Una Muses

Truth to Power

Unaspenser — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:35:42 GMT

I've been enthralled all weekend by the Tweeter-powered "revolution" happening in Iran. Until today, the mainstream media has been almost silent about what's been going on over there. Iranian authorities cut off phone, television and internet communications soon after the polls closed and then announced a very unlikely vote result: Ahmadinejad had won with a massive lead.

But, wait. If the incumbent has cleanly won an election, why are communications shut down? Why were journalists confined to their hotels? And why was their equipment being confiscated? And why are Arabic-speaking "police" brutally beating people with electric batons?

None of it made sense. Supposedly Ahmadinejad won 80% of those voters registered to his opposing party? Vast majorities in his opponents' home towns? It didn't add up, but none of our news outlets were saying anything.

Try as they might, though, the authorities couldn't stop the Tweeting. Hackers were getting around any blocks put in place and GPS phones just can't be shut down that easily. So, photos, videos and first hand reports were getting out to world. And it was damning. Andrew Sullivan, Nico Pitney and several members of the DailyKos community were collecting what information they could get and spreading the word. You can "follow" the "#iranelection" tag and several users whose names get shouted out. It's an amazing show of citizen journalism and new technology coming together to thwart oppressive power.

There are stunning videos of protesters peacefully marching down the street, when flanks of motorcyle cops simply plow through the crowds beating people as they go. One of the most exquisite moments is where protesters have knocked a policeman off his bike and some start to beat him, but others come to his aid and guide this stunned young man to safety.

Police invaded university dorms and ripped them apart. Holes in walls, bathroom fixtures ripped out and tons of photos of students with baton marks and burns (from the electric prodding) on their bodies. They were wise enough to keep their faces hidden and to advise people to keep their IP addresses hidden. All while having their lives threatened. Many were taken to jails and beaten. At least one member of a German journalism team was taken into custody and has gone missing. Innocent bystanders are ruthlessly beaten.

Even after all that, there is a massive nightime demonstration of people shouting "Allah o Akbar!" (God is Great!) from the rooftops.

Yesterday, the opposition leader applied for a permit to give a public speech. He was turned down and he told his people to march anyway, but march peacefully. This morning, he learned that the riot police had been authorized to carried loaded weapons and to use them. So, he advised against marching, as he was concerned for everyone's safety.

They came anyway. At first a few hundred. And the riot police were pushing against them with batons. But then there were more. And before you know it there hundreds of thousand of people (some reports say 2-3 million) peacefuly marching in Tehran. Similar activity is happening in other cities around the country. Via Twitter they have been able to communicate some basic tactics to avoid giving cause for the police to attack them. No political slogans are being shouted and they are chanting thanks to the police.

That bears repeating. They are chanting "thank you!" to the police.

Who knows where all of this will go. Whomever ends up winning the seat of President it may not appear to have changed much from our perspective. The spectrum of political viewpoints there is limited by the constraints of the religious leadership that is really the power structure there. Still, these people risk their very lives to speak out against that power structure. Make no mistake, it's a brutal, authoritarian system. Still, there they all are. Susan B. Anthony and Mohatma Gandhi would be proud.

For myself, I find it inspiring. It is the Iranian people's "Susan Boyle" moment. That same thrill of excitement at hearing Ms. Boyle belt out stunning beautiful notes after being mocked for her age and appearance course through my body as I watch videos of the protesters in Iran. They are beacons of light in a dark time, showing us all how to stand up to corruption and cynicism by speaking (or singing) our truth to power.

She Can't Say

Unaspenser — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:47:42 GMT

UPDATE: I stand corrected. Today, Palin told CNBC that Stevens should step down. I must admit to being suprised. Pleasantly, so. And still wondering why people don't apply the same standard to her.

Senator Stevens was found guilty on 7 charges of fraud today. Those are 7 criminal offenses that could each carry a prison term of 5 years. (Though, it's unlikely as a first offender at 84 years of age that he'll serve any time.) It seemed very likely as the trial was progressing that he would be found guilty. So, this is not surprise.

I'm also not surprised that Governor Palin can't say whether she'll vote for him. (Apparently, he can't vote as a convict, but he can still run for and serve in the Senate.) She also can't call for him to bow out and resign. She simply assures us that he will do the right thing for Alaska.

Now, there's been a bit of chatter about why the Reform Maverick isn't railing against this corruption and adamantly calling for his resignation. Is it that hard to put together why she can't do this? If she screams for his resignation because he has been found guilty of a crime, she could only do so with integrity if she resigned herself. Seriously, she's not responding to questions about what action should be taken, because she really can't say. It would be her political demise.

With a Republican Senator convicted of fraud and a Republican Governor guilty of an abuse of power, is Palin's home state less of a sure Republican thing now? McCain isn't polling over 50% in Arizona. It's a two-point race. Is it possible that either or both Alaska and Arizona might end up in the Blue Column this election? Don't ask Palin. She can't say. (Well, none of us can.)

