WoodMoor Village Zendo

Hillary in the Woodshed

Wow. Watch this clip in its entirety. At times it is a bit uncomfortable to watch because such public denunciation is not common -- but if nobody has sat her down and said these things already, and that she needs to offer a real apology... Olbermann surely took the time to school her. Sen. Clinton needs to, for the sake of the nation, herself, her supporters, common decency, and common humanity, and karma, to not only apologize but work to eradicate the suffering such comments create. I'm not talking about individual suffering. I'm talking about the real harm that articulation can (and will) generate.

Funny thing that kind of forgiveness where nothing really is forgiven eh?

In any case, Sen. Clinton and her strategists have certainly gone way beyond inappropriate with those comments. In my estimation they have been race-baiting, gender-baiting and pushing their discourse in ways that have been insidious and tragic. We certainly need a better politics in this country, and the last eight years have but prepared the ground for this kind of outcome/situation.

The MSM today is reporting that the Clinton campaign is in negotiation with the Obama campaign about the possibility of the VP job. Hmmmm... does not sound like her comments will help much. I'm sure more fireworks will follow. I read somewhere that Sen. Clinton's comments amounted to a move to "Tonya Harding" Sen. Obama.

Fear, fear, fear. We don't seem to learn that we reap what we sow. I wish politicians were required to take a sort of Hippocratic oath: first do no harm.

Pennsylvania Primary

Whew! The Pennsylvania primaries are over. Maybe. I think we are going to see much of the same intensity in Indiana. Not necessarily a bad thing in my book. As expected there is tons of spin from both sides, and the MSM (mainstream media) is making all sorts of predictions about the next states. Indiana is described as the next "battleground" state (I'm not a big sports fan, but I prefer sports metaphors to war metaphors. Wish they would use something else).

One thing keeps bugging me. Read this excerpt from The New York Times:

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama’s campaign was left struggling to explain on Wednesday why he had once again been unable to leave his opponent on the mat, as well as his troubles gaining the backing of white working-class voters. But Obama campaign officials were able to point to at least one unyielding reality on their side: he still possesses a lead in pledged delegates that will be almost impossible for Mrs. Clinton to erase.

We've been hearing this, and will continue to hear it for the rest of the campaign. What does it mean? Unfortunately, in my mind this means that the reality of Race in the U.S. is a huge factor in this campaign. For all that Obama has tried to de-center Race as central issue (and smartly so), his campaign still has to contend with that issue and with the difference it makes for so many. Looking closely at the media analysis of demographics in Pennsylvania, and in particular that demographic predicted to vote for Hillary, and adding the comments from exit polls, what do we get? Obama did not do so well with older white folks. And yes, in particular older white folks, with a lower level of education, in poorer parts of the state. These voters are more likely to say that race is an important consideration in their voting decision -- and have said so. The same relationship obtained in Ohio, and will shape the race somewhat also in Indiana.

Much work still to do.

Debate? Don't Drink the Koolaid

A quick note on last night's debate in Pennsylvania between Sen.'s Obama and Clinton: What a waste eh? Millions of dollars poured into such events only to see ABC turn it into more of what we see everyday: a spectacle where the media becomes its own glorious subject. There are many things I want to know about both candidates, but none of those have to do with why they wear or not flag lapel pins, etc. What's particularly troubling is that this kind of media spectacle makes the candidates worse, as they themselves respond to this drivel and adjust to that kind of treatment. The debate was not flattering for anybody, but I certainly think it looked more like a hit job on Sen. Obama.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan perhaps said it best:

No questions on the environment, none on terror, none on interrogation, none on torture, none on education, none on spending, none on healthcare, none on Iran ... but four separate questions in the first hour about a lapel-pin, Bitter-gate, Wright-gate and Ayers. I'm all for keeping candidates on their toes. But this was ridiculous. And now we have affirmative action? Again, it's not illegitimate as such - but the only reason it is asked is to try and trip these people up and make Gibson and Stephanopoulos look smart.

Amen, Brother.

Where the questions asked relevant? Not at this point. As Aristotle noted in his Art of Rhetoric, when we are divided on the facts, that is when they don't help us make up our minds, Ethos (read it as credibility or character) wins the day. Thus, yes, questions that help us make sense of the character of the candidates, that facilitate our judgment on credibility, make sense to ask. So called character issues might point to dispositions to action, and values (inclinations anyway). But there is no reason to ask stupid questions that do not so much help us make judgment about character as help feed the media more spectacle for it to consume and regurgitate. ABC News essentially demonstrated that the job of the media is to be Ourobouros-like, consuming itself, its own spectacle. The media's subject is itself.

Springsteen for Obama

Bruce Springsteen has come out in support of Sen. Obama's candidacy. You can read the full letter on his website, but here's a taste of it:

"After the terrible damage done over the past eight years, a great American reclamation project needs to be undertaken. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate to lead that project and to lead us into the 21st Century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans."

"Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President."

Check it out. He puts it succinctly and quite nicely. Obama seems to be running a more amenable campaign for those who value a mindful approach personally, and a mindful perspective toward politics. I am agreeing with this sentiment more and more, even though I still have plenty of reservations about the type of candidates we get.

Clinging to Religion, Bitter and Frustrated?

Is the dust settling a bit from the Obama "bitter" fake controversy? If so, here's the issue that really animated me, and one that has not been discussed much at all in

Wow. Stop. I was about to say "has not been discussed much at all in the media." This is why you need friends to blog. They can help you catch these serious mistakes and flights of fancy. I was about to make a terrible assumption about the media!

Here's the issue that is far more intriguing to me: I can see issues such as guns and jobs, and immigrants, being easily conceived of in economic terms. These issues can be understood readily enough in the terms Obama deployed: frustration over failed promises, anger and bitterness at those who have not done anything for the community, fear over other foreigners and "illegal aliens" taking over and impoverishing the local economy, the nation, and so forth. What is far less obvious is how religion and faith become economic issues for these folks in small communities like the ones to which Obama was referring.

