Jon Stewart on Healthcare Reform

The whole healthcare reform thing is getting ridiculous on a number of levels. It was great to see Obama finally stand up to some of the parading and shameless tactics that have been passing for debate. I especially liked seeing him destroy Eric Cantor in this clip from John Stewart. If you're in a hurry, skip to around 6:00 in the video.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bipartisan Health Care Reform Summit 2010
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Vancouverage 2010

And here's another moment from the summit when Obama chastises Cantor for his theatricality. I direct plays for a living, and so I recognize the difference between a prop and a reference material. Look at how the books are stacked on Cantor's table. They have nothing to do with reference or substance. They are merely a visual image to prevent the conversation from moving anywhere. I'm so sick of politicians who play to the lowest denominator without any real substance in their arguments. While I disagree with what McCain had to say, at least his arguments have substance to them and are legitimate concerns. Cantor, on the other hand, is just grandstanding. My favorite quote: "These are the kind of political things we do that prevent us from actually having a conversation."

Palin Posts Healthcare Opinions On Facebook

Sarah Palin (& everyone else) REALLY needs to stop lying about the health care bill. Please be intelligent about this. No bill is perfect, but spreading lies of this caliber is completely irresponsible.

Sotomayor et al. v. The Old Boys Club

There are some good articles coming out about Sotomayor. Let me say first off that I am glad she will be confirmed, because I have been impressed at how she is handling herself, and most importantly, impressed by her spotless judicial record. What I want to write about here are the wider social implications of these hearings. It's amazing how confronting just a little bit of diversity brings out the underbelly of society in such a profound way.

Here's an intriguing article from Slate Magazine. Favorite quotation:

Sen. Graham would never have lectured Justices Roberts or Scalia about being bullies, because he thinks it's perfectly normal when men ask tough questions. He can't even see the irony in saying he welcomes wise Latina women—so long as they don't change a thing.

And here's an article The Daily Beast that makes the case that Sotomayor is a liar. The comments are pretty rabid on this one. I think she should be confirmed because she seems to have a good judicial record, but I agree that she's lying and also agree that this is the fault of the Good Old Boys' Country Club she has to pass through to get the job. Hearing the debate about all this makes my stomach turn, especially on morning radio talk shows. I am grateful to Sotomayor and Hillary Clinton and their ilk, but deeply embarrassed for them as they have to navigate this process. I know they have weathered worse than this, and will weather worse still, and I know they are more than capable of rising to the challenge. It just saddens me that they have to deal with this at all. Obama says we are now in the Joshua Generation, and that MLK and Malcolm X, etc., were the Moses generation. I agree this seems to be true in terms of race, but in terms of gender, we haven't made it to Joshua yet. We're still in the time of Miriam.

And though I hate to hear the name Sarah Palin in the same sentence as Hillary Clinton or Sotomayor, this article makes a good point that they are just using opposite tactics in fighting the same machine.

At least the Episcopal Church has finally recognized the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles. And in a recession, no less. There is hope that they may soon recognize the God-given right to get married too. It's almost enough to make me go to church again...

A few thoughts on Iran

There are many people who are writing far more effectively on this subject than I can right now, but here are a few scattered thoughts:

Just as we did after 9/11, America stands at a major crossroads. After the World Trade Center fell, we had the goodwill of the entire world on our side, and we completely squandered it. There was a brief moment just before the Iraq war when the UN inspectors were saying they needed more time to determine if Iraq had WMD, but instead, we invaded the country before they could complete their work, and of course found no WMD. At that moment, we had the opportunity to empower the UN to do its job of peacekeeping and insuring justice between nations, just like Washington does between all the different states in America. Now, it seems (one would hope) that our new President will continue to speak out on human rights, but I am also proud so far that he is not using US military power. There are many Americans right now who are wondering why Obama is not doing more - many of these are the same people who criticized Bush for invading Iraq. Though it was a proven lie, the justification for the Iraq War was the same as the current justification for wanting Obama to do more - human rights. We must never use military might or violence to achieve the ends of human rights. Not only that, but, as the BBC points out, it would actually be harmful to the protesters for Obama to do more than he's doing. Here's a quotation from their article:

But the BBC's Jon Donnison in Washington says the president is treading a fine line - he does not want to be seen to be interfering, which could stir up anti-American sentiment within Iran and work against the protesters.