When Silence Is Golden

Unaspenser — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:39:32 GMT

Being a newshound, I heard the story of the woman who said she was attacked and mutilated by an Obama supporter. The thought that anyone would do such a thing for any reason is horrifying. To claim it as a political act of support for Barack Obama or John McCain is simply insane. Neither of these candidates would approve of expressing your political viewpoint with violence. That anyone in the news, punditry or blogosphere would try to hold up this individual's reprehensible act as some sort of proof about anything regarding either candidate is patently absurd. Those people have given up all credibility as a voice of wisdom or reason.

This morning's news that the young woman has admitted to this being a hoax only furthers the point. I've been watching news reports and blog commentary over the last 24 hours and there has been a lot of frenzy. I've been disturbed by most of what I've read. Any wise person would at most say, "This is a personal tragedy for this woman. I hope she gets the attention she needs and that justice is served." Why? Because we, quite wisely, have a system that says a person is innocent unti proven guilty. If you believed any part of her story, you still have to wait until a person is proven guilty before jumping to conclusions about him, his motives and surely any connection to a political campaign. If you didn't believe her story, you still needed to wait until she was proven guilty of fraud and to discover her motivations and certainly not to assume it is connected with any political campaign. In either scenario there is a sad story. But neither scenario reflects upon a candidate unless it is shown that the perpetrator was officially directed by a campaign to commit this act or came away from a campaign interaction having felt spurred towards violence and it can be shown that this might be a reasonable response to the campaign activity experienced.

So, what did it serve people to froth about this? To launch accusations or intimate things about the candidates based on this? Are we so unable to think beyond the adrenaline of a moment, that we can't really consider what is truly in our best public interest? I'd like to think this only because we're anxious these days. However, this kind of destructive catterwolling goes on all the time. When do we learn? When do we stop? Can't we be silent for even a short time and let things become more clear? Yes, too much silence can be deadly. But a short space of silence can be golden.

"Why Do Liberals Hate Sarah Palin?"?

Unaspenser — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:21:43 GMT

This is what we call a loaded question. It contains the pre-supposition that "liberals" actually do "hate" Sarah Palin, which cannot be claimed as a self-evident truth. If you are a liberal and you try to answer, you are confirming that you "hate" Sarah Palin. If you don't answer then the questions stands unchallenged, so you must "hate" Sarah Palin. If you engage the questioner, she only takes it as further opportunity to malign you or provide false, misleading or unrelated information to disavow your credibilty. The question is not posed in order to explore why some people might not support Sarah Palin's bid for the Vice-Presidency. The author has no interest in actually considering whether there may be some valid points to be heard. It's a headline for an article. An article that says this:

"A friend of mine wrote this so eloquently, and I believe is spot on. This is a question that we conservatives have been struggling to find the answer to and I believe this is the most probable explanation.

I have tried to understand why the left hates Palin so much. Their main argument doesn't hold up. That she isn't qualified. That is a very stupid argument from the left when the top of their ticket is less qualified. So there has to be another reason. I think it is because she is a decent human being. The left hates her because of who she is. A married woman with 5 children. A married woman who chose not to abort a child with problems. A person that does still believe that America is a great country. A person who still has faith and a belief in God. An American that still believes in freedom and the constitution. She is everything liberals aren't. She reminds them how rotten they are. That is why they hate her."

So, the point to the headline was to grab your attention allowing the author to present you with her argument full of highly offensive character assassinations of anyone who does not support Sarah Palin.

It's a specious argument, too. It uses what we call fallacious logic. That is, it doesn't use logic at all. It is just a series of ad hominem attacks. (For an interesting piece written by a Republican about the use of character assassination, go here.) The claim that "liberals hate Sarah Palin"... "because she is a decent human being", for instance. Really? Any proof of that? How would you prove that? Do we have polls that show "liberals" stating that they hate decent people? Of course not. The article isn't about logic or civil discourse. It's about avoiding a real exploration of a complex subject by deflecting with insults.

Look, by the end of the article the reader is, presumably, to believe that "liberals" are not decent people. They can't be mothers with 5 children. They would never choose to have a "problem child". They don't believe America is a great country. They don't believe in God or have faith. They don't believe in freedom or the constitution. They are rotten. As no proof or evidence is provided for any of the loathesome assessments, one must assume that the author has met every "liberal" and can vouch for this description. But, of course, not.

The article is more a reflection of the author than it is of "liberals." This mirror is not saying, "you're the most beautiful of all", trust me.

So, what's the point of publishing something like this? It's called demonizing. A socially malevolent approach to stifling dissent. If you, in your mind, pre-determine that someone could only disagree with you because they are "rotten", then you have de-legitimized anything they might have to say for themselves before they've even uttered a word. They are disqualified from the dignity of being seen as a person with equal rights to their perspective being given serious consideration in the civil discourse.