I am not saying that there is not a connection. I think it is obviously there. But, I think the point requires more texture, and lumping it with the rest, with "bitter" and "frustrated," does not help us understand that connection. Sure, some religious people no doubt pray, become more devout, plead, when their livelihood and their family's lives are seen as on the line. Perhaps on a short and quick analysis we can make the argument that these folks "cling" to religion as security blanket (which I believe but in another sense). However, that answer seems to me to take religion as supplemental to these folks lives, and thus not truly teasing out what is more than just religion for economic reasons. That the answers are complex and intertwined I have no doubt. But it requires a far more nuanced conversation to address that issue than we have in a campaign, and than politicians are willing to tackle.

I'm sure Obama knows this. I think Obama understands that relationship quite well, but his focus was precisely on how, during economic distress, such strong cultural connections are perhaps given more presence, become anchors, grounding points. In those moments "economic issues" are seen as, and are experienced as, more than just economic issues. In other words, they are rightly seen as quite more than just separable issues, as more than just the simplistic false consciousness that so many still preach.*

Lastly, it seems to me that we ought not lump these small rural communities in the same basket as other folks when it comes to religion. Religious experience, as William James reminded us, is quite varied. What we need is the type of conversation Obama seems pretty adept at initiating. We need his willingness to open up the windows and the doors and let that conversation start taking place across the various divides that exist. I can only hope that if he wins the nomination, and the Presidency, that we will see more of those conversations taking place. I very much doubt Hillary or McCain will encourage us to the better angels of our nature.
--------------------------------

*Take the phrase "false consciousness" with a grain of salt, and be careful of what you read online. The subject is far more complex than we, even academics, have at times admitted, and much distortion abounds about what it means and how Marx meant this or that. I don't have time to go on about this here... maybe later... but a few points: To understand it we ought to look deeply at Engels, not just Marx. False consciousness is not just distortion, but a specific form of distortion, and it is based on material reality, so it is not just an illusion. What's more, such false consciousness is not just a wool over people's eyes that only requires that it be lifted for people to "see." That is, the issue is more complex than just conceiving of false consciousness as if it were a series of bad propositions we've internalized and all that is needed is but a re-education (a re-programming) for them to get on the right path. There is, to me at least, a clear concealment and distortion of social contradictions that seem to take place in some communities. But the analyses I've read seem simplistic about how these folks are just living under illusions imposed by politicians that come every few years.

Atheists Dangerous for Children?

Well, according to Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), it is dangerous for children to know about this atheist "philosophy." In a very sad, if not tragic, situation, Rep. Davis attacked an atheist activist (Rob Sherman) during testimony last week before the House State Government Administration Committee. Rep. Davis went on a tirade, getting increasingly angry, and apparently unable to control herself, decided to do the most un-American things she could, deny Mr. Sherman the right to speak, to seek redress from his government, and the right to freedom of belief. I feel bad for Rep. Davis that she went so overboard, but frankly, I don't think folks who don't respect these basic rights should be allowed to serve as stewards of the people's trust. So what did she say? Here it is -- Listen to it carefully:

Yes siree bob: "spew and spread"... "dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists,"... "the land of Lincoln where people believe in God,"..."Get out of that seat... you have no right to be here,"... "you believe in destroying what this state was built upon..."

Yikes, what suffering, what anger, and how pent up that rage that it exploded in so ignominious a way. Terribly undignified and unfair. Rep. Davis owes Mr. Sherman, the Committee, her State, and the American people an apology.

Rep. Davis,

Nobody is out to destroy you or your loved ones. I doubt, to use what I believe is your belief system, that the Jesus we see represented so often would have condoned such discrimination in his name. A little pause, a deep breath, a bit of deep pondering is helpful here. Your statements are doubly insidious because not only were they intemperate, embarrassing, undignified, and dishonorable, they also reaffirm the perception of intolerance and "nuttery" that so many religious folks struggle to overcome out there. You have done yourself, and other believers a grave disservice by reaffirming yet another view of religious believers as intolerant, wanting to impose their beliefs on others, fearful of reason, and all too ready to discriminate against those who happen not to believe similarly.

We cannot hope to be treated in a dignified manner, to have our beliefs respected, and to be accorded basic rights, if we do not respect others. I support your right to challenge atheists strongly. Atheists are not known by their fear to argue their position, or for their lack of knowledge about religion and belief issues. We welcome the opportunity to engage in such conversations. Basic dignity and full engagement would have taken you farther. Sadly, I'm afraid that the tirade only revealed very deep seated fear, not faith, not love.

It is precisely this kind of act that fuels efforts to keep fundamentalists out of political office, and frankly out of almost any other place for civilized discourse and full engagement with others. If you truly believe the things you "spewed," perhaps it is best if you move to a political party that would countenance such views, or that provides an abode for such intolerance. I can think of one such party...

Starhawk Denied Entry into Israel

Starhawk has a column today in the On Faith section of The Washington Post that speaks to her recent experience been denied entry into Israel because of her association and work with the International Solidarity Movement. Here are the last few paragraphs from the column:

I believe the sacred is present in the world, in nature and in every human being, moving through us as love, creativity, and the thirst for justice: powers ultimately greater than the gun and the bomb. Because of that belief, I choose nonviolence as my method of struggle, for it allows me to honor the sacred even in those who oppose me. And I believe that nonviolence is a powerful strategy for breaking the vicious cycles of attack and revenge that trap us. Nonviolence is unexpected.

What is my relationship to this land, which I have now been banned from, and where I can no longer seek refuge?

It is the land of my ancestors. I love it, but I do not wish to own it or claim it or exclude others from it. Those who truly love the land will build soil, not walls, and plant trees, not bulldoze them down. And they will take the risk to love all the peoples of the land, to dare to bridge the divisions and together pursue justice.

Glad for her voice indeed.

Swiftboating Obama?

Here's an interesting piece by David Michael Green on the "swiftboating of Obama." Do read it, I think it makes sense. The whole business with Rev. Wright has been stretched beyond its breaking point. The comparison Mr. Green draws between Obama and Bush is quite to the point.

Barack Obama in Salem, Oregon

Today I had a chance to see Sen. Obama at a stop he made in Salem, OR. Part of a few stops in various towns, Sen. Obama delivered a fairly basic stump speech, followed by about twenty five minutes of questions and answers. Unlike the "town hall" meetings of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush during the last cycle, Sen. Obama's campaign did not invite only party members, did not have anybody sign loyalty oaths, did not kick anybody out for wearing shirts with "unacceptable" political themes, etc. Nope. It was an open engagement, in which Sen. Obama, after the de rigueur stumping, proceeded to call folks to a refurbished diplomatic discourse, to trust and believe in themselves as agents of change, and to recognition that the people can truly make a difference.

