. foreign policy…and no, it’s not because her state is next to Russia. It’s because Alaska is a religiously defined refuge state and she’s been preparing her state to accept the refugees that God told her to expect from the lower forty eight states when the rapture begins.

Number Four:

Sarah Palin is the dream candidate for millions of women. She’s a neo-feminist…the kind that thinks a raped woman should pay for her own forensics kit…right before she’s forced to carry that baby to term. Now that’s a woman every woman should support.

Number Three:

You have to love the idea of John McCain putting a fellow maverick on his ticket. Just look at the facts…John McCain hired a governor who knew her state didn’t need the expense of a state-owned jet…and he married another woman who told the press that she and her husband need a jet to get around Arizona. Everyone knows travel in Arizona is far more complicated than in the largest state in the union.

Number Two:

It’s unfair to criticize the GOP’s platform position on a woman’s right to choose…they’ve actually proven they will defend a woman’s right to choose…the time and place when she’ll answer any of the media’s questions.

Number One:

We need to stop making light of Sarah Palin’s pit bull metaphor. Everyone knows that the difference between a two star national guard general and a three star national guard general in Alaska is the lipstick on the pit bull’s ass.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Well I’ve had it with all of the Sarah Palin hyperbole. We’re a better nation than this and we need to stop with the ad hominem attacks on the Alaska governor.

To that end, I’ve taken the time to compile some relevant facts that will set the record straight on the governor’s positions as well as the motivations for her selection by John McCain.

In the interest of efficiency, I’ve condensed the issues into a list of ten factoids.

NOTE: Snark alert...proceed at your own risk...

Number Ten:

All of this talk about the bridge to no where is so unfair. Everyone knows that Sarah Palin was first for the bridge to no where, then she was against the bridge to no where, then she took whatever money the federal government would allot for the bridge…and spent it on something else. Let’s lay off Governor Palin…she’s assured us that if Alaska needs that bridge, Alaska will build it…and I believe her.

Number Nine:

Sarah Palin is a reformer…she’ll work tirelessly to bring Alaska’s version of corruption and cronyism to Washington. Besides, the White House library needs some updating.

Number Eight:

It’s unfair to say that Sarah Palin speaks out of both sides of her mouth. Nothing could be further from the truth… everyone knows she’s talking to God when she speaks in tongues.

Number Seven:

It’s a good thing Sarah Palin is opposed to earmarks and wasteful, pork-barrel spending…it’s going to be needed to help offset Cindy McCain’s monthly credit card expenditures of over $250,000.00.

Number Six:

Sarah Palin won’t be anything like Dick Cheney. Everyone knows that Dick Cheney is a curmudgeon who spends his time holed up in an undisclosed location. Quite the contrary, Sarah Palin is a pit bull who spends her time holed up at home…collecting per diem from the state of Alaska.

Number Five:

Sarah Palin is a visionary politician. She knows that Alaska is a pivotal state in U.S. foreign policy…and no, it’s not because her state is next to Russia. It’s because Alaska is a religiously defined refuge state and she’s been preparing her state to accept the refugees that God told her to expect from the lower forty eight states when the rapture begins.

Number Four:

Sarah Palin is the dream candidate for millions of women. She’s a neo-feminist…the kind that thinks a raped woman should pay for her own forensics kit…right before she’s forced to carry that baby to term. Now that’s a woman every woman should support.

Number Three:

You have to love the idea of John McCain putting a fellow maverick on his ticket. Just look at the facts…John McCain hired a governor who knew her state didn’t need the expense of a state-owned jet…and he married another woman who told the press that she and her husband need a jet to get around Arizona. Everyone knows travel in Arizona is far more complicated than in the largest state in the union.

Number Two:

It’s unfair to criticize the GOP’s platform position on a woman’s right to choose…they’ve actually proven they will defend a woman’s right to choose…the time and place when she’ll answer any of the media’s questions.

Number One:

We need to stop making light of Sarah Palin’s pit bull metaphor. Everyone knows that the difference between a two star national guard general and a three star national guard general in Alaska is the lipstick on the pit bull’s ass.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

As I've considered John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, and <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7BFC1CC010-CBD5-4063-A9CB-FF80C30C313F%7D&print=true&dist=printMidSection">her acceptance speech</a> last evening, I just couldn't convince myself to take either all that seriously. Yes, it was a well-designed and delivered speech and it received glowing reviews from those in attendance, including the media. However, the wisdom of the Palin selection is still open to debate...and the content of her speech will still have to be reconciled with the facts. While that process unfolds, I decided to offer the following tongue-in-cheek list of the top ten reasons John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. <strong>Number Ten:</strong> If you're campaign is at a dead end, why not hire <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901">the candidate who wanted to build a bridge to nowhere</a>. <strong>Number Nine:</strong> He needed to add the idea of change to his message of experience...and Sarah Palin brings both. In fact, she has an abundance of experience...changing diapers. <strong>Number Eight:</strong> The only way to combat "high-flown speechmaking" is with "low-road sarcasm". <strong>Number Seven:</strong> John McCain is a man of vision who thinks ahead. If he's elected president, he'll need seven house sitters...and the Palin family perfectly fits that parameter. <strong>Number Six:</strong> The best way to keep the attention off of <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html">Cindy McCain's $300,000.00 outfit</a> was to employ a mudslinging pit bull hockey mom. <strong>Number Five:</strong> Cindy McCain became an instant Palin cheerleader when she heard that <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/wasilla-the-met.html">Wasilla was the meth capital of Alaska</a>. <strong>Number Four:</strong> It's all about the art of innuendo. Palin had John McCain eating out of her hand the minute "Lay more pipeline" came out of her mouth. After all, John McCain has always been fond of drilling...women. <strong>Number Three:</strong> If you can't deliver the beef, go for the girl who can carve the caribou. <strong>Number Two:</strong> His pit bull won't wear lipstick. <strong>Number One:</strong> You have to admire a woman with an unwed pregnant teenage daughter who continues to push for more drilling in regions that are off-limits. <strong>Bonus Reason:</strong> When John McCain compared the fact that Barack Obama "authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform" with the reports that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303210_pf.html">Sarah Palin authored countless emails that may have broke the law</a>, he knew she was the right choice for a third Bush administration. <a href="http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/09/top_ten_reasons_john_mccain_chose_sarah_palin.php">Cross-posted at Thought Theater</a>

