Okay, okay. I get it.

Wall Street’s in trouble. The market’s imploding. Capitalism is in its death throes. Lenders are taking their lines of credit and going home. The Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve are pleading with Congress to give them 700 billion (that’s with a ‘B’) dollars to bail out the banks by buying up their bad debt. Not for what it’s worth, which is nothing. But for what the banks want it to be worth.

And without saying that this huge gift of tax dollars will actually do any good.

I understand all this.

But, I can’t shake the gnawing, persistent suspicion that this move will go down in history as one of the biggest con jobs pulled on the American people by the Wall Street greedmeisters ever.

I guess I’m not the only one harboring such suspicions. Which is why the bipartisan bailout plan went down in flames over the House floor today.

Which is probably good.

After all, nationalizing the American economy should take more than a week.

Check and Mate?

The Republicans have come up with a masterful electioneering move by taking advantage of the current financial debacle engineered by the ineptitude of the Wall Street plutocratic elites. I only hope Obama’s strategists are smart enough to respond effectively.

McCain has announced that he is suspending his campaign pending the passage of legislation on the Hill addressing the financial crisis. This includes passage of the 700 million dollar bailout package pretty much on the Administration’s terms.

It also includes suspension of Friday’s debate with Obama.

And having his fellow Republican, and President of these United States, call for a “leadership meeting” in Washington which would include him and Obama.

The move effectively hijacks Obama’s campaign, and makes any further move extremely problematical.

Why? Okay, most voters are simple, good-hearted folk, and they will not see the cynical political thinking behind McCain’s statements.

First, it postpones a national forum at which Obama cannot but come off as the clear winner, owing to his polished and powerful speaking style. McCain will undoubtedly appear wooden, uncomfortable, and a bit befuddled.

Second, it forces Obama to alter his own campaign to suit McCain’s electioneering strategy. If Obama shows up for the debate who do you think will be the winner in the eyes of the electorate?

McCain, of course. He’ll claim to have put aside his own political ambitions in the interest of the American people, and he’ll accuse Obama of engaging in politics-as-usual at a time when he should have been more concerned with the welfare of the nation. Obama would be screwed.

Of course, if Bush does decide to play along and call his phony “leadership conference” Obama couldn’t refuse to heed the call of his President. To do so would be political suicide.

Thirdly, McCain’s move fosters the illusion that he’s providing some kind of national leadership at the time of crisis.

No! It ain’t so! Leadership should be coming from the President and his cronies. (By the way, have you seen Cheney lately?) McCain is only a Senator. Like Obama. His sole role in this fiasco is to speak on the floor of the Senate either for or against the legislation. That’s all!

The truth is, McCain has simply called a halt to the campaign at a time when the latest ABC poll shows him trailing Obama by nine points. This can only redound to his benefit.

Obama’s response? Well, that’s a toughie. McCain’s put him in a tight bind. But I would recommend simply playing along for the time being, making the most to emulate McCain’s “leadership” posturing.

Two can play at this game.

Believe me, the Republicans won’t be able to resist the urge to engage in character assassination for long.

Then Obama will be able to take up the campaign again, expose McCain’s move for the sort of cynical electioneering ploy it is, and walk away with the election.

The Revolution is Here!

Look!

I’m sick and tired of turning on the news and hearing some pundit blame me for the meltdown of the global economic structure.

Believe me, I didn’t do it!

When my wife and I bought our home we did it the old-fashioned (read ‘correct’) way. We made sure we could pay the mortgage each month. We made sure we came up with a twenty percent down payment. And we made sure to get a fixed rate.

Sure, we bought an old split-level ranch that needs work. No cathedral ceilings. No marbled foyer. Small closets. Clunky old bathroom.

But we bought what we knew we could pay for. After twenty-two years I continue to pay for it, on time, each month.

I also pay off my credit card balance each month.

So to the dour economic analysts who stare at me from the television screen so severely, as though expecting me to shoulder the cause of their fear and panic, and who judgmentally pronounce, “Who’s to blame for the mess on Wall Street. Well, we all are,” I have only one thing to say:

“BITE ME!”

I’ll tell you who’s to blame. The greedy runaway free-market capitalist speculators who wanted to get something for nothing as quickly as possible are to blame.

The only good thing to come out of this whole mess is the nationalization of a large part of the economy. Why is this a good thing? Because it’s happened during a Republican administration. That’s amusing.

The same party that has screamed for smaller government, that gutted and hobbled regulatory agencies, that has sought to privatize as much of the federal government as possible, that has foretold the demise of Medicare and Social Security because of bureaucratic mismanagement, that has wagged it’s finger at the American people for shouldering our grandchildren with unbearable governmental debt,

I say this same Republican Party has now taken the biggest step toward a socialized American economy in modern times.