I've watched plenty of stump speeches, I've written about them, and I study them as part of my work. This was indeed a stump speech, but Sen. Obama sounded forthright and honest, and perhaps most importantly, he struck me as truly, fully, behind the philosophy of political change he espoused. In other words, he did not seem fake when speaking of how he sees political change happening, what motivates it, and how he would work to facilitate opportunities for such change. Sure you say, it sounds like every Mc-Politician in any election period, no? Not quite. Change is a perennial political theme, but my impression is that Sen. Obama articulated a clear distinction in how he envisions political change. While Sen. Clinton appears to have embraced an incremental coalition building, and negotiating compromise approach to fostering political change, Sen. Obama convincingly spoke of bottom up change, of social movement type change, of a change that would sweep the institutional assumptions, and deadwood. Upon being asked what differentiated him from Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama articulated pretty much the same philosophy in this way (I'm paraphrasing liberally):

Sen. Clinton does not believe in bottom up change, in change driven by a movement, instead she believes in top down change, change drive by the same folks and institutions in Washington D.C. that are at the root of the problem -- and such top down approach is most decidedly NOT the real change we need. In fact it changes very little if anything.

Thus spoke Zarathusthra.

But... it was still a stump speech, full of promises, lacking in substantial explanation and rationale for all the change promised. That's par for stump speaking. The first half of the speech could indeed be described as full of the audacity of hope, albeit much of that audacity also has to do with all those promises. But hey, we have to aim for the stars, and in my estimation, of the three major Presidential candidates Sen. Obama is providing the best imaginary for our nation.

In sum, it was a neat experience. There were plenty of young people present, all very excited, the crowd was super glad to have had the opportunity to hear Sen. Obama, and it was evident that he still has plenty of momentum and energy, and that he is truly trying to motivate more than just change at the Whitehouse.

Obama's Speech, Identifying our Suffering

If you have not yet seen or heard Senator Obama's speech on race do yourself a favor and watch it. It is a good speech. Timely, quite apropos, transforming of potential weakness into an asset, confronting of real issues, and broadly connecting to various folks. Obama pulls off, albeit with less rhetorical verve than some of my favorite speakers, a move that we don't see too often in politics or anywhere else: he could have continued down the path of separation, division, and creating political camps, but instead he goes for bringing as many people along as he can, with seeking ways to reknit community and move as one.

I do teach this for a living, and in my mind Obama is the candidate that is doing one key thing very well: offering himself as bridge for the nation to cross and transcend the pit of suffering in which it has been mired for at least the last eight years. Hillary is too busy running a campaign of the 20th century; that of activating key states and key voters, ignoring so many others, relying on reviving what was liked by many about the Clinton brand, hoping the nomination would get settled by Super Tuesday. McCain (or as he is being called in so many blogs, McCrazy, McPain, McCranky... etc.) promises perpetual war and anger. Obama is not the progressive candidate I'd love to see, but it seems pretty evident to me right now, that he is running the best platform and the best campaign, even with the compromises I have to make as a progressive.

His speech was needed and useful. He made it do quadruple duty perhaps: campaign speech, transcendence speech, speak to the media and the political chattering classes, speak to many Whites, to African Americans, etc. His speech is quite intriguing in how he constructs the subjectivity of quite a few groups, and how he ties them to the fate of the nation. Nothing new there, but within the cynical world of political campaign discourse, it came as a breath of fresh air to see a candidate actually go beyond the campaign. Those many purposes render the speech a bit weak in moments, and his delivery could have been better. Just too many things to do. But no other candidate would have dared to deliver it. I don't think either Hillary or McCain would or could have delivered it.

Not surprisingly, some in the conservative side are just picking at the speech trying to find ways to attack Obama. Par for the course for any political speech, I know. Michael Gerson at The Washington Post gets it quite wrong when he says:

"Barack Obama has run a campaign based on a simple premise: that words of unity and hope matter to America. Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don't really matter as much as we thought."

Nope. That's not what Obama tried to do, nor accomplished last night. That is such a superficial read, it is incredibly inept for Mr. Gerson's role as journalist and watcher of public discourse. Obama was in no way arguing that words of hatred and division don't matter. Quite the opposite in fact. But, he also argued that we have to love each other into wellbeing, that we have choices to make about how we move forward, That Rev. Wright is neither the first one, nor the most recent to use such words about America, that the anger and suffering that led Rev. Wright to make such statements is all too real to just dismiss lightly, that we have to look deeply at the sources of our suffering if we are to understand them and if we are to have any hope of moving forward... There is so much Obama did do, and try to accomplish in that speech, and Mr. Gerson did not get it.

Ferraro, Clinton, Obama

Recent comments by Geraldine Ferraro:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Then, after the expected criticism of those remarks, she said:

“Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist,” she said. “I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”

I wish I could say, "what's up with that?" What's the matter with Ferraro that she's said such things..." but frankly, this is just another example of a subtle kind of racism that does not get acknowledged always and which exists in various places. I wish she and others could stop for a moment and realize that they just reduced Obama, and others, to nothing but race. That comment was extreme essentialism, and a shameful reduction of his personhood for cheap political gain. Ferraro, and the Clinton campaign, -- (and let me apologize for this sounding so cynical but I don't believe for a minute that this was just something that Ferraro decided to say just like that. Fact is that in campaigns you send messages through various channels in order to separate them from the candidate, and this is precisely the role that Ferraro is playing here) -- dismissed Obama's education, his skill, his ability to move others, his political savvyness, and branded him Black -- both as if that was the greatest boon in this culture, and as if that were a danger.

At the same time, paradoxically they reduced Blackness to something empty of value in itself, to something that while according to them is supposedly the reason why Obama finds himself where he is now, is in reality not something that is important, nothing that should be given the value that it is given. In highlighting his skin color, Ferraro and the Clinton Campaign have aided and abetted an all too real enemy out there, and are playing not the race card, but a virulent racism that they should be trying to vanquish instead of trying to awaken. That comment made my hair (and I don't have much of that anymore) stand up.

