At the Circus - Part I

The race for President has begun and it is certainly a circus. It's a packed big top, for sure, full of all sorts of corporate stoolies, reactionary whackos, and other assorted flavors of crazy. It will be a fun race to watch and it is full of possibilities for wagering.

Who will be the first to drop out? Who will be the first to come on stage for a debate sans pants? Who will be the first to use the term "those people" when discussing immigration? How many of the Democrats will claim they were the first one to call for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq? Good times, indeed. And I'll be watching it all.

I was asked recently, which pairing I thought would make for the best general election. It's a hard one to answer. My first thought was Obama v Romney. Think of it, a Black American running against a Mormon. How crazy is that? These are two groups of people that have been harassed, hunted and murdered in our country. I don't recall Mormons ever being made slaves or having their family history destroyed - but still, two groups very much punished by WASPs.

I also considered Giuliani v Kucinich - two former mayors. And I don't know, they both just strike me as a little odd. What has Rudy really ever done besides look somewhat presidential during 9/11; simply because our president was nowhere to be found. I think even I looked presidential that day compared to W. Dennis Kucinich. I don't know. Maybe just because he strikes me as a younger, liberal version of Ross Perot.

Hillary Clinton v Sam Brownback? They are both pure evil - the corporate stoolie versus the reactionary whacko. Voting in this race would be about as much fun as choosing between herpes and diabetes - odds are you'll live but it'll never go away.

But I think the best race possible is Richardson v. McCain. Because after thinking about the question for a few days I realized that the race for President needs to be entertaining, yes, but there also needs to be some hope for a result that is positive for the country. McCain is endlessly entertaining. The guy is off his rocker and likely to show up to the debates without any pants - reminds me a lot of Denny Crane (William Shatner) on Boston Legal. You just don't know what he's going to do next; you know, before he follows bin Laden into hell. Think of the possibilities were he to name Mel Gibson his running mate.

And Bill Richardson is by far the most qualified person in the race. He is likely one of the most qualified people to ever seek the job - experienced in foreign diplomacy and negotiations, served in Congress, moved a state forward as its top executive, AND has a sense of humor. I'm just scratching the surface. In a thinking person's democracy it would be a clear choice, here's a person that is obviously intelligent and thoughtful and still assertive enough to stand up for those things he holds dear. I might not agree with him on every issue, but I get the sense he will think everything through before he acts, considering many long range outcomes. I know it's not what we're used to, but it's what our country desperately needs.

A Dash of Black, A Pinch of White, and a Whole Lot of Gray

I don't like to take up too much time and space with these thoughts of mine. They rush through my head pretty quickly, anyway, and it's all I can do to keep up with them. But it's been a busy week upstairs and it's time to flush some things out.

Let's start with a new political poll featured this past Sunday in my local paper, the wondrous Des Moines Register. Of course it features the latest presidential preferences of likely voters, it's required; but it also lists the issues on the minds of those same voters. The top 5 issues among Democrats were the war in Iraq (46%), relations with other countries (37%), health care and health insurance (35%), and in a tie with 33% the nation's long-term debt, national security, and the economy and jobs. Republicans shared two of those issues; their top five were terrorism (40%), national security (38%), faith and values (29%), the war in Iraq (28%), and immigration (27%). I was interested to see that abortion and gay marriage didn't make the top 5 in either party; especially considering how much attention those issues will get when the general election campaign is upon us. We love our wedge issues. Abortion and gay marriage came in 18th and 19th respectively with Democrats. They were understandably higher with Republicans, 6th and 8th. But Republicans did put "faith and values" (whatever that means) at number three overall.

Aside from the labels the pollsters came up with (see "faith and values") I found it most interesting to look at top Republican issues; and one pairing of issues in particular. Republicans named "Terrorism" as their top issue. Yet they place "Relations with other countries" - which was #2 on the Democrats' list - at #12. Does anyone else see a major problem with this? How is it we are supposed to fight terrorism without building strong relations with other countries? Can we connect some dots here? I know that faith and values will get God on our side, but it might help to get a few other earthly partners in this effort. Let's put this on a very local level. If you have a neighbor who's an arrogant prick and treats all the other neighbors with contempt, how likely are you to keep an eye on his house when he's out of town? Even if you're part of the Neighborhood Watch effort, where does his house fit on the priority list? Exactly. But this is a symptom of our general short-sightedness as a collective people, our willingness to buy into the anti-French sentiment because it makes us sound tough and cool; we're loners out in the wild west, fighting dangerous heathens. Well, folks, even John Wayne died.

So I give kudos to the Democrats who placed "Relations with other countries" at #2 and "Terrorism" at #7; it's almost as though you're saying that terrorism is a symptom of other, larger concerns. Something to think about, I guess.