As I was thinking about this tonight (and realizing that it's 20 years to the month after the Tiananmen Square Massacre), I finally got around to watching Obama's speech in Cairo. It was wonderful, and worth watching, so I've included it below. Here's a short paragraph, but you really should watch the whole speech.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

I've heard this type of thing before, in John Donne's Meditation 17.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.

It's pretty amazing to be able to watch all this develop in the present moment on Twitter, but I think there's something to be said for the old style of journalism too - the kind that verified its facts before spreading them. Fox News and CNN are pretty much using only Twitter and Facebook as their sources, which is basically just relying on gossip. We have to be careful before we rush to action, careful about mob mentality, careful not to sacrifice our principles when we become outraged at violations of human rights. That is what led us into Iraq, and so many other atrocities throughout history. Obama is right to proceed slowly and carefully. It's what we elected him to do.

I've tried not to get my hopes up since we've stood at this same crossroads so many times before. The beginning of the Iraq War was pretty much the last blow to my optimism about this. But although it's more cautious this time, I can feel that hope starting to build again. Maybe this time we'll choose the right path...

Cheney and the Goat Devil

Maureen Dowd on Will Farrell's latest - a trip to Broadway as W.

I just discovered this guy from a recommendation from a former student. He is pretty great. This video sort of captures what I find good about him. You can check out his site at illdoctrine.com.

Jon Stewart & Mike Huckabee on Gay Marriage

I appreciate how respectful Jon Stewart is - he provides a good model for how intelligent discussion of tense issues can be achieved.  The questions he raises here about gay marriage are precisely the ones I would like answered.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 1

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

A Pristine White House

Another terrific article by Maureen Dowd about Obama moving into the White House.

The Morning Dawns

This article from the NY Times expresses what is for me the most urgent outcome of this election. Here is an excerpt:

From far away, this is how it looks. There is a country out there where tens of millions of white Christians, voting freely, select as their leader a black man of modest origin, the son of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth - call it America - where such a thing happens.

Even where the United States is held in special contempt, like here in this benighted Palestinian coastal strip, the "glorious epic of Barack Obama," as the leftist editor Jean Daniel calls it, makes America - the idea as much as the actual place - stand again, perhaps only fleetingly, for limitless possibility. ...

But wonder is almost overwhelmed by relief.  Mr. Obama's election offers most non-Americans a sense that the imperial power capable of doing such good and such harm - a country that, they complain, preached justice but tortured its captives, launched a disastrous war in Iraq, turned its back on the environment and greedily dragged the world into economic chaos - saw the errors of its ways over the past eight years and shifted course.

They say the country that weakened democratic forces abroad through a tireless but often ineffective campaign for democracy - dismissing results it found unsavory, cutting deals with dictators it needed as allies in its other battles - was now shining a transformative beacon with its own democratic exercise.

It would be hard to overstate how fervently vast stretches of the globe wanted the election to turn out as it did to repudiate the Bush administration and its policies.

Yes, I voted for Obama because I believe in him. And yes, I voted for him because I value his judgement and principles. And yes - damn it - I voted for him because he is an amazingly eloquently and inspiring speaker.  That matters to me as an English teacher, it matters to me as a human being, it matters to me when I choose a leader that I want to represent me to the rest of the world.  I heard again the other day that line from an early speech that rings in my ears every day now.

If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.  If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother.  If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.  It's that fundamental believe - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work.  It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as an American family.

The echoes from John Donne and Jesus are unmistakable.   It is too long since we have had leaders who have understood that the true essence of Darwinism is cooperation, not dominance.   A species does not survive through self-aggrandizement, but through compassion.

But most of all, I voted for Obama because America must now come out of its dark ages. The past eight years have been the most horrifying of my life - hearing grown, intelligent men and women try to say that water boarding is not torture, that we must spy on librarians to protect ourselves from terrorism, that the world is defined in black and white, and you are either with us or against us. We Americans have trampled on every sentence of our constitution, we have destoyed our  credibility (and credit!) with the rest of the world, and we have actively squandered every opportunity we had to be stewards of the world rather than bullies. For me, these years have felt like Lord of the Flies, except for the unbelievable blindness we exhibited until just the last year. I do not believe Obama is perfect. I don't believe he can save us. I don't even expect him to keep most of his promises.  But today, the real pride I feel is the sense that America is reawakening from its slumber.

The nightmare is ending, and we have much work to do, but - finally - that work can begin.

My town's smaller than yours is.