In doing so, the Clinton campaign has truly sunk low. If they did it in ignorance and political stupidity, they have played into the hands of white supremacists extremely well. If they did it purposefully, knowing what the outcome and repercussions of this would be, they have "sold themselves to the devil" in an extremely tragic manner. For they have in short, given comfort to racists everywhere, activated that kind of attack and line of argument, and posited Obama as not being any more than "Black" in the sense of all the negative connotations and articulations historically associated with the term. What Ferraro has done is essentially say "he's nothing more than Black, and will never be more than Black." And, I doubt she, or the Clinton campaign behind her, meant it as a compliment.

Her statement on being silenced because she is white is another attack, even if it sounds as if it were a defense. I do get tired of some white folks saying these things. First she attacks him because he is Black, then she attacks him and the campaign for being supposedly racist by calling her remarks racist. This constitutes a double attack, playing the role of victim, and asserting the privilege of whiteness against being called racist, turning the claim onto the other while not having to own up to her own transgression. Who's silencing who?

Requiem for the Rule of Law

Ok, perhaps not the whole rule of law, but really, this is important news and most likely to go unnoticed by the majority of our fellow citizens. Remember back to your Civics class in elementary school, maybe Junior High? What? You didn't have a Civics class? Join the club. Not many have. But at least you may have watched SchoolHouse Rock's How a Bill Becomes a Law. I hope so. In any case, you studies in American History how the House and the Senate constitute the legislative branch of our government, with the other branches being the Judicial, and the Executive. In a trinitarian move these branches are supposed to be equal, and thus a balance of powers established in American government.

Well, the Bush administration, if it can be said to have done anything with ruthless efficiency, has really disabused us of the notion of equal branches with shared responsibility for the governance of the nation. This administration has quite intentionally burned a massive hole through various understandings about such constitutional premises, has disrespected and ignored the role of Congress, has undermined the judiciary through its Justice Department, and has engaged in the shredding of the Constitution. In my estimation, this administration has usurped power, and has brazenly challenged anybody's authority to stand in its way. It has not done so alone. It has received the assistance of the leadership of the Republican Party, and also the complicity, if not downright help of some of the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Demographic Winter Hokum

A recently released documentary called Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family purportedly sounds the alarm that if nothing is done to reverse declining fertility rates our planetary society will reap enormously bad consequences. That characterization, of course, is too broad and too friendly. First, the theory of demographic winter, or "birth death" is not new. It is the same fear of western white and Christian people seeing their numbers dwindle and surrounded by strange others. In short, it is a modern version of the cry "the barbarians are at the gate." Second, it is not everybody they are concerned about, but declining fertility rates in "developed countries." That should give you a few hints as to some ideological assumptions underlying such an effort.

Their concern is truly about birth rates in developed countries, and for a set of ideological constructs that they present as "natural" and imbue with such unalloyed goodness and virtue that any modification leads potentially to doom. In sum, demographic winter arguments read more as a version of end times eschatology. Here are a set of quotes from their site:

Impeach Bush-Quemada & Cheney!

Ok, breaking the silence here. President Bill Clinton, he of the rosy face, white pompadour, careful parser of words... was dragged through impeachment procedures with the rest of us primarily because he had sexual relations with "that" woman, and lied about it. Definitely not nice. From all accounts the situation was consensual, and both parties seemed to have enjoyed it at the time.

Enter Mr. Bush, illegal warmonger, prevaricator (sorry, I mean liar!), shredder of the U.S. Constitution, approver of torture in the face of its clear international and national illegality, liar about the use of such torture methods, creator of untold damage to U.S. reputation, image, values, legacy, directly responsible for untold deaths... refusing to stop waterboarding... yet avowed religious person (grand inquisitor)...

...but he remains impeachment-free.

Why is impeachment not plastered over the front pages of our newspapers? What gives? Is enjoying fellatio and lying about it a more dastardly deed than breaking national and international law, acting as grand inquisitor, causing the death of thousands, lying about war and torture, and sullying the name, legacy, and reputation of the nation? How come one set of transgressions meets the "high crimes and misdemeanors" bar but not the other one?

It is high time we stopped being such moral nincompoops. Mr. Bush (and Mr. Cheney) deserves to be, at a minimum, impeached. The U.S. was founded by some brave folks who sought to throw off the chains of oppression imposed by a tyrant who thought he could do as he pleased. Now we have in power a man who, in all his religiosity, has in essence declared himself to be grand inquisitor and above both national and international law. Bush-quemada we should call him. In my book Mr. Bush deserves to be run out of office and tried as war criminal.

Not being religious myself I'm not certain about this, but I think that when Jesus said love thy neighbor, and love thine enemy (Matthew 5:38-44), I'm pretty sure he did not mean torture them, waterboard them, lie about it, rinse and repeat.

So, what can religious leaders do, now that it is known that Mr. Bush broke the law, lied about it, authorized, and has reserved the right to authorize again, such heinous acts? How can he be a good Christian and continue this behavior?

Folks, allowing this to stand will lead to serious consequences, and might very well destroy any semblance of the legitimacy of human rights. Ironic no, given the last push by the U.S.

P.S. I think the "anti-christ" that scriptures mention, and religious folks fear, is not an evil person to come. It is nothing more than our complacency in the face of evil, our complicity in withholding our moral outrage in the face of such suffering caused. The overturning of the moral voice of love, peace, justice, human dignity, the destroying of our humanity. Of course, it is also those whom we allow to get away with such acts.

Huckabee's Theocracy

Oh, the latest from Mr. Huckabee in Michigan:

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

Now, one thing is certainly the case: oftentimes many of us treat the U.S. Constitution as if it were a sacred cow. But... what Mr. Huckabee is advocating here is far from his supposed respect for separation of Church and State, or for treating the Constitution with the respect a founding charter requires. Mr. Huckabee has come across quite clearly, perhaps the clearest ever: he wants a theocratic, not democratic, nation. Hmmm... and some conservative evangelicals wonder why some folks are scared enough of the "religious right" to want to keep them away from politics?

On a lighter note... wouldn't it be easier to change the word of "the living God" given that his/her teachings have been multiply and differently interpreted throughout history, that multiple religious exist with different deities, and that this living God is a lot harder to find out and about?