We've been living with this is as a prevalent form of eroding democracy in this country for at least 8 years now. It's the hallmark of the Bush Administration. Look where it's gotten us: one failed war, one illegal invasion of a country with a host of crimes against the Geneva Conventions, an erosion of our civil rights, more scandals in our federal government than we've ever witnessed, an unregulated economy that has succumbed to greed and that every American taxpayer will be paying for for quite a while. We've lost our dignity and standing in international relations. We look childish to the rest of the world. As though we're too stupid or emotionally stunted to have an intelligent dialog. For all the incomparably wonderful things that our democracy represents, we've opted to step off our high ground and dive right into the gutter. We need to crawl back out, wipe off the mud and start climbing the precarious slope back up to respectability.

It's time for us to stop giving these vile utterances any airtime. These unintelligent, demonizing antics need to get boo-ed off the stage of our national discourse. Because when someone tells me that I'm indecent, un-American, faithless and rotten just because I heartily disagree with her assessment of a political candidate, well, frankly, I find that that to be an indecent, un-American, faithless and un-Christian act. I find it unacceptable.

If someone wants to learn why I might not support Governor Palin, I must first be acknowledged as a person of equal dignity. Next, she must show that she can face facts. Facts about the candidate she supports and facts about the one I support. These facts don't always fit our ideal of the candidate. You know, you can support a flawed candidate. They're human. You can support her for whatever reason you choose. That's your right. I can choose to oppose her for any reason I see fit. I cn vigorously disagree with your assessment of her. Doing so doesn't make me hateful, indecent, unfaithful or un-American.

(Here's a link to the original article, lest you think I make this stuff up. Though I don't think it deserves increased traffic. I was only motivated to write this piece because when I posted a comment criticizing the article for being loaded and specious, my comment was deleted.)

"Health"

Unaspenser — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:10:19 GMT

Yes. McCain lifted his hands and made sarcastic quote marks while addressing the issue of being concerned about a pregnant woman's health when considering whether she should be forced to carry to term. This is a gravely serious matter to all women, regardless of where they stand on the issue of choice. A large portion of the Roe v Wade decision was addressing how the state must be compelled to protect the health of the mother.

Now, I can understand that there may be some few cases where that definition may have been abused and that's reprehensible. But to be so disrespectful to a dialog of life and death importance for women is simply unacceptable. It shows contempt for women and their concerns.

Call me crazy, but I don't think disdain is a big vote getter. Maybe there are a few people who see that as feisty, or some kind of glorious "gotcha" style, but mostly it looks childish. About junior high, I'd say. It certainly doesn't look presidential. As a matter of fact, the gesture painfully reminded me of some of Bush's more juvenile moments. Exactly what we're running from as we look to change our image in the world.

At some time, McCain may have been a centrist. But now, he's clearly camped his campaign in the Conservative Movement trailer park. Are his advisors not reading all the reports of voter reaction to his sarcasm and rudeness? Does he think it looks presidential to be interrupting someone repeatedly with his snide 'zingers'? Seriously, we're looking at these men wondering who will represent us well in meetings with heads of states. We're also trying to suss out who might best sit with legislators of opposing views and create a respectful environment that lends itself to constructive resolutions.

It's hard to listen to what McCain's policy positions might be because he not sharing ideas as much as he's throwing punches. He rolls his eyes when Obama speaks. He interrupts. And he punctuates serious matters with sarcasm. Poll after poll is informing us all that this is not what we want in a leader. Are they not getting the message or is he incapable of being stately?

A Step in the Right Direction

Unaspenser — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:08:46 GMT

Credit where credit is due. I'll let Senator McCain speak for himself:

McCain was responding to a town hall attendee who claimed he was concerned about raising a child under a president who "cohorts with domestic terrorists such as [Bill] Ayers." Despite the fact that McCain and his campaign have repeatedly used Ayers to hammer Obama in recent days, the Arizona Senator tried to calm the man.

"[Senator Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared about as President of the United States," he said, before adding: "If I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president I wouldn't be running."

The crowd groaned with disapproval.

Later, McCain was again pressed about Obama's "other-ness" and again he refused to play ball. "I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

"No, ma'am," McCain said several times, shaking his head in disagreement. "He's a decent, family man, [a] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

At another point, McCain declared, "If you want a fight, we will fight. But we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments." Supporters booed then also. "I don't mean that has to reduce your ferocity," McCain responded. "I just mean to say you have to be respectful."

I hope he keeps this up. It renews my faith in his humanity a bit. Now, if he can get his running mate, his wife and his surrogates to do the same, we might start seeing reasonable political dialog.

Talk Them Down!