As someone who grew up in an even smaller town America than Sarah Palin did, in a town that had an even smaller Main Street (2 stoplights), with a population less than 1/7 the size of doggone-it-you-betcha-ain't-we-cutesy-and-wink-folksy-by-God-wink Wasilla, Alaska, I was glad to read this article about how overrun Washington has been with 'heartlanders' for the last twenty years. There are so many virtues of a small town, as John Mellancamp wasn't the first to say, and I loved growing up there for so many reasons. But as charming as the mentality is, it has consistently proved itself to be severely limited and circular, pre-occupied with the smallest of concerns, narrowly focused on only what has a direct effect on its own citizens. But even that is too broad. The politicians in most small towns even parse up their tiny populations, making government serve their family and friends, disenfranchising those who are new to the area or whose families aren't from the 'right' side of the tracks. I would trust my life to many of the people I grew up with, but not for a second would I presume they would make the right decision for anyone but themselves. Small town politicians are the kings of earmarking and bigotry and xenophobia - truly dedicated to those they know and love and deeply viscous towards those they don't. Enough of Main Street in Washington. Let's get someone with a broader sense of perspective, who doesn't put country first (which really just means city last), but seeks to do what is right by the greatest number of citizens, both here and in the rest of the world. It is this universal thinking that Jesus taught us, and is the ultimate small town value, even though it is rarely practiced there.

Politics of Attack

Paragraph 7 is particularly disturbing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/opinion/08wed1.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&oref=slogin

The Biblical Definition of Marriage

In the debate the other night, both VP candidates agreed that they do not support gay marriage in terms of legal definitions, but both agreed (or seemed to) that the government should not limit any civil rights of gay couples. This is a step forward, since our government (in theory, at least) is based on the separation of church and state. I was really surprised and encouraged to hear Sarah Palin say that she does not advocate limiting any civil rights for gay couples, particularly considering how she supported a bill to deny hospital visitations (which she later was advised was unconstitutional). Palin said clearly at the debate that she would not prevent visitation rights to gay couples, but of course, she also did not say she would do anything to guarantee them, which is the government's most important job.

However, both candidates said they believe (not as a matter of public policy, but personally) that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Biden said that it was a matter for each individual religion to decide and did not identify where his personal convictions come from. We can deduce from the activities of her church, however, that Palin bases her belief on the Bible.

Since I am currently teaching the Bible, I can't help but bring up what is meant by a biblical definition of marriage. This article offers some important points that anyone seeking a biblical definition of marriage would need to address. (Numbers 3, 5 and 6 are particularly instructive.)

If one were to construct an amendment to the Constitution based on a literal reading of the Bible it might well contain the following stipulations:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Obviously, the question of marriage has changed drastically over the years, and the bible is no better at guiding us in this issue than in the issue of slavery, which it clearly condones. It is much better to look at the spirit of the bible here than take these laws literally. In replacing ten (and hundreds more) commandments with two, Jesus meant to offer not laws but guiding principles, which would help us to work out complex issues for ourselves rather than relying on laws that were written for people who needed them but which no longer apply. The prohibitions on shell fish and mixed fabrics, for instance, hold little sway for us today, and the word used for them (translated in KJV as 'abomination') is the same word used for homosexuality. The spirit of all the laws - Hebrew and Christian - is summed up in the two Jesus chooses: place your ego second in order to discover the ultimate reality, and let non-judgmental compassion be the guiding principle in all your dealings with other humans.

In this light, I have such a hard time denying any right or name or responsibility or legal status or religious blessing to any loving couple. It is so difficult to find love in this world. Why would we not celebrate that every time it happens? Granted, the text does say in Genesis 2:24 (and again quoted or paraphrased at Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12, for example) that "a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Ironically, each time Jesus referenced the Genesis passage, he was not talking about gay marriage. He was condemning divorce. If we really want to protect the biblical definition of marriage legally, we should demand that the Supreme Court outlaw divorce, not gay marriage.

Love is the great miracle, regardless of to whom it happens or how. Common sense and experience (though clearly not the Bible) dictate that monogamy is the most stable relationship in modern society because it is the only type that can last (unless you have been raised with a ploygamous consciousness, like certain sects of the Mormon or Islamic communities). But again, this is not a Biblical law, but a practical application of a spiritual principle - putting the ego second and actively caring for those around us. Surely Jesus, who hung out with thieves and prostitutes, would see that love is a miracle worth celebrating no matter where it may occur.

Palin’s Alternate Universe

Here's an article that examines the real issues underlying the VP debate. We have had 8 years of "charm" instead of leadership (though I still don't get what makes Bush charming). A few quotations:

For Ms. Palin, such things as context, syntax and the proximity of answers to questions have no meaning.