I've got a different take on <a href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/the_reverend_wright.html">the focus that is being placed on the statement's of Jeremiah Wright</a> and their <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2008/04/obamas_pastor_reignites_race_c.html">relationship to the candidacy of Barack Obama</a>. I agree that he isn't doing Senator Obama any favors by appearing at numerous events...especially since many Americans seemed willing to accept his explanations and observations on the issue of race following the first release of excerpts from Pastor Wright's sermons. However, realizing the detrimental effect of Pastor Wright's continued presence in the spotlight ignores an essential and salient question...one that asks why Wright's ongoing remarks and the associated media attention continues to result in a strong and persistent linkage to Senator Obama...despite the Senator's lucid observations on the complexities of race in America. As I've watched this situation unfold, I've had a nagging suspicion that something else was at play. Fortunately, as I saw today's endless coverage of the topic, I was able to connect these troubling events with a theory I previously discovered as a result of my endless curiosity with human psychology. The theory hasn't received all that much attention though I suspect it soon will. The theory, and my related hypothesis, suggests that the incessant linkage of Obama with Jeremiah Wright is indicative of a phenomenon that has typified race relations in this country for many years. The psychological concept has it's origin in the study of "cross-race recognition deficit"...or what would be commonly known as a predisposition to conclude that "they all look the same" when attempting to distinguish individuals of a race that differs from our own. Hence we are prone to conclude that 'they' all look alike...and more importantly...that 'they' are in fact alike in ways that exceed or transcend their physical descriptions or characteristics. The following provides a basic explanation of, and a primer on, the research that underlies the theory of "cross-race recognition deficit". <blockquote> <a href="http://www.apa.org/releases/facerecog.html">From The American Psychological Association:</a> WASHINGTON - Why do people of one racial group fail to recognize faces from another racial group? This so-called cross-race recognition deficit, a topic of debate within the social science community, is sometimes explained by suggesting that people have less experience seeing faces from other races. But, a new research finding by Kent State University psychologist Daniel T. Levin, Ph.D., suggests that the information people "see" when looking at the face of a person of another race is information that allows them to classify the person as White or Black but is not information which allows them to individualize the person, such as the color of their eyes or shape of their nose. Dr. Levin's conclusions, as published in the December issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, published by the American Psychological Association, is based on experiments designed to determine the kind of information people retain when looking at cross-race faces. In his first experiment, Levin compared how well people recognize faces of other races with how readily they locate these faces in a visual search task. He made two average faces, one derived from 16 Black faces morphed together and a second created when 16 White faces were morphed together. These Black and White faces were at either ends of a cross-race spectrum of faces. Using these faces, Levin tested 25 participants (the participants were nearly all White, with a few Asians also included) on their ability to locate a Black face amid a series of White faces or visa versa. Next, the same participants were shown yearbook photos of 16 White and 16 Black male students. They were then shown another set of photos and asked to indicate whether any of the second set also appeared in the yearbook photos. As expected, on the face memory test using yearbook photos, participants were better at recognizing White faces than they were at recognizing Black ones. But, paradoxically, participants who performed most poorly in recognizing Black faces in the yearbook photo test were most likely in the first part of the experiment - the visual search task -- to locate Black faces among the White faces more quickly than the White faces among Black faces. This occurs, according to Levin, because the information people focus on when looking at a face of another racial group is information that is optimal for group classification (that's a Black man") rather than individual recognition ("that's a man with a mustache and a down-turned mouth"). "Participants who were poor at recognizing black faces appear to code blackness as a visual feature while they may not code whiteness at all," says Dr. Levin. "The problem is not that we can't code the details of cross-race faces; it's that we don't. Instead, we substitute group information, or information about the race, for information about the features that help us tell individual people apart." </blockquote> I contend that Dr. Levin's work on the subject is on the leading edge of better understanding what we're witnessing with regards to the campaign of Senator Obama and thus pushing us towards our next foray into understanding the impact of race in America. Specifically, the notion of substituting group information or information about a particular race for the discriminations needed to distinguish one individual from another are at play with regards to the remarks of Pastor Wright and the linkage being applied as a result of Senator Obama's membership in his church. Let's look more closely at the details of Dr. Levin's research. In his follow up work, Dr. Levin provides evidence that suggests that the recognition deficit does exist but he takes it a step further when he exposes the possibility that the deficit doesn't result from an inability to identify subtle differences; rather it may well be that we simply don't or won't. The fact that he quickly demonstrates that it can be done with a minimal amount of instruction suggests that we're prone to what I would characterize as 'lumping'. Essentially lumping means that once we distinguish race, we frequently go no further in order to identify or delineate for the characteristics of each individual. I would argue that this process of generalization is apt to transcend physical attributes. If so, it may well explain why the words of Pastor Wright are being indelibly attached to Senator Obama. <blockquote> <a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec00/lookalike.html">From Monitor On Psychology:</a> People are notoriously awful at recognizing faces from other races. It's a human foible often explained by the notion that we have more experience looking at members of our own race and thus acquire "perceptual expertise" for characteristics of our own kind. One influential version of that hypothesis argues that the so-called cross-race recognition deficit can be modeled by assuming that faces of other races are more psychologically similar than are faces of one's own race. But Daniel Levin, PhD, a cognitive psychologist at Kent State University, has been unsatisfied with that argument. "The perceptual expertise position is pretty intuitive, and it makes sense," he says. "But I'm arguing that it's not really the case. The problem is not that we can't code the details of cross-race faces--it's that we don't." Instead, he says, people place inordinate emphasis on race categories--whether someone is white, black or Asian--ignoring information that would help them recognize people as individuals. In recent research, Levin has shown that people can, in fact, perceive fine differences among faces of people from other races--as long as they're using those differences to make race classifications. Levin hypothesized that when people see cross-race faces, they code race-specifying information at the expense of individuating information--something they don't do when they see same-race faces. To test the notion that people are able to perceive subtle differences among faces of people from other races, Levin next explored how readily people distinguish among cross-race faces versus own-race faces in making race classifications. Using the two average black and white faces from the earlier experiments, he created a continuum of faces that ran from black at one end to white at the other. Thirteen participants viewed pairs of faces that differed by 20 percent along the black-white continuum. For half the trials, participants judged which of the two faces was most similar to the face at the black end point face. For the other half, they judged which was most similar to the face at the white end. He found that participants were more often accurate when discriminating between two faces at the black end of the continuum than they were for faces at the white end of the continuum. That finding demonstrates, Levin explains, that people possess the perceptual expertise to detect minute differences among cross-race faces. A final experiment corroborated those results. As before, for faces on a black-white continuum, participants were better at discriminating between subtly different black faces than they were for subtly different white faces. But on a different continuum that had black faces at both end points, making it impossible for faces to be distinguished based on race, participants did not show such skill at discriminating between faces. That suggests that the extent to which the subtle variations convey race information, as opposed to individuating information, is an important part of the discrimination task, Levin argues. </blockquote> The excerpt that follows includes remarks from other researchers on the validity of Levin's observations and conclusions. While a discussion of the data would clearly need to be more complex than the text provided below, the gist of the alternate argument contends that Levin fails to provide evidence of reversal...meaning Whites and Blacks should exhibit similar abilities to 'classify' the faces of other races. A prior political event may help us understand why the reversal sought by others isn't necessary to confirm Levin's hypothesis. In fact, the example may actually direct us towards the additional research needed to conclusively support Dr. Levin's contention that one must look at the differences in majority and minority status to fully understand the causations and ramifications of this theory. That further body of work could also substantiate the extrapolations I'm making with regards to Reverend Wright and Senator Obama. Back in 1960, John Kennedy's candidacy was endangered by his Catholicism despite his assertions he wouldn't be beholding to or guided by those in Rome. He, like Senator Obama, found it necessary to explain his membership and the fact that he would remain a participant in his church of choice. Skeptical voters sought assurances that he could separate the duties and objectives of his party and the office of the president from the doctrines and objectives perceived to be espoused by his clergy. Many years later, in 2004, John Kerry met with the disfavor of a number of leaders of the Catholic Church. His support for a woman's right to choose (and other positions) was in opposition to the teachings of the Church yet his ongoing commitment to his religion of choice didn't elicit suspicions as to his allegiances or what he might do once elected. With the passage of decades, those who chose to support John Kerry were able and willing to accept that the Senator's beliefs differed from those within the hierarchy of his church. In fact, he was even able to separate his own personal beliefs on abortion from the constitutional obligations he felt came with winning the presidency. Returning to reversal, Levin disagrees, as do I, that it is a requirement to validate his hypothesis. Instead, it likely means that further research and better understandings are necessary to explain why there may be an absence of reversal in the minority group. To that end, I suspect that minorities simply begin to internalize the categorizations that society imposes...regardless of whether they have been applied by the majority consciously or as a matter of unconscious, though ingrained discriminations. In fact, I believe that those who feel such recognitions are applied as negative attributions would be resistant to adopt the use of similar discriminations. While doing so could be construed (by the minority) at some level to be a measure of retribution, it could also lend support to those seeking vindication for their actions and validation of their generalized, though often arbitrary, attributions. I suspect the absence of reversal in minorities is therefore accompanied by an increase in dissonance. Over time, the negative discriminations...and thus the dissonance...may well abate as assimilation is advanced. <blockquote> <a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec00/lookalike.html">From Monitor On Psychology:</a> Tim Valentine, PhD, of Goldsmiths College, University of London, also challenges Levin's interpretation. In order for Levin to support his claim that people more quickly classify other-race faces according to their race than they classify own-race faces, he says, "it is necessary to show that an effect for one race of participants reverses for the other race--for example, that black participants classify white faces faster than black faces. Levin has never shown this crossover that is critical for his hypothesis." Levin disagrees, however, that showing such a reversal is critical. His argument, he emphasizes, depends only on having found that people who are poorest at recognizing cross-race faces are in fact best at discriminating between them on the basis of race. And Levin concurs with Mullen that members of minority groups are likely to respond differently than are members of majority groups. Indeed, he points out, his report discusses previous research that suggests that minority group members tend to code not only people of other races at the category level, but also do so for people of their own race. Ultimately, suggests Alice O'Toole, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Texas at Dallas who also studies face recognition, Levin's new findings may be compatible with perceptual expertise and similarity hypotheses. "I see less division in the ideas than he does," O'Toole says. "One consequence of the perceptual problems that we may have with other-race faces could simply be that race is just a much more salient aspect of our encoding of faces of other races than it is of faces of our own race. I think the hypotheses are compatible, but Levin's idea is at more of a social level of analysis." Levin acknowledges, "The problem with the [perceptual expertise] models is not really that they're wrong, per se. Rather, it's a problem of focus. They're focused on this sort of reductivist analysis of similarity, when they really ought to be focused on trying to figure out why people use the features they use." </blockquote> In the final paragraph of the above excerpt lies the fundamental question of interest. Understanding the phenomenon of cross-race recognition deficit and all the behaviors that may be associated with it is only the first step. Being able to dissect the underlying beliefs that lead to this type of behavior is likely to help us understand and deconstruct the dynamics that drive racial tensions and the prejudices that fuel and promote them. In the end, Senator Obama is an individual. While many impugn the validity of his stated beliefs and refuse to accept any of the distinctions he has made with regard to his beliefs and those of his pastor, the degree of doubt that remains is likely to be more reflective of the society in which we live than it is of our ability to make informed discriminations absent the influence of race. Barack Obama may well continue to be harmed by his linkage to the words and images of Pastor Wright. Unfortunately, I contend that connection is a manifestation of the subtle and insidious racial divisions that continue to inhabit our perplexing psyches. Much of what Reverend Wright says may be wrong...but concluding Obama is wrong for America because of what Wright has said is also wrong. <a href="http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/04/crossrace_recognition_deficit_why_linking_obama_to.php">Cross-posted at Thought Theater</a>