Unaspenser — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:12:46 GMT

So, if a McCain/Palin supporter walks out of one of the hate-stoking rallies and heads to an Obama campaign office and shoots a few people, are McCain and Palin going to be held responsible? Frank Schaeffer at the Baltimore Sun thinks they should be.

Let's face it, the brand of terrorism we see mostly in our country are unhinged people walking into workplaces and schools with guns. The motivating emotion: rage. Then there are the actions of those with extreme "small government" views that go and bomb government buildings, as in Oklahoma City. Is this really the kind of thing we want to evoke right now while people are frightened about their prospects, feeling victimized and looking for an outlet for anger?

Let's be clear about something. Barack Obama is a law-abiding citizen. He's spent his entire adulthood doing good works for people. It was a foundation run by a Republican with a bi-partisan board that included Ayers. It wasn't some fringe, anti-American organization. The Annenburg foundation folks. Annenburg worked in the Reagan administration.

It's one thing to disagree with someone's policy agenda or ideology. Clearly, Obama's idea of government is that it is there to protect the most vulnerable amongst us. McCain's idea of govenment is that if you serve the most empowered, they will serve the least empowered. I happen to agree with Obama based on my experience. (And the current financial crisis, where well-heeled investors and bankers exploited the vulnerable and then bet against them with a gambling addiction-type behavior using their crazy, unregulated credit default swaps is a prime example.) I also happen to think that McCain is not an honorable man. I base that on his own words. He admits he's a liar for the sake of ambition. He admits to filing a marriage license before he was divorced. I also believe that he exploits his POW experience in a dishonorable way. But we don't need to inspire a lynch mob to ensure that he's not made president. We only need to inspire people to vote for Obama.

At McCain/Palin ralies people are shouting out "kill him" and "terrorist!" Why aren't Senator McCain and Governor Palin calling for civility here? Would it be so difficult to say, "hey, we don't trust this guy as president, but we're just talking about voting here!"? They need to talk these crowds down from this threatening rage. After all, if Obama really were a threat, he would have been investigated and arrested and disqualified quite some time ago. He's been under the spotlight for a while now. The Bush administration has been arresting people as potential terrorists on some pretty flimsy (sometimes none) information. You don't think they would have checked out anybody who's ever had associations with Ayers? Come on!

It's laughable that people from the McCain campaign want to claim that Obama's not experienced enough to govern and, yet, he's somehow responsible for the international economic crisis. That's a lot of power for someone who's a nobody. It's not laughable, it's sadly pathetic, when McCain wants to claim that Obama is ignorant about foreign relations and war management, when repeatedly his own touted generals support Obama's notions. What's tragic is that when McCain can't win the election based on policies and ideas, he decides to stoke fear and hatred. That might be how you motivate the troops to do the unthinkable, to override all their socialization as human beings, in a war setting. Unless he trying to start a civil war, it's not an ethical motivator for the voting booth - an decidedly non-violent social action which is supposed to be the core of our belief in democracy.

These fears, this hatred are not based on an actual belief that black people are inherently less than. They are not truly based on a deep-down conviction that every Muslim is a terrorist. Or that anybody who has done bad things is always evil. These are projections. instead of admitting that one feels bad about oneself or feels vulnerable because life is full of uncertainty and danger and you can't control it , we look to manage these feelings by insisting on some false sense of entitled superiority and/or a bogeyman to blame for all the anxieties that life offers. We need to face ourselves. We need to forgive ourselves for our shortcomings while we work to better ourselves. We need to accept the built in risk that is life and we need to join together to face those risks rather than alienate and increase the risks. We need to talk these people down.

Senator McCain and Governor Palin, please live up to the dignities of your titles and talk these people down.

Obama/Ayers: Nothing to See Here

Unaspenser — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:07:22 GMT

It's been tried every time Obama has run for public office: paint him as a terrorist because his path has crossed with William Ayers. Guilt by association is a tactic of a desperate campaign. When you've got nothing left to run on you start throwing mud and see if any sticks. Democrats have learned a few lessons and they're not sitting back anymore. Now they're lobbing their own mud balls. When it starts flying back and forth in a fury it can be hard for the average citizen to sort it all out.

One thing I will note is this: having met someone, even having spent time with him or worked with him, doesn't mean he's influenced you, your ideas or your political agenda. I'm sure that we all work with people who have different political ideas than ourselves, but we manage to focus on the work at hand and leave those differences outside the office. If you're assessing someone's character and political agenda you need to look at what actitivies that person has engaged and his own statements of belief. If you're concerned about a specific, offensive agenda make sure you can verify proof of any pursuit of said agenda before making a judgment.

I don't know a whole lot about McCain's past and current associates, so I'll do some research about his relationships with Charles Keating (Savings & Loan criminal), David Ishkin (radical 60s activist), John Singlaub and the Council for World Freedom (think Iran Contra) before writing anything about that. As with Obama, I'll be looking for any McCain actions that reflect the politics of those associations. I won't be bashing him simply for having the associations.