Editorial Note: As per the request for a source of Huckabee's quote, click here for text and video of Mr. Huckabee making the statement. The site is Think Progress, the video is clear and straightforward.

Above the Fray

Let me direct your attention to the following article on the most recent issue of Tricycle Magazine: Above the Fray. It is a good reflection on the challenges associated with being a political actor (in whatever form, but in this case as journalist) and trying to lead a mindful life. As the author suggests, passivity, lassitude, and non-engagement are not the answer. Then again, it depends on context, on how much harm our participation might create, where we act from, etc.

Can a person maintain equanimity and stay in the political debate? And what about the precept of right speech? It forbids lying, of course. But it also means no harsh words, rumor-mongering, or frivolous talk.

Yes, in my estimation it also means that we must speak truth to power, and we must exercise our voice for the wellbeing of others.

Here's another tidbit that highlights the role of irony and satire:

I was certainly finding it difficult to maintain an aggressive, ironic tone, so I asked Dharmavidya about irony and satire. “The Buddha was attracted to irony,” he said. “He was a prophet with a sense of humor. Once when he was debating the idea that bathing in the holy river is purifying, he said, ‘There must be a lot of holy fish.’ And when he talked about Jain asceticism, he pointed out that it was designed to end suffering by inflicting even more suffering—on its followers.”

So irony, or even its evil twin, sarcasm, isn’t necessarily un-Buddhist? “Not necessarily,” said Dharmavidya. “The Buddha judged these things based on the likely outcome and how wholesome the speaker’s intent is.”

“First, do no harm.” The physician’s precept should also be mine. In an ideal world, everything I write would come with a disclaimer that says: “No animals or humans were harmed in the production of these words.” No one. Not Tucker Carlson, or Sean Hannity, or Joe Klein. Not even Dick Cheney. I’m not there yet, but I’m trying.

Irony, Satire, ridicule, all can be particularly effective rhetorical strategies. Notwithstanding how "postmodern irony" gets derided by so many as mean-spirited, irony can also be conceived as opening space for dialogue by highlighting incongruity and sparking realization (much like a Koan!). More on this later!

Do You Pray for our Troops?

With all due respect for those of you who are religious believers... this question posed to Rep. Nancy Pelosi strikes me as not just a set-up, but simply misguided as a matter of religion/theology. This kind of political piety has gotten out of control, and Mr. Wallace is not being a journalist so much as a partisan hack. Then again, Rep. Pelosi should not act so surprised at the question. She's been playing the political piety game, she should now face the piper.

What strikes me most is that neither Pelosi nor Wallace seem cognizant of Mark Twain's short (very) story, "The War Prayer." Twain deftly and pointedly dismantles the notion of praying for victory and our troops. It should be required reading for all our kids... and politicians. Follow the link to read it.

So what does it mean to "pray" for the troops? And... isn't Twain right about the zero-sum proposition that entails?

Update: See the comments so far for clarification and a good response from Jack. It is not the contemplative act of compassion I'm against, if that is what prayer means for you, but the politicizing (or the theo-politics) in which Wallace, Pelosi and others are engaging that is screwy.

Hail Mary McCain's-Straight Pandering

In a sign of great desperation Sen. McCain recently has made some rather outrageous statements about religion and faith in politics. The most recent ones in a Beliefnet.com interview have rightly garnered disbelief, scorn, and stupefaction from politically savvy observers. Frankly, Sen. McCain deserves the derision he has received. He has set out to make such statements as a way to pander to religious conservatives whom he believes are his ticket to continue in the presidential race, and has callously disregarded how he has offended many, and how his statements have been an insult to the intelligence of voters. A taste of his comments:

"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith,"

"I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation,"

After saying that and facing the predictable storm over his comments, he clarified his position by saying:

"What I do mean to say is the United States of America was founded on the values of Judeo-Christian values, which were translated by our founding fathers which is basically the rights of human dignity and human rights," he said.

"I believe that anyone can be president of the United States of any faith,"

Sen. McCain expressed frustration and anger that his original comments had been misinterpreted, and said: "there's nothing I can do about it." This is a very tired, and tiring, rhetorical sleight of hand. Make the outrageous remark, get the attention, offer a "clarification" statement about how you were misinterpreted, and "of course" correct the misinterpretation hence displacing responsibility and blame. Beyond all that of course, is the fact that he dismissed a whole faith, and American citizens who are members of that faith, as somehow not OK for that office. He also mistakenly claims that the U.S. Constitution establishes the U.S. as a Christian nation, hence conveniently forgetting about article VI of the USC: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Unfortunate and tragic that our presidential candidates, from either party but particularly the GOP have demonstrated such recalcitrance to looking deeply.

Here's another gem from Saint McCain speaking to "faith:" “that’s an important part of our qualifications to lead.” A U.S. senator no less. Read the interview for more gems.

Democrats Move On Already

Given all the hullabaloo over the MoveOn Petraeus ad, you'd think the Washington D.C. crowd (yes, Congress, the Admin, etc.) are all political virgins. And the latest of course, the Democrats cave... once again... I mean, who would have imagined they'd do a thing like that? For those sarcasm challenged, yes, that is a sarcastic line. How come the Dems seem to regularly get the simple matter of standing up for principle wrong? They have gone so off course.

So, the Dems collaborate to pass a resolution condemning MoveOn.org -- Oh, and they do it right quickly too, no waste of time there -- but dare not censure the Administration over all its shenanigans. Nary a peep over actions odious to democratic culture, but a political group does what it is supposed to do, and "oh, no, we can't have that."

The ad is not bad at all. The Dems playing along with the GOP and the Admin. on this just makes it so clear they are puppets. We need a better system, and we need better political parties.

Pulling a Buddha, Our Lives & Spy-Happy U.S.

Had a chance yesterday to once again spend some time thinking about the wonderful German movie, The Lives of Others. No, I was not thinking about its artistic merits (although many), nor the wonderful acting, and the emotive power that the characters draw out of the audience. Rather, I was thinking of the revelatory power of that text. The Lives of Others reveals a bleak and oppressive world, one full of distrust, suspicion, betrayal, and fear. The lives depicted have been corroded in many ways, the relationships compromised, the society driven into a dull and dreary police state that long ago traded real freedom and liberty for some trumped up version of "security."