Fred Thompson is someone to watch...someone who may have a strategy which is far more evolved than many may think. Personally, I'm not inclined to support Thompson but as I've kept an eye on the 2008 presidential candidates, I keep coming back to Thompson as a candidate who is blazing a new trail and carving out a niche that just might serve him well.

Prior to Thompson's official announcement on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, I too questioned his decision to delay his entry into the race. Since he's actually become a candidate, I've begun to wonder if Thompson is onto something. One recent Thompson statement crystallized my thoughts on the candidates strategy.

While offering that "debates are important," Thompson warned about letting "the tail wag the dog here."

"Standing up here, ten in a row, you know, like a bunch of seals waiting for somebody to toss the next fish is not necessarily the best way to impart information to the American people," he cracked to loud applause. "I'm not above acting like a seal every once in a while and waiting for the next fish. I just don't want to do it all the time."

Conventional wisdom has suggested Thompson's absence from the many debates may harm his candidacy...but after reading his remarks, I think Thompson will be able to succeed...or at a minimum, hold his own...with a measured participation. I say as much because I suspect that voters will soon be tired of the many debates as well as being bombarded by newfangled formats which may appeal to the tech savvy...but not so much to the bulk of "ordinary" voters simply looking for a means to garner an understanding of the candidates positions and therefore draw necessary comparisons and conclusions.

The manner in which Thompson has chosen to characterize the debate process and their frequency may well allow him to define a unique and independent style as well as a distinctive leadership quality...one that questions the status quo. I would call it a move to define himself as "presidential". Rather than following the crowd towards endless "performances", Thompson can downplay their merit while still benefiting from his well established name recognition.

His ability to distill folksy and frank messages adds to his appeal as an outsider...one who understands the voters and their disgust with polished political rhetoric designed to maximize the constituent base while maintaining an element of policy flexibility. The bottom line is to impart that he isn't selling slick...to convince voters that he's not selling anything; he's simply a straight shooter.

Look at his response to a question about his late entry into the race.

Local television reporters swarmed the senator before he had time to sample the stew. With his chili going cold in a Styrofoam bowl behind him, Thompson insisted that his late entry into the race would not prevent voters from warming to him. "I can't let other people set my agenda for me," he said.

The first thought which entered my mind as I began to view his strategic acumen was the comparison and contrast to George W. Bush. Clearly, none of the candidates want to be seen as George Bush the policy maker...but being seen as George Bush the down home person one might like to have a beer with is another story. Of all the candidates, Thompson may best capture that trait...one which has led voters to forgive many of the gaffes they've witnessed from the current president...simply because he seems to be a likable chap.

At the same time, two recent remarks by Thompson help establish the necessary contrast. His comments on not being a regular church goer and his suggestion that he was uncomfortable talking about his faith at length...other than to state he was "right with God and the people I love" is a clear deviation from the Bush approach to religion as a driving force. Add in his virtually disengaged reaction to a question about the Terri Schiavo situation and an astute pattern emerges. Let me explain.

The press jumped upon both comments. With regard to his sporadic church attendance, a number of pundits saw it as the equivalent of political suicide. Perhaps that makes sense on the surface but it requires more reflection. As the 2008 election approaches, one must first look backward and forward...backward to eight years of the Bush administration's perceived religious excess...forward to the efforts by Democratic candidates to accentuate and highlight their proximity to religious faith.

I suspect many voters will view Thompson's position as authentic...a position absent the religious pandering which characterized the Bush years...and one which refuses to engage in the seeming rush by Democrats to demonstrate their religious credentials so as not to alienate the faithful. As I perceive Thompson's remark, I suspect it mirrors the views of a majority of Americans...one that strikes a practical balance in the current political atmosphere.

As to the Schiavo comments, many in the media portrayed them as a liability which may be indicative of a candidate lacking the necessary sharpness...an acuity which some argue could have been refined by an earlier entrance into the fray. His vagueness has also been cast as potentially supportive of the suspicions that Thompson is lazy. I disagree with both assumptions. Take a look at Thompson's actual statement on the Schiavo situation.

"I can't pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best," Thompson said. "That's going back in history. I don't remember the details of it." [...] "Local matters generally speaking should be left to the locals. I think Congress has got an awful lot to keep up with."

As I read the words, they were in keeping with the opinion of most Americans from a number of angles. No, they won't necessarily satisfy the far right...but Thompson has support from that quarter already as a function of the perceived insufficiencies of his opponents...meaning he need not pander to them on social issues. Rather, his words establish his conservative credentials for those independents who may have voted Democratic in 2006 as well as those Republicans who have viewed George Bush as an acceptable social conservative but also a president wholly lacking in the traditional GOP conservatism which has become equated with Ronald Reagan.

Further, his answer is actually in line with what most Democrats felt about the situation. Specifically, they believed it shouldn't have become a national political issue whereby Congress and the President would intervene in a matter which had been fully vetted at the appropriate levels. In other words, Thompson's lack of knowledge...or lack of interest...along with his musing that Congress has plenty to do already...sends some important and welcome messages to Reagan Democrats; he doesn't intend to be George Bush, he is a traditional conservative, he supports limited government intervention, and religion will not drive his presidency.

Even his comments on gay marriage honor this apparent strategic equation.

Patrick Sammon, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, said Thompson’s proposal stops short of resurrecting the failed Federal Marriage Amendment, which sought to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman.

“It is a pretty huge difference from the Federal Marriage Amendment that President Bush supported,” he said. “This proposal would not prohibit state legislatures from passing gay marriage.”

But many gay activists said Thompson’s proposal would nonetheless enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution.

Thompson’s camp eventually issued a statement clarifying his stance.

“If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states,” it said. “Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”

Clearly, Thompson's position won't fully satisfy evangelicals...but it must be looked at in comparison to his fellow GOP candidates. In that regard, he has little to lose in establishing a federalist position on the issue...and is likely to draw some much needed support from moderate Republicans and independent voters.

One last statement shines a bright light on the Thompson strategy. During a recent campaign stop in Florida, Thompson addressed No Child Left Behind...calling it a good idea but once again seeking to strike the right balance between federally mandated programs and good old local decision making. Here's how he summarizes his view.

"It's your responsibility," he said. "If you don't like what's going on, don't get in your car and drive by your school board and maybe drive by the capitol and get on an airplane and fly to Washington and say, 'I don't like the way the school down the street is being run.'"

Where does such a strategy potentially position Fred Thompson? He holds his own with the social conservative evangelical voters who lack better choices, he recaptures the essence of traditional conservatism, he broadens his appeal with independents, and he opens the door to capturing Reagan Democrats. If he can make that happen, that's a pretty impressive achievement.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Everybody's talking about the surge...is it succeeding...is it a failure...will it allow the Iraqi government to turn the corner?

Some Democrats have been willing to acknowledge that the additional 30,000 troops has had a positive impact...which has led other Democrats to accuse them of capitulation. Simultaneously, these seemingly favorable remarks have also led some within the GOP to conclude that the President's persistence is paying off and that the Democrats are finally realizing that victory is achievable.