The Obama/Ayers connection is an easy one, though. People have tried for so long to build up a picture of Obama as a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer that hoardes of journalists have done the work for us. There's an article here with lots of links to different journalistic pieces on the subject. The conclusions in all of them are that there is no evidence of any relationship beyond having been introduced early in Obama's political career and then having sat on the same non-profit board that was distributing money to schools in need. They've never even had a casual cup of coffee together. It is patently absurd to link Ayers to Obama's community service work, apparently. The article specifies 30 lies being told about Obama and Ayers and provides the facts with links to sources. Additonally, nobody can point to any policies Obama has pursued as a state or federal legislator that suggest he is anything but a patriotic citizen.

The bigger question is why people need to portray someone as a terrorist. Can't we just have policy disagreements? Obama's work has been in the public realm for 25 years. If he were truly some kind of terrorist, we'd know by now. Instead, everyone who has worked with him has admired and appreciated all that he has done for his constituents. The good people of Illinois benefitted from his presence in their state legislature so much that they happily promoted him to be their federal Senator. So, why this desperate bid to portray him as evil?

Because the Republicans controlled the Congress from 1992-2006. They have controlled the White House from 2001-2008. And the policies of the Republican Party have failed us miserably. Foreign relations are at an all time low. The economy is falling into an abyss. Our health care system is a nightmare. The wars we're prosecuting have been mismanaged. The public has seen where Republican policies take us. For a ride over a cliff. So, McCain can't win an election based on policies. Instead he's hoping we'll fall for the smear tactics, be so afraid of the black man with a foreign sounding name that we'll get back on his Straight Over the Cliff bus.

I don't think so.

Palin: Power-Seeker

Unaspenser — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:13:18 GMT

Clip of Sarah Palin agreeing with the Cheney Doctrine on the role of the Vice President (an unconstitutional stance, by the way.)

(anyone know how to embed video clips here? I have the code, but it just prints as text.)

And, Palin seeking even more power: (working on a link here that isn't the whole debate, or a 20-to-30 minute chunk. Please be patient. Thanks.)

Meanwhile, here is the quote with comments from blogger E.J. Eskow:

"Pundits say she beat expectations because she didn't say anything outrageous - but she did. She mis-stated the Constitution as she made a blatant play for power. Here's what she said:

I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

The Constitution doesn't say that, and apparently she doesn't support the fundamental principle of separation of powers. It sounds like she wants to assume semi-dictatorial power over the deliberations of the United States Senate."

Qualified?

Unaspenser — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:32:41 GMT

First, watch this. Now, let's talk.

In my opinion, this election is between Barack Obama and John McCain. Their Vice Presidential picks are of second consideration. Given this, I have not focused on Biden and Palin much. Except on how they reflect each candidate's leadership in decision-making. When they choose their running mate, the main message is "this is who I think would be best suited, of the 300 million people in this country, to replace me as President should I, for some reason, not be able to carry out my duties." It's the single presidential decision that the candidate makes during the campaign.

I've ignored the gaffe game. Everybody makes them. I'm staying away from the Palin scandals. Everybody who supports her will ignore them, claim they're simply smear tactics. Everybody who doesn't support her will crow about them.

I am concerned that the person who is in office should have some sense of our nation's history, the processes of the system, the nature of our foreign relations and a demonstrated interest in forming ideas based on knowing the context of things.

When Sarah Palin can't name another Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade, I'm concerned. How can she know who to place on the Supreme Court if she has no idea of the history of that court's decisions and how the people she's considering will honor or impact that history?

Why can't she name newspapers and magazines that she's read over the years to inform her about the nation and the world? You can't form meaningful opinions in a vacuum. It's simply not enough to be a good mom, or a good person. There are a lot of aspects to governing that are technical and complex. You don't have to be from Washington, but you should have demonstrated an interest. This is where Obama's Foreign Relations degree and his practice as a Constitutional Lawyer support his candidacy. What has Palin ever done to educate herself about the world outside of Alaska?

And, now, when asked what she thinks about the fact that sometimes democratic elections result in leaders that we are opposed to, she actually doesn't seem to understand the question. She seems to be saying that we should support Hamas because we need to support democracy in that part of the world. And does she understand that Ahmadinejad was elected?

So, seriously, John McCain thinks Palin is the best and the brightest he could come up with? She's ready on day one? She may be smart, I don't know. But she is definitely ignorant. As in, uninformed and lacking curiosity.

Please, the thought of her sitting in the Oval Office just became truly frightening. She would not be able to deftly manage multi-party talks in a national security situation. We would be in huge trouble. We're talking people dying because of her ineptitude. This is not something you can cram in in a month or two. This is stuff that needs to have been absorbed through an interest in history and current events over time.