It is hard for me to see what is going on in this country and not think precisely about The Lives of Others, about the emergence of that security state, living in fear of everything, including itself. And yet, so many contemporaries apparently don't see it. So many folks hold on tightly to the idea that it just "could not happen here." Wow, do they have a surprise coming. In a rather ironic twist, many will argue vociferously against telemarketing intrusions, and store rewards cards, only to say zilch, zero, nada, in opposition to government spying. The steady fear diet has worked so well, that we've forgotten, to borrow and transform a title from Richard Rorty, the priority of liberty and freedom to democracy. The crazy arguments made by this administration that somehow in order to protect freedom we must relinquish much of it, seem to go right over people's heads. A people for whom a foundational tenet of its founding was vigilance of those in power, meekly hand it over now with eyes closed, and castigate others for their lack of trust in our "benevolent masters." A party (the GOP) that prides itself on "cutting government" has presided over its gargantuan expansion precisely over those areas around which we ought to want the least intrusion. The other party, which for so long has spoken of protecting the people, seems paralyzed in an internal struggle over to whom it should have allegiance.

Frankly, I think we have lost sight of the dream and vision of what a democratic nation/world could be. We speak still about how we will bring liberty and freedom to the world, about how we are the best democracy/nation on Earth, but in reality we keep backsliding. We have moved consistently backwards in terms of imagining and working to bring about a better and more democratic world. Contrary to what Buddhism encourages, we don't begin within. Our feeling of exceptionalism keeps getting in the way and blinding us to our arrogance. We also cannot fathom our impermanence, or recognizing it, confuse warring, ultra-conservatism, theo-politics, jingoism, and the accumulation of power, in short, the opposite of democratic values, for the way to assure we can continue to be here.

So we see increased measures for societal control -- using spy satellites to check up on the people, secret courts, secret prisons, the consolidation of power on a few powerful and increasingly unaccountable "leaders," repressive tactics against dissenting voices, the gutting of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps, gag orders, national security letters, accusations of treason, the scapegoating of the weak and most vulnerable, a discourse of rage (Rage!), intolerance, and violence, against those who dare to challenge the status quo... we could go on. We live in an increasingly palpable culture of fear, blind obedience, distrust, and surveillance. And some still claim things are OK and all we must worry about is the "war on Xmas," and those "treacherous liberals."

That picture of the Stasi agent listening in, is increasingly all too true for us, as is the kind of world the Stasi created. Is there such an agent listening in to what you are saying, writing, doing? Is your dossier catalogued nicely under "citizen journalist," or under "subversive activist?' Are your calls to Europe being monitored, your public library record being analyzed? Do you still feel as free to criticize your government, the nation, and/or its abuses freely? This is not paranoia. It happens to be the logical extension of the actions our esteemed government leaders have proposed and undertaken, a scenario we once thought could not happen in "America." I'm sure any calls I might make to my Palestinian friend, and his calls to his family in Palestine are connected bizarrely in some government basement. Throw in some political commentary in those conversations and... who knows.

Pull a Buddha. Wake up. It's not the lives of others, its all of ours.

The Republican Fine Art of Missing the Point on Race

I've commented before on this, but the recent comments by Florida State Legislator Bob Allen (he of much fear of becoming another "statistic") brings it all back and again raises the question, when will the GOP exorcise this demon from its body? I know, some would wax philosophical and say, "this is a demon that must be exorcised from the whole body politic. Republicans don't have a monopoly on trouble with issues of race..." That would be a tad off. Yes, racism is an insidious problem all over the body politic. Still, I'm talking here about party leadership, elected officials that purportedly represent the party and the constituencies that find their political "home" (identity) therein. From that angle, the GOP far exceeds the Democratic Party in missing the point on race. At least they have since before 1960, albeit it has solidified after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the GOP's Southern Strategy.

That is not to say that Republicans as a whole are racists. Of course not. But, the party, and the ideologies that it welcomes into its fold, have harbored plenty of room for racists and supremacists of all stripes. So Mr. Bob Allen fits right in with a whole host of attitudes, dispositions, actions, policies, and platforms that the GOP over the years has taken. Most anybody who has been paying attention to politics in the U.S. could list, off the top of their head, quite a few examples of such disposition and the lame justifications offered as explanation. Here are a few I recall, in no particular order:

Strom Thurmond
The Southern Strategy
Ronald Reagan's Speech at Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi
Dick Cheney's comments in the mid-eighties about Apartheid and Nelson Mandela (before he flip-flopped on the issue)
James L. Hart's campaign, in Tennessee (2004)
Jesse Helms (remember his "Block Vote?")
The political campaign against Harold Ford in Tennessee
Willie Horton ads
"Color-Blindness"

Resignation & the Democratic Franchise

I've tried to not post about politics in the last few days... although I could not stop myself after the Senate caved on the warrantless wiretapping bill...but I want to pose a question for those who consider themselves Democrats, or progressive liberals that vote for the Democratic Party.

What now? Most members of the Democratic party that I talk to are extremely disappointed with the party and its leadership. The charade is over and the national party and congressional leadership have been revealed as something many did not want to believe, unprincipled, or at least unwilling to stand by progressive principles, weak, ineffectual, inept, and enmeshed in a system that seems increasingly divorced from any consideration of the promise of a democratic way of life. Their actions seem to be primarily rearguard actions designed to protect their backside.

The Democratic Party comes across time after time as morally feckless because they seem so unwilling to stand up for...

Senate Caves

Let me fix that again: it should say, I will continue spying on you.

Just in case my views on this were not clear... (yes, I have views): Warrantless wiretapping, the existence of (a) secret court(s), the theory of a "unitary executive," the use signing statements to thwart the will of Congress, and the claims of executive privilege over Congressional oversight, strike me all as un-American and un-democratic. All of these do not, and will not, bode well for our "democratic" way of life, nor for democratic life in our world.