Bush came into office prepared to dismantle the federal government and hand it over to his plutocrat robber-baron buddies.

As he leaves office the federal government owns a larger part of the economy than ever in modern times.

Now, some might call this socialism. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Unfortunately, I’m afraid the right-wing pundits will avoid the term by pointing out that, unlike under true socialism, ordinary people are not receiving any benefits as a result of hundred of billions of dollars in federal bailouts.

Still, I bet they’re glad those tax cuts didn’t come before they had a chance to rob the federal coffers to save their capitalist asses.

Bottom line, the unregulated free-market fucked up. The revolution has come. And it was led by Wall Street.

Obama Waffle Flap

I couldn’t help but wonder what racist idiot came up with this idea. I was further astonished that the people involved in making and selling this item couldn’t understand how it could be regarded as offensive!

Boxes of Obama Waffle mix were sold by a lobbying firm at a Values Voters Summit held in Washington, D.C., last weekend. They were ostensibly sold as a satirical souvenir item by a lobbying group calling itself the Family Research Council.

This nexus of the words “Values”, “Family”, and racism is one reason why I immediately distrust any group which refers to itself as “Family” or “Values” anything. The same applies to any individuals who appeal to “Family” or “Values” as a justification for their position on anything.

I immediately regard such individuals as right-wing, conservative racists.

Or Republicans.

Same thing.

The box is the creation of two writers who claimed to be having a little fun during this election season, and disingenuously claimed that the box couldn’t be regarded as racist or offensive. Now, these guys are either totally obtuse, and failed to see its similarity to an offensive racial stereotype portrayed on a well-known trademark (Which would make them very poor writers, indeed.), or they are simply liars.

Or Republicans.

Same thing.

The self-appointed and allegedly “independent” tribune of the people, Lou Dobbs, reportedly bought a box of Obama Waffle mix with delight. One more reason I can’t stand the self-important asshole.

Earlier this week I was watching an episode of The View featuring Whoopi Goldberg and some other women. The subject of Obama Waffle mix came up, and there was general agreement that the political satire depicted on the box crossed the line into racism.

At that point, one of the women (Surely the one who drew the short straw.) objected, “What if the Democrats had put a picture of John McCain on a bottle of Metamucil? Wouldn’t that be age-ism?”

An argument ensued over what, exactly, is Metamucil, and whether or not the addition of the suffix “-ism” to any term legitimizes its use as a vehicle of rhetorical outrage.

In my opinion, the question of whether or not the Democrats could be accused of age-ism if they put a picture of John McCain on a bottle of Metamucil is wholly moot.

BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T.

The Democrats don’t play that game. The Republicans do.

Which is why I’m voting for Barack Obama.

“Today, we are all Georgians.” – John McCain, August 12, 2008

"Ich bin ein Berliner" – John F. Kennedy, June 26, 1963

You may have known Kennedy, Senator. If so, you yourself know that you’re no John F. Kennedy.

At least Kennedy had the good grace to speak only for himself. John McCain committed all Americans to honorary citizenship of a country most of us can’t even locate on a map, and whose favorite son was one of the most notorious mass murderers of the Twentieth Century.

We don’t want this guy running our foreign policy!

And we certainly don’t want his rabidly hawkish hockey-mom sidekick running it.

The end of the Cold War was a good thing, right?

Well, she’s all gleeful about starting it up again. She wants to go toe-to-toe with the Russkies over some obscure country in the Caucuses over the fiction that it’s a poor innocent victim of Russian expansionism.

No way!

Can’t happen!

And Now, Another View

I've known about and respected Arianna Huffington for quite some time. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that she's not an outspoken Republican apologist, as I'd expected when I first watched her on TV. Maybe it's the Republican emphasis on style over substance. Maybe it's my inherent distrust of big money.

But Huffington is the sort of intelligent, insightful, and energetic woman who is characteristic of the type of woman who made up Hillary Clinton's basis of support. She's hardly the type of person to be found among the ranks of hockey moms, which pollsters have suddenly found in disturbing numbers among female voters.

Huffington has expressed her own insights into the true nature of Sarah Palin and posted them on the Huffington Post. I especially like her phrase "repressive GWBush acolyte." So le mot juste.

Oh and another thing. It's not sexist to make an issue of a candidate's family obligations if that candidate uses every available public forum to trot out her kids and display them as examples of her political values.

Same goes for her religion.

No, They're Fake. But . . .