What was McCain thinking? He certainly can't believe that she would handle a national security crisis well. What if he was in a car accident one week after being elected. He might recover, but he's in a coma. Iraq falls into disarray and any Israeli/Palestinian peact talks crumble setting Iran in to motion. Does he trust her to handle this well? Is he lying when he says, "yes?" We already know that she hasn't a clue of understanding about the financial/economic crisis we're in. Why did he choose her? Can we really trust him to put the country first?

I know that the technical qualification to run for high office is just citizenship and age. But the real life qualification, what we know it requires to be a helpful and effective leader is much more than that. There is simply too much at stake. If your child is in the military, do you really feel comfortable telling them that Palin might be Commander in Chief? You really think she'll know how to negotiate us out of violent conflict and to make strategic decisions in environments she has no grasp of? Isn't that the set up that led to our leaders telling us that we would be greeted as liberators and that invading Iraq would be an easy victory? Can we really afford more ignorance?

For bonus consderation: a list of the indisputable lies told by Palin within the last month. This gets back to my question about why we promote liars.

The Confidence Game

Unaspenser — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:28:49 GMT

It would seem that a lot of the concerns about the financial markets has to do with confidence. See here, here, and here, for instance.

It would also seem that The Market, as in investors and bankers around the globe, have lost confidence in themselves. They are saying that without government assistance there will be a total credit freeze, as everyone is worried about how many of their bad investments will tank and make their balance sheets so unstable as to render them unable to let go of the reins of any cash they have, much less trust that any loans they make to other banks will be honored, since those banks might have a Titanic loss from those pesky derivatives and high-risk mortgages.

I get it. We get it. Something needs to be done. We need to have our government take some sort of action that will restore confidence in The Market and give banks adequate cash flow breathing room to keep things moving along.

But this is a complicated mess. We don't know how much money needs to be covered. (That $700 billion? It's a wild guess. Seriously. Ask Paulson.) We'd like to do our best to protect any taxpayer dollars that get used - not mention being able to repay the loan we'll have to take out in order to come up with this colossal cash cow. We don't want to reward those clever financiers and investors who got us into this mess. And we can't just fix the credit crunch, as it will be meaningless without addressing other economic problems such as job losses, the inordinate cost of health care, energy dependence, etc.

No small task, indeed. Is this the kind of thing that should be rushed? My version of wisdom say, "no." So, if there's a confidence issue and the underlying problem requires some time, I have a suggestion:

Why don't our leaders make a statement something like this, "We understand that the banking and finance industry has gotten itself into a pickle. A very complicated pickle. We're going to help. We promise. To do so, we need to look at the problem closely and work on a solutiion that everyone can be comfortable with. That's consensus. That takes more than a week on something as big as this. So, give us 8 weeks. We promise that by then, we'll have and Ambulance bill for you life-threatening emergency. But you have to hang in there with us. It's not fair to ask us to rush this. How long did it take to get into this mess? Years. So, surely, you call all take a few deep breaths and give us a few weeks. Know that, in the end, we've got this covered. Until then, please stay calm. If we can come up with any universally agreed upon measures that we can implement immediately, we will. We'll be transparent about our analysis and any proposals we're considering and we'd love to hear from you, as long as you appreciate the need for calm and patience. Thank you for your cooperation and concern for your fellow citizen as we figure out what's best for everyone and a sustainably healthy economy".

Just Wonderin'

Unaspenser — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:18:15 GMT

As the Behemoth Bailout was failing in the House of Representatives, I noticed something interesting about the Wall Stree activity. While the voting was happening and it became unclear whether there were going to be enough votes to pass the bill, the Dow Jones plummeted. At one point it was more than 700 points down. Then, as it became absolutely clear that the bill was going to fail, the Dow Jones actually recovered over 200 points.

It has slowly dropped down to a nearly 600 point loss for the day, but why did it rise on the realization that the bill failed?

I am glad that the bill has failed for the moment. I don't think something this profound should be forced through so quickly. If it's really a national emergency our congressional members can give up their recess. I'd like to see a more creative approach to re-igniting our economy and causing money to flow. Sheesh, split those billions of dollars amongst all the taxpayers and watch mortgages, credit cards and student loans get paid off. That would give the banks cash and it would get us out of a debt-laden economy. Also watch how many people make luxury purchases (I think credit should be withheld until people have spent their cash and demonstrated a flow of income) and start their own or invest in other businesses. We could probably accomplish a lot at a much lower price tag.

Also, I would like to state my appreciation for the fiscal conservatives who are sticking to their ideology of letting the market fend for itself and the liberal populists who don't see why the Average Jane should foot the bill for the Fat Cats. It's always fun when different ideologies intersect in an unexpected way.