As an English teacher, this is one of the aspects of her candidacy (and Bush's presidency) that bothers me most. The emphasis on charm somehow manages to negate totally any focus on substance, and the most inane answers or non-answers or deliberate dodges are forgiven because she is "folksy," which in another context, with another politician, would just come across as plain ignorant.

But the real issue here is this one.

John McCain has spent most of his adult life speaking of his love for his country. Maybe he sees something in Sarah Palin that most Americans do not. Maybe he is aware of qualities that lead him to believe she’d be as steady as Franklin Roosevelt in guiding the U.S. through a prolonged economic downturn. Maybe she’d be as wise and prudent in a national emergency as John Kennedy was during the Cuban missile crisis.

The hardest part of this for me personally is that I used to admire John McCain. I bought his storyline of being independently driven by morals and common sense. But that McCain has utterly disappeared. This total annihilation of the John McCain I once admired was complete long before he found Dick-Cheney-in-Annie-Oakley's-clothing, but choosing her is the most mind boggling and irresponsible insult to Americans I have seen in a long time.

Here's another article. In particular, this quotation strikes me as important:

The people boosting Palin’s triumph were not celebrating because she demonstrated that she is qualified to be president if something ever happened to John McCain. They were cheering her success in covering up her lack of knowledge about the things she would have to deal with if she wound up running the country.

Can you tell which is which?

Chris Rock on David Letterman

Click here for more.

Henry Kissinger

I was more than a little surprised to hear Henry Kissinger's name praised so often at the debate and during the past few days. Have we forgotten his role in Watergate? In supporting nearly every fascist and communist dictator of the last century? In his disastrous involvement in the Vietnam War? It's amazing to me how everything in America can eventually be forgotten, even if our leaders continue the same path. It's like giving Elliot Spitzer his old job back as the Harvey Dent of New York corruption.

Here is an article that gives some perspective on this issue, concluding that Kissinger is neither hawk nor dove, but vulture, which I would agree with if of weren't such an insult to the vulture.

And here are a couple more editorials that do a pretty good job of summing up my feelings about the debate. Watching the backflips, cartwheels and handsprings that McCain has been doing over the past couple of weeks is entertaining, and would just be funny if it didn't remind me so much of Karl Rove.

Sound but No Fury

McCain's Suspension Bridge to Nowhere

The West Wing

A terrific article that is a collaboration between Maureen Dowd of the NY Times and Aaron Sorkin, who created and wrote The West Wing. The article imagines a meeting between Barack Obama and The West Wing's president, Jed Bartlett.

How we got in this mess.

If you are wondering why the US is in such a huge financial mess right now, what happened with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and what will be happening with other banks and companies that are going to be closing soon, and why America, which has traditionally been seen as a beacon of stability in the financial markets now no longer holds that reputation, then you might want to listen to this radio show, which examines the origins of this financial whirlpool we seem to be caught in. It's an entertaining and often shocking story of greed gone wild.

Here's the original version from This American Life, and here's a shorter version that aired on All Things Considered.

McCain’s Health Plan

This article examines some elements of McCain's health plan that have gone unnoticed by most people because of all the attention being paid to Sarah Palin. The health plan treats employer paid health plans as income that employees would pay taxes on. In addition, 20 million Americans would no longer have employer paid health insurance. McCain would also offer a tax credit to help pay for health insurance, but it doesn't look like enough to me considering how much insurance is now. Regardless of how you feel about the proposals, I think this deserves more attention and debate since it is such a sea change in terms of how we handle this important issue.

Electoral Map

Here's a great resource if you're wondering how to cut through all the fogginess about this election.  It's an electoral map that will let you enter projections.  For instance, if you click on "2008 Swing States" under Select a Starting View, then you can see which states seem undecided.  You can then click once to turn them Republican and twice to turn it Democrat.  When fewer than 12 states remain, it will give probabilities below the map - such as the probability of whether in that scenario, either candidate can win, and the different scenarios needed to win by each candidate.

The problem with most polls coming out now is that they are general opinion polls.  Since we have an electoral college, those opinion polls really don't mean anything.  It's actually much more difficult for McCain to beat Obama than it appears in the press, especially considering that the latest poll puts Obama ahead in Pennsylvania and Ohio, while putting McCain ahead in Florida.  If they win those 3 states in that way, then the likelihood that McCain can win shrinks to 7%.

I keep looking everywhere I can to find tools that help cut through the fog...