Prophetic Bush

If you've read this blog just a little you know how I feel about this purported statement by President Bush. It is downright scary, and reveals the most troublesome aspect of religion. I know that many would say that this is "religion gone bad." That this interpretation of God calling the President to this crusade is incorrect, and should not taint other religious believers. At the least that the President is speculating too broadly about this supposed "understanding." But I have a hard time believing that explanation, that justification. Here's the statement, as reported by Eugene Robinson in today's Washington Post:

One of the more unnerving reports out of the president's seminar with the pundits came from Brooks, who quoted Bush as saying: "It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist.

As I said, downright terrifying. How else might this God require Mr. Bush to act? So far this God does not have a good track record, and the actions of his follower(s) denounce "him" in deafening tones.

But Mr. Bush, in his lunacy, goes from believing a theological principle to using it as legitimation for his theo-political agenda. In effect revealing such an arrogance of belief, a twisted desire to have dominion based on what his fevered religious imagination concocts. His "theological" understanding is supposed to suffice for all, especially on such a concept as freedom? Even if this God believes and encourages freedom as divine gift... should we force it on others? How might we define it then? Should we bring it at the cost of innocent lives and untold bloodshed? What about the countless people that are not free from hunger, poverty, war crimes, exploitation, disease, and more in the world? There are too many places to go here. It is too easy to unravel the argument. But it is late and I'm still wondering just what Mr. Bush was trying to say. It is not as if this was a secret. And yet, it has taken me by surprise tonight. It has indeed confirmed for me that Mr. Bush, and any other religious believer that believes they are agents of "God" in history, called upon to save the world, or bring a divine gift to it, has/have a mental affliction. Mr. Bush has confessed to a crusade - "God" grants freedom (whatever that might mean in Bush's fevered imagination), and so righteous freedom ye shall have." And some folks wonder how such notions as church-state separation come to be.

Asinine Quote of the Day

Asinine quote of the day, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), after Dems failed to muster enough votes to override the Republican filibuster on the Defense bill:

"To finally change direction -- that's our goal," said Reid, who concluded the debate before the vote by calling for a prayer from a guest chaplain. "If ever there would be time for a prayer," Reid said, "It would be now."

Yes, I know many of you probably pray and find it comforting and efficacious. Not I. But the point is, Democrats need to rely on a bit more than prayer here. What about that old saying "God helps those who help themselves?" I hope that at least they are praying for the courage to face the tough decisions and see them through.

Theodore Roosevelt Quotes

As I was writing my next entry, I decided to use a phrase by Theodore Roosevelt that I have always liked. As usual, citing Theodore Roosevelt comes with a bit of rising bile. The man was full of a hearty populist appeal, and at the same time retrograde in his "man's man" mentality, his cult of strong "maleness," his at times uber-patriotism, if not jingoism, and more. Still, he was quite adept at penning short epigraphic-like sentiments that still resonate. Two that I think are quite apropos to our times are:

"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
- Third Annual Message to Congress, December 7, 1903

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility."
- Abilene, KS, May 2, 1903

I think both speak to the present administration, and the first one I direct to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They have not forgotten that no one is above the law, they have actively undermined that principle, and bank on the inability, inertia, and passivity of the masses to carry out their dark deeds. We are not asking them to abide by the law it as a favor to America (although the Democratic Party has for too long taken this stance). The second quote speaks to our "putting up" with men such as Cheney and Bush, a little "down home," "populist simple charm," and we easily move to deification. The Democratic Party is not excused from the mistake of taking smartness (think "technocrats"), as the Kerry campaign easily demonstrated -- ultimately blaming Ralph Nader, the person who best represented the sense of moral responsibility.

Hindu Prayer in Congress

Oh, the folly... on both sides of this equation. But we don't seem to learn, do we? So, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), invites a Hindu clergyman to offer the Senate's daily prayer... sounds already like a drum roll should be coming next. Yes, the Senate still offers prayers everyday. It is often justified as an exercise not in establishment of religion, but in a generic recognition of something greater that guides our affairs... but of course, these prayers end up being more of a particular persuasion, not to mention that their very presence reaffirms a belief in a potentate which all citizens, certainly "all" Americans, need recognize. In other words, even when it does not affirm a particular religion, it establishes a religious ground, religious belief itself.

Then there were the protesters. Three were arrested yesterday, saying such things as: "we are Christians and patriots" and "this is an abomination." Again the connection to patriotism, which in this case reveals the deep connection that for many exists between the nation and Christian faith. These were Christian nationalists indeed, and quick to recognize abomination (must have had the handy little Guide to Common Abominations and Other Daily Detestations). Apparently the American Family Association has been urging their members to protest because, according to them, this clergyman would be "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god." No particular explanation was forthcoming of how when one posits a god, any god, it is darn difficult to keep others from doing the same. Besides, for all intents and purposes, which really just means for the sake of this argument, what does the American Family Association fear? I mean, if there is only one god, theirs, why worry about somebody else praying to some figment of their imagination? Too many theological pitfalls follow that line of thinking... one would expect that they could stop for a minute and recognize that instead of spending so much effort in their fear, anger, and hatred, they could instead spend it on (religious claims or not), recognizing efforts to invoke compassion, kindness, charity, fellowship, brotherhood and sisterhood, love.

What kind of protest or remonstrance would a Zen priest receive if asked to do some kind of blessing or invocation, or "prayer?" Just kidding, too easy to figure that one out.

Cheney: Executive, Legislator, Unaccountable Megalomaniac?

This might be considered by many a political rant, but frankly, I think Americans need to pay mindful attention to this so that we can collectively work to transform it. The issue? The Vice President's delusional mind. No kidding. Republican or Democrat, is this what we should be getting from an elected leader? If we were not getting enough of the "unitary presidency" theory, we have Cheney to add to that miscarriage of justice. Apparently the oath of office in this administration has become a joke. So, is there any accountability for our topmost elected leaders? And no, voting them out of office is not full accountability.

So I'm trying to practice with this frustration, but frankly there is a time when we can be mindful and call things for what they are (not just how we see them). Passivity is not a virtue when injustice carries the day in this fashion. Given the arguments made by Mr. Cheney's office he stands in an inviolate space in American governance and political history -- this is what tyranny looks like my friends, the belief that one is beyond, over and above, the legitimation of the people. Let them eat cake... or more to the point given the state of the nation, "let them beg for crumbs" seems to be the attitude of this administration, and of Cheney's office.