Update: While the DOW did finally end 777 points down yesterday, it's back up today by nearly 400 points as of 3pm. The S&P and the NASDAQ are also back up.

Politicking: Why Are Lies Acceptable?

Unaspenser — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:07:52 GMT

Politics is a hardball game, we all know that. Half the battle in a political campaign is to paint your opponent in the worst possible light. At least, that's what we've come to support as an electorate. Quite often this means stoking fears and inciting hysteria.

What we define as a good politician is someone who knows how to cherry pick partial facts in such a way as to present a damaging image of his opponent. Those facts might be out of context and therefore misrepresentative, but as long as they are facts we say it's fair game. We aren't that interested, apparently, in whether the candidate has demonstrated personal integrity or can articulate a creative philosophy and peaceful vision.

Lately, we've even come to accept third party organizations, who have no accountability, to participate in distorting the policy positions and characters of candidates they don't like. These organizations give their candidate room for plausible deniability ("I had nothing to do with that!") Even when they know that a third party is slandering their opponent, they don't call them out for it. It serves them well to stay silent and let the public hold onto those misperceptions as they enter the voting booth.

What about outright lies? Do we care? If it's a slanderous lie about the candidate we oppose do we think that's acceptable? Are we able to actually take in the data that refutes the lie? Research suggests no. That when presented with solid evidence that our candidate is lying, we defend him even more. Why aren't we interested in integrity?

I ask because both campaigns have been guilty of this. Obama has been misleading about McCain's "...we might be there 100 years...." and McCain repeatedly deceived about Obama's tax plan. Both of these tactics are used to push a fear button in the voter so that she will vote for him in order not see her fears realized with the other guy.

We fall for it every time. Then we act disappointed" when our leaders turn out to lack integrity. So, Bush, who ran as "The CEO" president of America has managed our country into financial ruin. But he failed at every attempt at being a CEO prior to being elected, so what did we expect?

When do we stop being sycophants based on the simplest expressions of fears where we don't really examine this person who would represent us and start having deeper consideration for what we feel would best move us toward peace and a life with dignity?

For me, integrity is a starting point. I can barely consider the person's claimed policy agenda if that person has demonstrated a lack of integrity. Without integrity, you can't trust a person, so what does it matter what he says?

Bill Clinton lost me the moment it became clear that he had cheated on his wife and had treated the women he'd had extramarital affairs with so horribly. Beyond the concern for treatment of women, there is a simple integrity problem. He's not to be trusted. I have the same assessment of John McCain. He started his relationship with Cindy while he was still married to Carol. Carol had been severely injured in a car accident while he was in Vietnam. Apparently, the sense of honor he brought home with him from his POW experience didn't extend to honoring his wife. He and Cindy signed their marriage license before he was even divorced. Not to mention that upon meeting Cindy, he lied to her about his age. One presumes because he thought she wouldn't be interested in an older man. So, his personal style is to lie when he thinks he won't get his desired outcome. Great. Just what we need. If a person can't be truthful to those in his inner circle, those he proclaims to love, when would he consider it problematic to lie?

McCain has admitted to lying. He simply states that he lies for the sake of ambition. There he is on video admitting to lying and stating why. Once you know this about someone how do you trust him on anything? Why would you? Why would you not want to face the facts and re-evaluate your support? Why become more entrenched in your position?

This is something I simply don't understand. Yet, I watch us continually elect and promote known liars. It leaves me feeling hopeless, really.

Debate #1 Observations

Unaspenser — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:53:17 GMT

I watched last night's presidential debate with a friend. As it was late, my daughter came over in her pj's and we paused (don't you love TIVO!) in the middle to put the children to bed. During that pause she asked what I thought others were getting out of the debate. My response was that if you already like McCain you weren't going to see anything here to change that. If you already like Obama, nothing this evening was going to change that. I wasn't sure what "undecideds" were looking for, but I wondered how McCain's disdainfulness would come across. Also, whether people would feel more sure of Obama's grasp of foreign policy.

Yes, I'm biased at this point. I've picked my candidate, warts and all, and I'm sticking with him. I don't agree with him on everything, but I agree with a lot more than I do with McCain. What draws me to him even more than policies is his underlying philosophy about how to work with people, his ability to think in broader strokes where more things are considered than the one fact in front of your nose, and his willingness to explain what he's thinking. Also, his forthrightness.

McCain was condescending with all of his "he's naive" and "he doesn't understand". Those rang very hollow as Obama's remarks made it clear he did understand. He simply had a different assessment. More than that, those comments made it sound like he was attacking Obama personally, rather than disagreeing with ideas. We can't have our leading statesman approaching our adversaries that way. The only chance of reaching through to someone and finding ways to seek common ground and peaceful resolution is to respect that their perspective is different even if you fervently disagree with their conclusions or actions. Even if you need to protect yourself from them.