Lost in the dialogue is an important reality...one that requires little more than the appropriate comparisons...comparisons that the President and his supporters have wisely avoided...comparisons that the Democrats have been remiss to expose.

My thoughts on the subject were crystallized by a comment from a reader. The comment came in response to a posting which discussed a recent survey on the ability of the surge to succeed. The experts consulted overwhelmingly concluded that the surge would not succeed...and the reader disagreed...offering the following closing statement.

Like it or not, the surge is working, just ask Hillary or any Democrat (in private of course).

Victory or defeat, you decide.

In reading the comment, I realized that the Bush administration has succeeded in framing the discussion of the surge to its advantage. Let me explain. I've previously argued that the notion of defeat is the one thing which prevents Americans from demanding an immediate end to the war. The polling suggests that while a large majority of voters feel the war has been mismanaged...and while there is a majority consensus that a withdrawal timeline should be established...a strong majority seem to be struggling with the notion of losing...and that mindset is the very point upon which the Bush administration framing is focused.

Clearly, that is a powerful force for the Democrats to overcome...and each time a Democrat affirms the success of the surge, they reinforce the hopes of those voters who do not want to accept defeat. I contend that the Democrats need to change the way they discuss the surge and they need some plausible examples to make their point.

Here's what I would suggest. As long as the surge is characterized in traditional terms as a military offensive, the results will continue to be viewed in terms of victory or defeat. To change that dynamic, the Democrats need to frame it differently.

I contend the surge should be portrayed as comparable to increasing the number of police officers in a large city in order to reduce a troubling crime rate. In that model, the 30,000 additional troops is approximately a 22 percent increase in police officers.

Clearly, most Americans would understand this line of reasoning and in presenting the surge in this manner, it then allows the Democrats to pivot to the crucial message...the one that tells voters that crime prevention is a persistent and ongoing battle...it isn't a war that is won; it is simply the means to manage and deter the inherent potential for crime that will always exist.

As such, the struggle in Iraq is predicated upon a similar situation. More troops will deter the inherent potential for sectarian violence and insurgent activity...so long as the troops remain. However, a surge isn't a means to victory; it is a management strategy. Unfortunately, it cannot end until such time as the Iraqi government puts in place the means to self-manage the policing of their society.

Further explanation is needed to complete the framing. If one looks at the city of Chicago and its long period of crime and corruption, one begins to see the task at hand in Iraq. Not only is there a large "criminal" element in the Iraqi population at large; there is at a minimum a void in the Iraqi leadership...and at worst, they may well be complicit in fostering the violence and the corruption. Evidence suggests the latter is more likely.

In other words, we are no longer engaged in a military conflict; we are attempting to build a civil society through the insertion of an occupying force. The problem with that scenario is that it is divorced from the realities that exist within both the civilian population and the political leadership. Iraq not only has the equivalent of the rampant organized crime gangs that plagued Chicago; it also has a similarly corrupt government that isn't inclined to extinguish the gang warfare.

Lastly, the history of Chicago informs us that change occurred when the will of the people of Chicago mandated that change...a process that wasn't achieved in short order...a process that is most accurately viewed as generational shift; not a function of a surge mentality. In fact, one could argue that the addition of more police officers during Chicago's dark days would have simply given the combatants more wherewithal to prosecute their objectives. The situation simply lacked the innate institutional means for reform.

Iraq is no different...and while throwing 30,000 honest officers into the equation may limit the wheeling and dealing of those intent on the acquisition of power and profit...the society lacks the ability and the initiative to embrace the proposed social and political shifts.

Taking a current example...the city of Baltimore has already seen 200 murders this year. Using the surge mentality, the city could decide to increase the number of police officers in hopes of reducing this alarming trend...but the dynamics that created the trend in the first place must be eliminated in order to achieve sustainable improvement. Reality tells us such an endeavor will take a long time (see Chicago or any other city that confronted such a dilemma)...and it involves more than expanding the ranks of the police force. Undoubtedly, the city has issues with poverty, drugs, education, gangs, race, and any host of other factors that can be expected to precipitate such a decline.

Now imagine a similar situation in a nation that completely lacks the long standing governmental structure found here in the United States. We have the benefit of a stabilizing force that cannot be underestimated and yet we still encounter situations like Chicago in the early 20th century and Baltimore in the here and now. Iraq has none of that to bring to bear on the situation.

By providing the above argument to establish the magnitude of the tasks facing Iraq, the final piece of the rationale can be introduced...and it is best done through the asking of one essential question..."If another nation had intervened in Chicago or one chose to intervene in Baltimore now, how would the inhabitants of either city react and what response could we expect from the vast majority of Americans?"

I think the answer is obvious but I'll provide an example to illustrate my point. The European Union recently implored the governor of the state of Texas to reconsider the state's intention to execute a convicted criminal...and to place a moratorium on capital punishment. Governor Perry's office offered the following response.

The governor's spokesman, Robert Black, said in a statement that "230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination.

"Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens," Black said. "While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas."

Suffice it to say that we would be fooling ourselves to presume that the same sentiment doesn't exist in Iraq. In fact, the recent remarks of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in response to U.S. criticism of the lack of political progress, highlight the degree to which self-determination will remain an obstacle to our efforts.

The Democrats would do well to remind voters of the position held by George Bush prior to the 2000 election. At that time, candidate Bush rejected the notion of nation building. Let's give the President his due...his position on nation building was right before he was elected to the presidency. Unfortunately, one would be hard pressed to offer the same assessment of his track record since he became the sitting president.

U.S. voters need to understand that the United States is no longer engaged in a war in Iraq...that ended in short order with the toppling of the Hussein regime. Our troops successfully completed their mission long ago. When the Bush administration uses the words of war...words like "troop surge"...to discuss our failed effort at nation building, it is the responsibility of Democrats to firmly and fiercely rebut this foolish fairy tale.

Its time voters knew the truth...we won the war...our presence in Iraq is no longer a question of victory or defeat...the only outstanding decision is the one confronting the people of Iraq..."Are they ready to begin the difficult task of building a nation?"

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

It is human nature to want to be right...and unfortunately, it is also human nature to make such assertions even in the absence of the necessary evidence. While I understand the instinct, I'm not sure it serves to advance meaningful dialogue or forge important alliances. In fact, it reminds me of the very divisive practices we have seen from Karl Rove and the GOP spin machine.

Yes, I'm speaking about the Washington Post article by Susan Gardner and Markos Moulitsas titled How We Won The Mainstream.. First, let me acknowledge that there is no doubt that Daily Kos has had a significant influence on the political dialogue in the last few years. At the same time, I would also suggest that it is far more difficult to measure the Kossaks' actual ability to impact the outcome of elections.

Before I proceed...and before all of the apologists attack...let me offer an important caveat. I have no allegiance to Daily Kos (outside of an occasional posting on the site) and I am also not aligned with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)...the apparent arch rival of Markos and company. I also have no particular axe to grind with either group...other than my own belief that seeking truth ought to trump the need to tout one's political potency.

In truth, I find the tendency of both groups to wax on with absolute rhetoric...in a fashion reminiscent of Dick Cheney and the GOP's neocon klatch...troubling and counterproductive. The following excerpts are from the article. You can also find Ed Kilgore's response here.

Three years ago things looked bleak for the Democratic Party. [...] Democrats appeared to be on the run, disorganized and demoralized. But outside of Washington there was hope. Grass-roots Democratic activists had seen the future of our politics in Howard Dean -- plain-spoken and unapologetic.

Dean was elected chairman of the Democratic Party despite predictions of electoral doom by the usual suspects in Washington, including the Democratic Leadership Council. In the House, Democrats chose Nancy Pelosi to lead them over current DLC Chairman Harold Ford, who warned of disaster if Pelosi won. Calling her a "throwback" who practiced a "destructive and obstructive" style of politics, Ford proclaimed, "I don't think Nancy Pelosi's kind of politics is what's needed right now." Today, Nancy Pelosi is the first female speaker of the House.

Ford, like his fellow Washington insiders, grossly misunderstood the American electorate. [...] Convinced that this is fundamentally a conservative nation, Ford demanded that Democrats unceasingly inch toward the right or risk electoral irrelevance. As then-DLC official Ed Kilgore put it in 2005, "If we put a gun to everybody's head in the country and make them pick sides, we're not likely to win." But we who live outside the D.C. bubble -- in all 50 states, in counties blue and red -- were hearing voices at odds with the Washington consensus.