Click here if interested in reading the documents from the Oversight Committee and the National Archives to Mr. Cheney

Democratic Let Down

Sorry folks, here's a bit of getting this out of my system. I lived long enough in Washington D.C., and before that paid plenty of attention (and studied) politics to know that hard compromises and unpalatable deals, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours, real-politik, whatever cute name you prefer, are the name of the game more often than not. But, in my estimation, the Democrats caved at a juncture where they should have stood firm. Not only that, they did so cravenly enough as a way to protect themselves. How? Splitting the legislation into two sections in order to provide enough political cover for everybody and fool themselves into thinking they are doing the right thing.

Republicans and "compromise" Democrats get to vote for war funding, Republicans get to oppose the other elements that were attached to the Bill. These are separate votes (war funding and the rest), but if both parts pass, they go as one Bill to the Senate. The end result? Bush is laughing all the way to the bank already knowing that he has yet another blank check to continue the war as he sees fit. So much for all that oversight that Democrats were going to provide on the war, and all that tough talk about timelines, the American people having spoken, etc. I think this is political miscalculation that continues to poison American's belief in the political system. There are moments to stand by principle, this should have been one of those for Democrats. What will they do? Well, some will no doubt blame the bloggers "who just don't understand...," but expect lots of posturing, and of course, expect the Democratic Presidential candidates to use this for even more posturing.

I'd like to think that a mindful politician would have stood for principle here and said, no. We've been here before, it is time to get fiscally and morally responsible. There are better choices. Any perceived political sacrifice should not have been measured in future electability. And then they wonder why folks support third parties... You know, in Christian terms, Democrats can be seen as selling their soul to the Devil again.

The Radical Secularist Agenda

Between one of my Red-Eye Tetras (also called Lamp-Eye Tetras) jumping out of the tank and flopping on the carpet, my making a delicious ginger syrup and ginger-lime-garlic pork ribs for my wife's lunch, and revising a paper on colonial biopolitics, I have not had much of a chance today to post about anything. Usually by the time I get a chance to post, so many things are piled up that I don't know where to start. I find that a perfect moment to practice. Right before plunging in, as it were, into the abyss. But Newt Gingrich's speech against “radical secularism” at Liberty University has been on my mind, and I'd like to add a few comments to what's already being said here and there on the blogosphere.

Expect more of this kind of speech by politicos. Raging against evil secular forces that threaten to push us all onto a vortex of degradation, despair, etc., etc. is an old pastime, and especially so for religious conservatives (many who seem to live in constant Jeremiad mode). Many of those folks are aligned with the GOP, but we also hear quite a lot of this flaky-ness coming from regular GOP “stalwarts” savvy in the ways of appealing to a religious right. With the recent prominence of strong atheist writings such as those by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, and others, the “pump has been primed,” if you will, for a resurgence of this mode of political address.

So what is Gingrich's argument? There is a “growing culture of radical secularism“ in the U.S. An “anti-religious bias” that must end. That bias stems from a hostility directed at American history, which takes the form of radical secularist claims that “religious belief is inherently divisive.” From here Gingrich moves to the good old argument about persecution: “Basic fairness demands that religious beliefs deserve a chance to be heard...It is wrong to single out those who believe in God for discrimination. Yet, today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against religious believers.”

(more after the jump...)

McNulty as Fall Guy

Deputy Attorney General McNulty resigns and...Attorney General's Gonzales' uncertainty and ambiguity miraculously disappear about who knew, who had responsibility, and where the blame should fall. Who is it? Well, none other than McNulty himself, according to Gonzales, the "chief executive officer" of the DoJ. Tragically, Gonzales continues to appear as a nincompoop, so detached, and out of touch with what is going on that his deputy, not the AG himself, is the chief executive officer of the Department of Justice. You might very well wonder just what the AG is getting paid for -- in effect the question is: just what was he appointed to do? What with all the forgetting, not recalling, not being in the loop, not knowing who is doing what, what meetings he attended, what he said, why things were done in a particular way, and not having responsibility but nevertheless the buck stopping with him, except with McNulty who truly, really, and definitely is the one who runs things around here... What a dance eh? This is the Attorney General of the U.S.. Almost makes you wish for Ashcroft and his covering of Lady Justice's breasts. I think this is why the valley-speak phrase "gag me with a spoon" was invented.

License Plates and Political Speech

A bit old now but still of interest, Heather Moriah of Rapid City, SD, has found that "freedom of speech" and "protected political speech" are often just cute phrases. The state issued her personalized plates that read MPEACHW, and after somebody complained saying they were offended, the state wants Moriah to return the plates or face the consequences. State officers have said the silliest things without apparent embarrassment of any kind. Take the following:

...Division of Motor Vehicles director Deb Hillmer said Thursday that the law clearly gives the state authority to recall the plates and have them forcibly removed if necessary. And although only one person complained about Moriah’s political statement, that’s all it takes to recall a set of vanity plates, Hillmer said.

So much for free speech in the state! One person complains about political speech and that's all it takes. Hilmer claims that the plates fall in the "not in good taste and decency" category. How so? The question really is whether a part of the state can be seen to be supportive, promoting, fostering, or endorsing the political content by allowing the plates. But, license plates have a long record as a venue for public commentary of all sorts, a space that people purchase (actually rent out), and in which all sorts of other content is displayed. If religious content is allowed, political statements like MPEACHW should also be allowed as well.

Resources after the jump...

Reagan...and Lincoln

Crooks and Liars has a short blurb on the first Republican debate of this season, and highlights all the reverence and genuflection to President Reagan. Reagan indeed won the debate last night, and will probably continue winning them! When it is not Reagan, it is Lincoln. Funny that Reagan becomes God-like, the touchstone for all matters of Republican (big-R) ideological legitimation, and Lincoln gets trotted out when attempting to justify republican (small-R) how the party is not racist. I'm sure the ghost of Lincoln squirms madly as he is brought out time after time in those instances. Reagan quite plainly cannot do the anti-racism work for the Party that gets put at Lincoln's feet. Then again, it wasn't the same party, was it? Not at all.

Even Peggy Noonan calls this fetishizing to the attention of Republicans and says it is time to stop. Then again, read carefully her words -- she slily blames the Reagan fetish on the media, with the Republicans just "going along" with it.

Wiccan Emblem on Headstones

Last