This is what Obama demonstrated last night. Though McCain refused to look him in the eye and attempted to belittle him, Obama did not retaliate with like behavior. Nor did he cower. He was still able to look directly at McCain and say, "You were wrong," without any need to strip him of his dignity. He was able to express his differing philosophy or assessment without making personal characterizations of McCain for holding things differently.

What do I mean by this? Saying, "you were wrong" is an assessment of fact. Saying, "you're were stupid" is a personal characterization. McCain could have said, "I adamantly disagree. I think you have that all wrong," rather than "he is naive" or "he doesn't understand." Experienced and smart people can disagree. Why does McCain need to belittle the person to argue his point?

People underestimate Obama's experience. He was a foreign relations undergraduate major and he's been on the Senate Foreign Relations committee since he was elected. This has been a lifelong interest and he's well studied. So, I wasn't surprised at his command of the subject matter. I know that others were, though, so I'm very glad that they got to see him in action rather than listen to baseless rumors.

By the way, those sub-committee meetings on Afghanistan were folded into a larger committee on the war on terror. That's why there have been no meetings. Obama has attended two of those meetings. Though McCain sits on the Foreign Relations committee as well, he has attended none. This is something else that bothers me about McCain. He's very comfortable lying. He knows what the structure of those committees are and that, as a group, the Foreign Relations committee made the decision to hold all the sub-committees as one and, yet, for political gain he's comfortably willing to purposefully misrepresent. He even lied about the Eisenhower story. (There was no letter about resigning.) He uses references to the, unknown to outsiders, labyrinthine processes in the Senate to mislead people for political points rather than having an honest debate about opinions and philosophies where the listeners can make truly informed decisions. This stuff bothers me. A lot. I'm looking for integrity. But clearly, based on who we keep electing into high offices and promoting in work places and rewarding in our culture, I'm an outlier on this. So, I don't know if other people noticed how often Obama had to say, "That's not true." Or whether they would bother to fact check.

I was glad to see McCain control his temper and stay focused.* McCain has had 26 years of experience on the job and he knows a lot. I disagree with the conclusions he reaches, but I like that they could debate at that level most of the time. Obviously, there will be those that agree with one candidate and those that agree with another. At least we know where they stand. What many may have thought was boring, I found to be one of the more well-presented debates we've seen in a long time. That's a credit to Jim Lehrer and McCain and Obama. And it was refreshing. I hope the rest of the debates have the same or better tenor.

*(Like him or not, you must be aware that McCain is known for his explosiveness. He's pugilistic by nature. It's the main reason he isn't a congressional leader or have a coaliton of support within the congress. Not his differing policy stances. Which makes you wonder how he could govern as executive. Obama has co-authored bills with several Republican Senators and still manages to maintain great relations within his party. Republican Senators have stated that he's someone everybody can work with. Sounds like a good person to have in the executive office to me.)

Mixed Feelings

Unaspenser — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 01:37:14 GMT

So, the negotiations on the Behemoth Bailout is stalled by partisan politics. Since I don't support the idea of forking over billions of dollars to people who gambled away our economy for their own gain, I'm not that bothered that it is delayed. This is something that should be given a lot more consideration than an up or down vote on a Wall Street proposal.

What bothers me, though, is that the alternative proposal that is being used to halt the process is preposterous. They want to go further in the direction that got us into this mess. Yep, they want more deregulation. Lower taxes for the wealthy. And, they want us to insure those nearly criminal derivatives of theirs. Well, no one's even going to swallow that elixir. Much less be magically enthralled by it.

So, it looks like they're going to go back to the original idea of forking over the cash. With no real assessment of whether this would really fix anything. It will fix a few rich people's bank accounts.

I understand that the concern is a total credit freeze. I think that's a form of extortion, but I get why it pushes everybody's panic buttons. I wish they would step back and realize that Wall Street is in the weak position here. We, the people they're asking for the handout from, should be in the position to make demands. Credit reform, bankruptcy reform, renegotiations for predatory loans, criminal investigations, the nullification of those derivatives. (Hey, do you understand those Credit Default Swaps, yet? I'm working on an explanation, but the bottom line is that the lenders were betting against their borrowers. They had a vested interest in making bad loans, because they would cash in if they failed. As long as there was enough cash in the system to pay off those bets.)

So, I'm glad that it wasn't easy and that Wall Street financiers who perpetrated this on us are having to sweat it out. But I'm disappointed at the lame alternative proposal and the overall capitulation to the Wall Street demands. With prices continuing to rise, job rates continuing to decline and wages declining, as well, the housing crisis is far from over and giving the very people who put us here more money than God isn't going to stop the economy from tanking. So, we all better brace ourselves. And see if we can doing anything to get our money back from Wall Street down the line. (I like the idea of taxing trade transactions as a repayment plan, by the way. More thoughts on that later.)