The new leadership responded. A concerted grass- and Net-roots effort, bridging online activists and the labor movement, forced Democratic officials to reject any "compromise" with right-wing interests seeking to gut Social Security. Democratic poll numbers rose in the wake of this victory as Bush's fell. Standing strong for a core Democratic program was not only good for our country, it was smart politics.

Clearly, while the above remarks are for the most part an accurate chronology of the referenced events, they also attempt to paint a picture that exceeds the actual canvas...an artistic endeavor akin to closing one's eyes in order to imagine and embellish a bigger and brighter picture than the one which has left us wanting.

Rather than belabor the reader with a spate of details, suffice it to say that Howard Dean's mission to court not only the center but those on the right who he contends are misaligned with a Republican Party that regularly fails to address their needs seems to indicate a recognition that the existing "progressive" coalition must expand to be an ongoing force. It also seems to be recognition that the 2006 Democratic gains may have been more about opposition to the war in Iraq than a strong shift in shared ideology.

As to Nancy Pelosi and Social Security, may I posit that we're simply looking at a situation one might equate with a "chicken or the egg" conundrum. Did strong voter opposition to a change in Social Security enable Pelosi's stance or did Pelosi take the lead in shaping public opinion? OK, I'll admit that the answer to my question may be an insult to the scientific endeavor I've invoked.

Lastly, if I understand politics, the citing of an event that is now distant history as evidence of where we are or where we're going may make one feel good but it is also apt to be little more than an irrelevant footnote. May I suggest that the recent polling showing voter approval of Congress at three percent is a far better recap of what has happened and where we stand? I think a three percent approval ought to instruct that the future actions of the Democratic congressional leadership must improve and be better aligned with public sentiment.

Months later we championed Ned Lamont's victorious primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. Beltway insiders predicted that our success would cost Democrats the U.S. Senate, and consultants allied with the DLC fretted that activists were "pushing the party to the left."

In fact, we pushed the party so far left that we positioned it squarely in the American mainstream and last year won a historic, sweeping congressional victory, something the "centrist" groups had been unable to accomplish for decades -- not even in the DLC's glory days of the 1990s.

By early 2006, so-called centrism had offered up Iraq, a tax regime that puts the burden on the middle class, bankruptcy reform that gave away the farm to irresponsible credit card companies, an outdated physical infrastructure, legalized torture and a crippled disaster-response effort in New Orleans. The American people, infinitely smarter than Washington insiders, had had enough. Unapologetic, muscular Democrats swept into office in dramatic numbers in state and local races nationwide.

Now I'm no magician so perhaps I don't understand the art of illusion...but to cite the Ned Lamont primary victory without acknowledging his eventual loss to Joe Lieberman as evidence that the country has shifted leftward seems to be at best a sleight of hand and more likely a fictional fantasy. If Harold Ford's loss in Tennessee is evidence that the DLC's demand to move the Democratic Party to the center proves their misjudgment, then the fact that independent candidate Joe Lieberman was able to defeat the darling of the Netroots Left points to the miscalculation of Moulitsas and his followers.

Before the apologists converge to argue that one must look at the political climate of Connecticut before calling the Lamont candidacy a miscalculation, I would argue the same to be true regarding the outcome in Tennessee...so let's not waste our time. The truth of the matter is that neither the Kossaks nor the DLC have much to crow about. I'm sorry to be a buzz kill, but isn't it possible that 2006 was about saying no to George Bush and his Iraq quagmire?

Further, when I read Moulitsas' and Gardner's carefully crafted creation, I can't help but think about the many postings I've read in Netroot land about the need to toss out the many Blue Dog Democrats who were elected in 2006...and for those of you who may not be familiar with the term, Blue Dog Democrats are viewed to be a loosely linked group of Democrats who were elected in conservative leaning districts who embrace a much more conservative position than the Netroots.

Pardon my skepticism, but I'm struggling to follow this tortured line of reasoning which on the one hand seeks to contend that 2006 is evidence that the Netroots is the mainstream and on the other hand argues that the Blue Dog Democrats need to be targeted in 2008. Do A Google search on Blue Dog Democrats and see what you find. Isn't it possible that these people won in their districts because they didn't move too far left...and they capitalized upon the dissatisfaction with George Bush and the war in Iraq?

I'm still trying to decipher the particulars on the candidates Moulitsas and Gardner are referring to when they mention the "unapologetic, muscular Democrats" who were swept into office. Undoubtedly, the Democratic Party was successful in state and local races but this particular reference struck me as noticeably vague.

Last week, at the YearlyKos convention, all these players came together to celebrate our newfound unity and to organize for the coming battles in 2008 and beyond. The DLC was nowhere to be found -- unless you looked in Nashville, where its members continued to preach, in empty halls, about the "vital center." Even the Democratic presidential candidates have figured out where the heart of the party now lies: with the new, unashamedly progressive movement.

The DLC had two decades to make its case, to build an audience and community, to elect leaders the American people wanted. It failed.

Their time is up. The "center" is where we stand now, promoting an engaged and active politics embraced by significant majorities of Americans.

I know I'm being particularly sarcastic...but is the "defeat" of the DLC the kind of political victory one wants to tout when given the platform of a national newspaper article? My instincts about people suggest that my friends over at Daily Kos have gotten lost in the minutia of one-upmanship.

I'm reminded of the natural rivalry that exists between my two young nephews. As the younger one strives to outdo his older brother, my sister agonizes over their propensity to succumb to the immaturity and pettiness which one might logically expect from children.

I've yet to figure out how to explain the seemingly similar behavior from Mr. Moulitsas and Ms. Gardner. A sociologist might argue that political potency has become a metaphor for the passing on of one's genetic code...whereby their vituperate vignette is an attempt to assert viability and virility. Rather vexing, if I may say so myself.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Just got this wretch-inducing appeal from wasted lives & quagmire enabler MoveOn (emphasis added and repeated requests for YKos donations deleted):

From:  "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Political Action"

To:  "fairleft"

Subject: Big progressive conference in Chicago -- want to come?

Dear MoveOn member,

We wanted to invite you to join fellow progressive activists, bloggers, leaders, and writers at the second annual Yearly Kos convention this August in Chicago.

MoveOn is co-sponsoring this weekend of thinking about people-powered politics and Internet-driven activism. MoveOn staff will be there along with major bloggers, leaders of top progressive organizations, and progressive media outlets. There will also be a presidential candidates forum — John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson have already accepted.

... Want to join us at the Yearly Kos convention in Chicago from August 2nd to 5th? ...

The best reason to come isn't the big names—it's the chance to connect with thousands of other folks working across the country to build a more progressive America. ...

We hope we'll see you there.

Sincerely,

—Eli Pariser, Executive Director

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Okay barring the cognitive dissonance of seeing three mainstream Democratic Presidential candidates so close to a word they run like jackrabbits from, you just have to say, WOW, talk about PROGRESSIVE (I mean "PROGRESSIVE"), that sure must be some sort of progressive, "people-powered" event gonna take place in Chicago! Except, well we know about MoveOn and DailyKos (and (seems to me) YearlyKos): they're Democratic Party front organizations. That ain't progressive, it's more like:

Let's get ourselves elected with Dkos yokels' volunteering and money. It won't cost us any 'real player' support, cuz these chumps never demand a thing!

MoveOn ain't progressive. Just one story will tell you what they're really about, because in March Eli Pariser and MoveOn were at their Iraq-quagmire-enabling, Democratic-Party-leadership-faithful, tell-ya-all-ya-need-to-know worst, as told by David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet: MoveOn.org Versus Its Members

True Majority was a late addition to the list [of organizations in favor of Rep. Barbara Lee's fund an Iraq withdrawal bill]. The organization polled its members. Did they favor the Pelosi bill to fund the war but include various toothless restrictions on it, or did they favor the Lee plan to use the power of the purse to end the war by the end of the year? Needless to say, True Majority's membership favored the Lee plan.

MoveOn polled its membership without including the Lee alternative, offering a choice of only Pelosi's plan or nothing. Amazingly, Eli Pariser of MoveOn has admitted that the reason MoveOn did this was because they knew that their members would favor the Lee amendment.

In fact, writes Swanson, the point of MoveOn's two-choices-only poll ...

... was to allow MoveOn to announce that its membership supported Pelosi rather than Lee. Yet Pariser admits that he did not offer MoveOn's membership a choice of Lee's plan because he knew they would vote for it. ...