I just wish I'd been clever enough to come up with this material. As with all good satire there's just enough truth in it to make the statements seem plausible.

Still, I'd like to think Democrats, unlike Republicans, are above using falsehoods in pursuit of character assassination.

Also, Sarah Palin just makes it too damn easy not to have fun with her sometimes.

Palin Mania

I see. And who must bear the 'celebrity' mantle now?

The Republicans would have us believe that Barack Obama is merely benefiting from his 'celebrity' status, but that there's no political substance behind it.

On the other hand, voters should regard Palin's popularity as due to her political acumen and experience as a statesman.

Yeah. Right.

That's crap!

Just one more example of Republican spin and hypocrisy!

Democrats vs. Republicans

Whenever I hear someone say that they’re not interested in politics and don’t vote, because both parties are virtually the same and voting doesn’t make any difference anyway, I just have to speak up.

The parties are not the same! Not by a long shot. The Democrats and the Republicans represent two starkly different views of human nature and, as a consequence, how they should structure their social relationships.

Democrats believe:

1. Human nature is basically good.

2. Human beings can, and should, aspire to a peaceful, mutually-supportive society.

3. Relations with other societies should be based upon the belief that the large mass of humankind wishes to live in peace and security, and that areas of conflict should be thoroughly understood and addressed reasonably.

Republicans believe:

1. Human beings are basically perverse.

2. Human beings can’t be relied upon to do the right thing, and have to be closely controlled with laws and restrictive social policies.

3. Individuals are basically on their own. You’re responsible for your own actions, but not for anyone else.

4. Other societies act solely out of a concern for their own self-interest, which immediately puts them in conflict with our own. Therefore, any sign of conflict must elicit an immediate and overwhelming negative response. Let the academics worry about the issues later on.

Every election is an opportunity to make a choice in what is truly an ongoing cultural conflict.

I am clearly a Democrat by conviction.

I believe people are basically good, and that we can fashion a society that houses the homeless, that feeds the hungry, that tends to the ill, and that allows its members to live with hope, in peace and security. I regard a large standing military as nothing more than an organized welfare state with weapons, better put to use building the infrastructure which makes our society strong.

Don't fall for all the comfy down-home talk about hockey moms and small-town American simplicity. It's all just Republican cant whose sole purpose is to win the election. What will follow is continuing government deregulation of those rapacious corporate entities which prey upon small-town America for the sake of their profits.

Which is why I’m voting for Barack Obama.

The Kilkenny Letter

Okay, here's a link to the letter I'm sure more and more of you have been hearing about. I've made sure I've kept a copy of my own just in case it should be removed from the Net for some reason.

Much of it may seem innocuous enough, but it's clear that it portrays a lying, opportunistic, vindictive person.

Now, I doubt that the type of voters who choose their president on the principle that the candidate seems like “a regular guy”, and who proudly and aggressively have a rabid disdain for any candidate who evidences a mote of reasoned and insightful discourse, I say I doubt such voters have much historical knowledge, apart from what they see at movies like ‘Patton’ or ‘Rambo III’.

These voters are invariably Republicans, judging from the choices they’ve made for their presidential and VP candidates. The Old Man and the Pit Bull with makeup.

Despite their severe lack of historical insight they are frequently quick to trot out reference to the Munich Agreement of 1938 as a metaphor for what they characterize as the sort of gutless appeasement that is the foreign policy of their Democratic opponents.

Well, historical comparison is dangerous rhetorical tool. In can invariably used by either side of an issue to buttress its argument.

For instance, voting for an old war hero can frequently be fraught with danger.

Take the example of Marshal Petain.

You remember Marshal Petain. The venerable general of World War I. He became famous around the same time as the Munich Agreement. As President of Vichy France.

Trouble is, if the old war hero should die you could be stuck with Nazi occupation.

Or The Pit Bull.

Aaaarrrggh! Pisses Me Off!

Listening to NPR this morning I hear a Republican apologist railing against "mainstream media" and the "Left-leaning blogs", about how they're giving McCain and Palin a raw deal.

I just had to jump in.

If reporting the facts and speaking the truth is giving them a hard time, so be it!

Personally, I'm finding it harder and harder to find pundits among the talking heads who aren't rabid right-wing neocon apologists. What with the Bill O'Reillys, Glenn Becks, Lou Dobbs, Ann Coulters, etc. it's getting harder and harder to find news without a neocon slant.

I have to go to the BBC, Xinhua, or Al Jazeera to get the truth.

Anyway, I found that the current presidential race has engendered more political rants in me than I care to post on my regular site.

So I quickly set up this blog to provide me with a forum.