Actually, [Pariser] doesn't say that he knows Lee's plan would have won out over Pelosi's. But he certainly does not know that it wouldn't have, and making that baseless and to my mind very unlikely claim was the only possible point of having done the poll. The rationale that Pariser offers is absurd. The poll could only have had one result. It served to give cover to progressive Democrats in Congress who gave their support to Pelosi after having intended to vote no on Pelosi's bill unless it included Lee's amendment.

[Pariser] didn't let them make the supposed mistake of backing Lee rather than Pelosi, because Lee supposedly could never pass, while Pelosi could.

In addition to "the extreme arrogance and dishonesty,” Swanson adds two more reasons why Pariser and MoveOn's decision to back Pelosi and not Lee was the opposite of antiwar strategy:

...as Bob Fertik has pointed out, even if Lee's amendment did not pass, a vote for it would have helped to build war opposition in Congress, Pelosi's bill could have still passed too, and other amendments could still have been denied a vote.

[Secondly,] we have no proof that Lee's amendment could not have been passed. A third of the Democrats have taken similar positions. The leadership could have brought another third on board. And relentless pressure and threats and bribes of the sort aimed at progressives could have brought many of the right-wing Democrats along. And if it had failed, and the Republicans and Republican-lite Democrats had voted down the bill, it would have been clear who stood where, and Pelosi could have announced victory and the end of the war. The Pentagon has more than enough money to safely bring our troops home right away without Congress passing any bill at all.

All of MoveOn and the Democratic Leadership's maneuvering in April and May was more of this b.s., and we finally ended up -- is it where they wanted us to be? -- with a fully funded occupation ($95 Billion is funding for 9 months, not 4, by the way). And, reacting after the nasty May 24 deal (not pro-acting; he and his frontpage didn't say/do diddly when the deal was in play and might've been stopped (and neither did MoveOn)), Markos Moulitsas counsels patience (and please don't put your chump change under the mattress!).

Speaking of that repeated ad infinitum ‘progressive’, YearlyKos let's you know it doesn't mean a damn thing. Here's the YearlyKos website:

YearlyKos uses the term "progressive" to describe the common values held by most Americans, rather than as a reference to any political or partisan agenda.

Here's more on the (insider) people-powered 'movement' of which YearlyKos is a part and over which Daily Kos is a leader/minder:

... the Netroots is made up of individuals — not corporations, not lobbyist groups, not any large money-infused machine that (currently) influences all that occurs inside the beltway. The most-visited blog of this movement is Daily Kos, founded in 2002 by MarKOS Moulitsas.

And finally, here's Markos on his anti-ideology, and that means you, progressives:

The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions.

Like I said, we give ‘em our money and demand nothing in return. And that’s about all we’ve gotten. Can we at least ask for more from the blog we regularly post at? Can we at least ask more from a MoveOn that lives on its obsession with being seen as 'progressive'?

By the way, if you want to know what a progressive Democrat looks like, definitely check out Bob Fertik at democrats. com. He's trying to rustle up primary challenges to the Cheney Democrats who just voted more funds for the occupation. For example, wouldn't it be 'progressive' to see this on the DailyKos frontpage: "Bush Democrats" Answer Primary Challenges with Lies and Stupidity

GOP voters are anxiously awaiting the presidential candidacy of Fred Thompson. In response to a recent survey (wink), the following are the top ten reasons they prefer Fred Thompson be the Republican nominee:

10. If you’re going to tell American voters tall tales, you need to nominate the tallest candidate.

9. GOP voters expect their politicians to tell them what they want to hear…and they insist that the nominee is able to execute that task well and with flair.

8. GOP voters are skittish about men like John McCain…they prefer that their presidential candidates either have no military experience or that they know how to fake it.

7. He has experience with partisan presidential politics…he starred in The Hunt For Red October…which should translate well into a red November.

6. Rudi Giuliani brought law and order to New York City…but Fred Thompson brought Law & Order to every American home.

5. He would do a much better job with natural disasters like Katrina…he learned the dangers of wind and water when filming Cape Fear.

4. Actors make the best GOP candidates…you give them a script, they memorize it, and they repeat it over and over again.

3. He won’t be afraid to continue the Bush administration’s torture policy…he’s already threatened to give Michael Moore electro-shock therapy in Cuba.

2. Mitt Romney may have Ronald Reagan’s hair…but Fred Thompson can be counted on to continue the Reagan tradition of having only one wife at a time.

1. Since the Clinton presidency, GOP voters want to be sure that their president prefers to smoke his cigars.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Sometimes when writing a posting, one knows in advance that it may be controversial and has the potential to be met with anger…and sometimes that leads one to decide against ever publishing it. Other times, despite the probabilities, one pushes ahead and publishes such words because one believes they need to be spoken regardless. This is one of those postings.

On Memorial Day weekend…as well as any time one seeks to stop and remember those who are no longer here…we look for ways to understand death and to reconcile with the ominous nature of our mortality. Try as we might, one is never fully prepared for the death and loss of a loved one…and though time may lessen the time we spend in pain, it never lessens the depth of the pain that we do experience.

When we attempt to understand death, we often draw comparisons in order to help us accept our loss. For example, with the death of an aged grandparent, we might tell ourselves that despite the obvious loss, our loved one had the good fortune of living a long and meaningful life. Unfortunately, there are times when our loss is virtually inconsolable and we’re unable to find a single scintilla of justification. Clearly, we all hope to avoid the latter…but life doesn’t always afford us our hopes.

The death of a soldier is an event that rarely goes without notice…and that is as it should be. Nonetheless, it is also quite troubling…and though we may not take the time to fully understand our reaction…in some primal way, it is known without analysis or discussion that the loss of a soldier requires a debt of gratitude since the life of each soldier is given in the service of the country we embrace. This unspoken, though well understood, sense of debt exists regardless of how one views the conflict that facilitates the loss of a soldier.

When a war is unpopular, or thought to be unnecessary, it creates a heightened angst when one is forced to recognize and assimilate the loss of a soldier. That heightened angst, in my opinion, comes from our natural tendency to seek to justify the loss of life. If one opposes the war, one may well struggle to find the means to soothe the loss. Perhaps the void that internal conflict creates is something we should embrace since it may be the very mechanism by which we can bring an end to conflicts that seem unwarranted. Nonetheless, navigating this highly sensitive terrain is akin to walking a mine field…if one fails to step lightly, an explosion can ensue.

With that said, I embark on a perilous journey…a journey intent on not only exposing the angst mentioned above…but a journey intended to accelerate that angst. To be clear, I honor and value the lives of every soldier lost as well as every individual and though I infer no disrespect, I realize some may not agree…and so I apologize in advance should my words seem otherwise.

This coming Friday, Dr. Jack Kevorkian will be released from prison after serving eight years for his part in assisting in the suicides of over one hundred individuals…individuals that by and large suffered ailments that would eventually end their lives or that had taken from them the lives that they cherished such that they already felt dead…though by some trick of fate, remained here in this existence against their will.

Assisted suicide is legal in only one state under highly regulated conditions and it remains a very controversial issue. Perhaps that is because we prefer to engage death as a matter of chance rather than as a matter of choice. I understand that argument though I’m not sure it can withstand a reasoned review. Again, let me be clear…my argument is not meant to minimize the religious beliefs that stand in opposition to assisted suicide and I readily accept objections to assisted suicide on that basis alone.

Notwithstanding, I’m of the opinion one can make a reasoned argument that we frequently fail to apply our beliefs about death consistently. Three headlines, one from 1998, and two from this Memorial Day weekend help demonstrate my point.

From The New York Times in 1998:

Kevorkian Deaths Total 100

Dr. Jack Kevorkian has helped a 66-year-old man with lung cancer kill himself and has now assisted 100 suicides, his lawyer has reported.

Mr. Herman died one day after the Michigan House of Representatives adopted a bill addressing Dr. Kevorkian, who has been acquitted in three trials.

The bill would make assisted suicide a felony punishable by as many as five years in prison and $10,000 in fines, or both. It now goes back to the Senate, where minor changes are expected to be adopted before it goes to Gov. John Engler, who is expected to sign it.

From The United Press International - 05/27/2007:

More Than 100 Soldiers Killed In May

BAGHDAD, May 27 (UPI) -- At least 101 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in May, the seventh time since the 2003 invasion that the monthly toll passed 100, military officials said.

In April, 104 soldiers were killed, the Web site icasualties.com -- maintained by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count -- said. The U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed 3,439 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, and 13 more await confirmation.

From The Associated Press – 05/26/2007:

U.S. Deaths Near Grim Memorial Day Mark

BAGHDAD - Americans have opened nearly 1,000 new graves to bury U.S. troops killed in Iraq since Memorial Day a year ago. The figure is telling — and expected to rise in coming months.

In the period from Memorial Day 2006 through Saturday, 980 soldiers and Marines died in Iraq, compared to 807 deaths in the previous year. And with the Baghdad security operation now 3 1/2 months old, even President Bush has predicted a difficult summer for U.S. forces.

This past week Congress authorized a military spending bill that met with the president’s approval and that did not include any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq…despite the fact that one can argue that the 2006 election sent a strong message that our elected officials bring an end to the war in Iraq and prevent the deaths of more U.S. soldiers.

Every indication suggests that George Bush will leave office…after eight years…with a significant presence of U.S. military troops still in Iraq. Back in 1998, the state of Michigan passed a law that led to the eight year imprisonment of Dr. Kevorkian for his part in facilitating the deaths of individuals who wanted to end their lives. Now I’m not suggesting the president or this congress should be imprisoned for their part in facilitating the death of 100 soldiers during the month of May…or the nearly 1,000 since last Memorial Day…or the 3,439 total soldiers killed in Iraq since the war began back in 2003.

However, on this Memorial Day weekend, I am suggesting Americans consider this information and put themselves through the process described above…the one which we humans go through when we lose a loved one. If at the end of that process, one feels some additional angst due to the growing absence of justifications for these deaths, then may I suggest that perhaps its time we demand that our elected officials do the right thing? If 100 assisted suicides warranted a law to imprison Dr. Kevorkian for eight years, what would be a reasonable equivalent for accepting the further loss of life in Iraq?

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

I’ve always been fascinated with society, psychology, and the human condition…especially from the perspective of what the future may hold. Don’t misinterpret that to mean that I think I can predict the future; rather I try to predict how the state of thought…what people believe, what they are saying, and how they are saying it today…will impact their experiences some time in the not so distant future.

Additionally, I love it when my musings can connect several disparate dots into a snapshot of what might unfold in that regard. Lastly, I adore words…how they are used, what they can and should mean, how they shape our hopes and beliefs, and how they can often be used to say one thing while intending or imparting another. Some say that we are what we eat…I say we are what we hear…which becomes what we say.

A couple of articles caught my attention this morning and allowed me to get lost in one of my moments of ADD induced speculation. First, let me offer the backdrop. Of late, I’ve spent a lot of time focused on the state of parenting and the messages today’s parents are giving their children which will influence how they will function in the world as adults. Add in the influence of religion and its tendency to support absolutist thinking, the preoccupation with being famous and being number one and you have a snapshot of the launching point for my contemplation.

The first article deals with the issue of climate change and the impact of global warming. According to a Washington Post article, the United States appears prepared to reject the proposal to be offered at the upcoming G8 Summit that would set limits on greenhouse gas emissions in order to cap the rise in global temperature.

Representatives from the world's leading industrial nations met the past two days in Heiligendamm, Germany, to negotiate over German Chancellor Angela Merkel's proposed statement, which calls for limiting the worldwide temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and cutting global greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Bush administration officials, who raised similar objections in April, rejected the idea of setting mandatory emissions targets as well as language calling for G-8 nations to raise overall energy efficiencies by 20 percent by 2020. With less than two weeks remaining, said sources familiar with the talks, the climate document is the only unresolved issue in the statements the world leaders are expected to sign at the June 6-8 summit.

"The U.S. still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement," a paper dated May 14 states. "The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple 'red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to…We have tried to 'tread lightly' but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position."

As I’ve followed the global warming debate, a couple things stand out to me. One, the projections suggest that if the trends were to in fact proceed unabated, rising ocean levels would threaten some of this country’s major population centers. Two, those rising waters are apparently being taxed to absorb the rising levels of carbon dioxide and should they reach saturation, the problems will only accelerate. At some point the entire system goes awry and all hell breaks loose…think high waters and boats…perhaps Noah’s arc meets Poseidon Adventure.

I read the second article at MSNBC. That article, in its broadest terms, is a discussion of the state of the American Dream…the promise of advancing prosperity from generation to generation. Toss in the oft heard GOP theory that the rising tide lifts all boats and you’ll begin to see some rhyme to my reason.

The American dream has always held that each generation will enjoy a higher standard of living than the previous one, and that is still true, as measured by household income.

But the generational gains are slowing, and the increased participation of women in the work force is the only thing keeping the dream alive, according to an analysis of Census data released Friday.

A generation ago, American men in their thirties had median annual incomes of about $40,000 compared with men of the same age who now make about $35,000 a year, adjusted for inflation. That’s a 12.5 percent drop between 1974 and 2004, according to the report from the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project.

To be sure, household incomes rose during the same period, but only because there are more full-time working women, the report said.

"Today’s data suggest that during a 30-year period of economic expansion, a rising tide did not lift all boats," Morton said in a release accompanying the report, "Economic Mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well?"

Of course, the men who run American companies don’t have too much to complain about. CEO pay increased to 262 times the average worker’s pay in 2005 from 35 times in 1978, according to the report’s analysis of Congressional Budget Office statistics.

Going back to 1820, per capita gross domestic product in the United States has grown an average of 52 percent for each 30-year generation, according to the report. But since 1973, median family income has grown only 0.6 percent per year, a rate that produces just a 17 percent increase over a generation.

"Thus, unless the rate of economic growth increases, the next generation will experience an improvement in its standard of living that is only one-third as large as the historical average for earlier generations," the report said.

Stay with me, I promise a big finish (wink, wink).

So when you take the words found in these two articles and factor in the issues from the backdrop, one can begin to see the images that will form a preliminary snapshot of our future human condition premised upon the existing and established social and psychological influences.

I’ll attempt to explain. Generally speaking, it seems to me that many of today’s parents are raising the expectations found in their children. Call it the American Idol mentality morphs with the Tiger Woods phenomenon…meaning mom and dad say to themselves, “My kid has star potential so I simply need to cultivate it from the outset”. My bottom line assumption suggests that a growing number of parents believe every child can, should, and will be coached such that they are eventually discovered and catapulted to their rightful position in the spotlight. Call it the American Dream juiced up on steroids (h/t to David Letterman for the steroids slang).

At the same time, we see the data from the study referenced above suggesting that the economic prospects are moving in a diametrically opposite direction…and we have yet to consider the unknown though increasingly predictable ramifications of climate change that could render all prior historical equations virtually useless. Oh, and did I mention the case of the missing honey bees?

I’ve previously argued that humanity has continued to move towards a construct of diverging identities…in other words there is a greater divide between the outward lives we live and the more obscure, though ever lurking in the background, state of hyper reality…those moments when the facade of the outer world identity is stripped of its accoutrements to reveal the starkness of our real identity.

A couple examples might be helpful. It’s the eighteen year old young woman that dad has convinced is destined to be the next Serena Williams who finds herself entering college without a tennis scholarship and void of other measures of self worth…though still convinced her exaggerated “manifest destiny” is just around the corner.

It’s the thirty five year old son who was handed success in the form of family instituted social security when he joined his maternal grandfather’s business as a vice president the day he graduated from college…now left to realize the day after grandfather has entered a nursing home with Alzheimer’s that sales have evaporated in direct relation to grandpa’s advancing disconnect and that what little is left of a fortune will now be needed to pay for round the clock care.

The reality is that this aquarium we call America isn’t big enough to hold the advancing expectations we have sought to institutionalize and that we have exponentially instilled in the next generation. Worse yet, we haven’t yet equipped that generation with the boat to survive the rising tide…no, not the rising tide of success that will raise all boats…but the rising tide of a global economy that will subject the United States to ever increasing global economic realities. In truth, boats be damned…people are going to need to know how to swim…and no, there won’t be any gold medals awarded.

At the same time, we have a government that is intent on borrowing money in order to spend its way out of each new economic setback. Simultaneously, they ignore the warnings of an ever advancing science that suggests an entirely new and ominous cash eating calamity in the form of global climate change is just beyond the rising liquid horizon.

The bright future that has become the staple of our private and political rhetoric (the words we speak) may be nothing more than the glow of an approaching apocalypse…no, not the one associated with the rapture that runs rampant in religious imagery and that promises an idyllic after life…the one that was there in full view for all to see and fully of our own human making…the one we chose to ignore because our best human attributes and identities had atrophied such that we lacked the will to right the ship before it succumbed to the weight of an endless burden of belligerence and betrayal…particularly that betrayal which suggested that god would save us…because we chose to conclude that that would be easier than saving ourselves.

The curtain falls.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

I’ve yet to comment on the recent immigration debate, though I have previously shared my thoughts on the topic at Thought Theater. Having recently spent some time ruminating on the relevnt issues, along with today’s reading of George Will’s latest commentary, I’m ready to take another swipe at the subject.

There seems to be a movement to characterize the tepid across the board voter polling as an indication that the new legislation is generally unacceptable...or in the extreme, as Minority Leader John Boehner described it after meeting with the president, it is “a piece of shit”. While I can comprehend Will's rationale, I’m inclined to disagree with his subsequent conclusions.

In fact, I view the poll numbers and the lukewarm reactions to this pending legislation as an egg that won’t hatch because it’s been sat on for far too long by an impotent brood of “banty” roosters who have repeatedly placed partisan objectives ahead of pragmatic and prudent policy. What we are witnessing is simply the acknowledgment that reality has come home to roost…and it has been forever altered by the proverbial practice of “head in the sand” hegemony and hypocrisy.

Let me attempt to explain what I mean. First, let’s look at some of the arguments being advanced in George Will’s op-ed piece.

Compromise is incessantly praised, and it has produced the proposed immigration legislation. But compromise is the mother of complexity, which, regarding immigration, virtually guarantees -- as the public understands -- weak enforcement and noncompliance.

In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone?

Concentrate on border control and on workplace enforcement facilitated by a biometric identification card issued to immigrants who are or will arrive here legally. Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away.

Were I living in the civil war era, I might conclude that The Reconstruction had commenced…though this time in the form of rewriting history to mask the motives that allowed the 1986 policy to morph into an illegal immigrant incubator. Ask the owner of any small business in operation during this period and they will gladly confirm that the process of worker verification had been given a virtual vasectomy…rendering it harmless, helpless, and hopeless.

Here’s how the Center for Immigration Studies describes the enforcement of the 1986 law:

Enforcement of this measure, intended to turn off the magnet attracting illegals in the first place, was spotty at first and is now virtually nonexistent. Even when the law was passed, Congress pulled its punch by not requiring the development of a mechanism for employers to verify the legal status of new hires, forcing the system to fall back on a blizzard of easily forged paper documents.

And even under this flawed system, the INS was publicly slapped down when it did try to enforce the law. When the agency conducted raids during Georgia's Vidalia onion harvest in 1998, thousands of illegal aliens — knowingly hired by the farmers — abandoned the fields to avoid arrest. By the end of the week, both of the state's senators and three congressmen — Republicans and Democrats — had sent an outraged letter to Washington complaining that the INS "does not understand the needs of America's farmers," and that was the end of that.

So, the INS tried out a "kinder, gentler" means of enforcing the law, which fared no better. Rather than conduct raids on individual employers, Operation Vanguard in 1998-99 sought to identify illegal workers at all meatpacking plants in Nebraska through audits of personnel records. The INS then asked to interview those employees who appeared to be unauthorized — and the illegals ran off. The procedure was remarkably successful, and was meant to be repeated every two or three months until the plants were weaned from their dependence on illegal labor.

Local law-enforcement officials were very pleased with the results, but employers and politicians vociferously criticized the very idea of enforcing the immigration law. Gov. Mike Johanns organized a task force to oppose the operation; the meat packers and the ranchers hired former Gov. Ben Nelson to lobby on their behalf; and, in Washington, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.) (coauthor, with Tom Daschle, of the newest amnesty bill, S.2010) made it his mission in life to pressure the Justice Department to stop. They succeeded, the operation was ended, and the INS veteran who thought it up in the first place is now enjoying early retirement.

The INS got the message and developed a new interior-enforcement policy that gave up on trying to actually reassert control over immigration and focused almost entirely on the important, but narrow, issues of criminal aliens and smugglers. As INS policy director Robert Bach told the New York Times in a 2000 story appropriately entitled "I.N.S. Is Looking the Other Way as Illegal Immigrants Fill Jobs": "It is just the market at work, drawing people to jobs, and the INS has chosen to concentrate its actions on aliens who are a danger to the community." The result is clear — the San Diego Union-Tribune reported earlier this month that from 1992 to 2002, the number of companies fined for hiring illegal workers fell from 1,063 to 13. That's thirteen. In the whole country.

So when Will states that the problem was “weak enforcement and noncompliance”, he is only offering a superficial view of the problem. The law was sufficient…but the will of the government (executed by elected officials)…tempered by the economic concerns of important constituent groups and the politicians who needed their votes…didn’t exist for long, if at all.

What resulted was a confluence of competing interests that enabled the unbridled and unchecked flow of immigrants into the country. Republicans satisfied their corporate supporters and Democrats tallied the numbers of a rapidly expanding voting block. Keep in mind the relevant dates…from 1986 to 1992 we had a Republican in the White House and from 1992 through 2000, we had a Democratic president…all followed by the seven years of festering and fractional concerns that have plagued the Bush administration’s tenure. So if it wasn’t solely Republican or Democratic malfeasance that defined these years, what was it? Perhaps politicians of all flavors were savoring the perceived spoils?

The beauty of history is found in the limited degree to which it can be altered…though I realize efforts to flummox are attempted with rampant regularity. With that said, it is necessary to acknowledge that George Bush and his minions, cognizant of his years as the governor of Texas and the data from the elections in 2000 and 2004, thought that they could have their cake and eat it too. By all indications, they concluded that they could facilitate an already substantiated shift of Hispanics voters to the GOP. Given the Bush teams preoccupation with establishing generations of GOP dominance, should anyone be hesitant to conclude that they were salivating at the prospects that immigration reform might afford?

Step forward to 2006 and the obvious Democratic shift…especially in middle class Middle America and one can easily explain the divergent positions found primarily in the GOP, and to a lesser degree amongst Democrats…especially in labor laden districts and regions. Add in the unique considerations and perspectives found in Border States as well as an indeterminate amount of garden variety bigotry and one might well agree with Will that the immigration conundrum fits the premise that “compromise is the mother of complexity”…but when he concludes that complexity leads voters to expect “weak enforcement and noncompliance”, that simply provides politicians a ready made excuse for what they have already failed to do along with a rationale for the continuation of failure.

To be fair to Will, we agree that the public is coming “to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to mean what it says about immigration”. Beyond that we diverge as he goes on to suggest that the government should focus on “border control and on workplace enforcement” while treating “the problem of the [existing undocumented immigrants] 12 million with benign neglect”. I’m not sure if Will wants us to focus on the “benign” or the “neglect”…but it’s certainly a doozy of a double entendre.

I do understand Will’s rationale. He believes that any path to citizenship for the existing illegal immigrants would eventually afford them the benefits that come with citizenship and therefore tax entitlement programs at a time when we are approaching the retirement bubble of the baby boomer generation. By ignoring them, we avoid the potential cost considerations while still benefiting from the cheap labor they will continue to provide. With the borders sealed, we halt the continuing influx and, by law, the children of the existing illegal immigrants become citizens…time passes and the 12 million illegal immigrants die off without becoming a worsening financial burden.

Now I’ve heard of sweeping ones problems under a rug…but what Will is suggesting is that we sweep an entire generation under the rug…but not before we let them nanny our children, harvest our crops, clean our toilets, and contribute to our entitlement programs…without the prospect of ever participating in any of those benefits.

Hey, I haven’t trusted politicians for a number of years…but if George Will is suggesting that we entrust him and his ilk with resolving the complexities of this and other issues, then he, like the politicians he chastises (wink, wink), not only wants his cake and eat it too…he already has his eye upon the lowly cooks that will bake it. The one ingredient he lacks, and the one he clearly seeks through his tortured treatise, is for the rest of us Americans to turn our heads and close our eyes while he puts the proverbial squeeze upon what’s left of our commitment to dignity and decency.

If that’s the best America has to offer, I’m gonna have to pass on dessert. That’s one convoluted cake I can’t swallow. I keep thinking that our politicians and their emissaries will someday realize that the voting public, almost without fail, eventually sees through the charades that have become the staple of the political pabulum they ask us to ingest. Perhaps its time we serve them a heapin’ helpin’ of some good old fashioned humble pie?

Cross-posted at Thought Theater