Speaking of kudos to Democrats, how about those Democrats in Washington? They've decided to remove the troop-withdrawal deadline from the Iraq spending bill and are also failing on almost all of their promised ethics reform. What a great party.

That's right, after meeting with the White House they've announced that the compromise bill will not include a deadline to begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed to vote against the measure. She also vowed to put a timeline for withdrawing troops into the Iraq spending measure. Other Democrats in leadership have vowed that any future Iraq financing measure will include a timeline. Really? Is there a wolf attacking your sheep? But I guess they had no choice this time; they didn't want to be seen as not caring about the troops. Will someone explain to me how that's going to change with subsequent bills? Isn't that always a sound bite-attack they are going to face?

The Democrats did manage, though, to include in the spending measure an increase in the federal minimum wage, increased funding for veterans' health care, and increased funding for childrens' health care and other domestic programs. So there we have the gray. It's a sticky game, this politics.

But before we get too excited about anything great happening in Washington, it appears the party that promised to clean up the ethics mess is failing. They failed to double the current one year lobbying ban on former lawmakers. They couldn't even get members of their own party to support the measure. My favorite is Rep. Michael E. Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat. He opposed the "revolving door" ban on lobbying by former members of Congress saying, "I made a career change 20 years ago to be a full-time elected official. I am no longer qualified to be a tax attorney. It is like saying to people, 'Please, come into public service, give it your all, and when you are done you are completely unqualified for anything else.'" WHAT? Who is this idiot? Really? It's not like saying that at all, actually. How stupid does he think the American people are? Is anyone else insulted by such a remark?

Also destined to die:
1. A measure that would require lobbysists to report "bundled" contributions - those that are collected and delivered to
candidates. Seems like a sensible measure that wouldn't really require a whole lot of work.
2. The creation of an independent, ethichs watchdog to monitor Congress' compliance with ethics rules. No, we
certainly don't need that. They do a fine job of following their own rules without anyone getting in the way.

Oh it's a circus in Washington, that's for sure. And I don't think I want it any other way. Adding to my amusement this morning is a story that our government apparently wants to sue OPEC because of the high fuel costs we are all facing; it must be their fault, they are brown. Right? There's no way that the CEOs of oil companies / big time political contributors could have anything to do with high gas prices. It's time for public financing of elections.

President Dwight Eisenhower ( a Republican and a decorated General, for those of you who slept in history class) warned of the military-industrial complex. I think today's Washington would scare him to death, Republicans and Democrats alike.

On a lighter note, the new Wilco album, Sky Blue Sky, is glorious. Check it out.

Jerry Falwell Dead at 73

I'm not too sure what there really is to say about it. It just came up on my screen moments ago. The founder of Moral Majority died today. I can only assume he's with his god. It's scary to think of what Jerry would be going through if he was wrong about everything.

My memories of Jerry are all a blur right now. But it's seems like he's left us too soon. Our country is still being ravaged by homosexuals and rock and roll - the two greatest threats to the American Way of Life. I guess I was just always confused by him - his message seemed too full of anger and hate to be what I always thought of as "Christian." And there always seemed to be too much talk about money, whether raising it to fund a politician or himself. I recall that Jesus talked about getting the money changers out of the Temple, not giving them more money to fuel their causes.

But whatever he was, he sure wasn't going to back down. He stood there like a misguided soldier in the war for clean culture, damning anyone who dare speak against him. It couldn't have been easy. There had to be moments of doubt - when his counterpart in the moral battle were getting busted for bizarre sexual scandals with hookers and zoo animals, for instance - where he stood at the top of the mountain and shook his head.

And I suppose, in his mind, we've all given Jerry a lot of reasons to shake his head. The feeling's mutual, Jerry. So long.

Aunt Annie's Aligator A a A

The increased apathy in American culture is not a new subject. There is little doubt that it has contributed to the state of things these days - public discourse is on life support, increased sensationalizing by our news media, politicians who more closely resemble the town drunk than the town scholar. And I thought that I was immune. I was wrong.

But failing to prevent myself from catching a serious case of the old apathy also helped me open my eyes. It's a sick fucking world out there, people; and we're beat over the head with it every day. It's a wonder anybody survives. The images of destruction and rape, the onslaught of loud-mouthed egomaniacs spewing misinformation on the radio and television, the constant birage of advertising and stimulation - where does it all end? It ends in apathy.

Let me give you an example. Two weeks ago I was watching my local television news (not out of any desire to be informed - obviously local news isn't a great source for that), the 10PM broadcast. The first six stories that night were about murder - the first SIX. Oh my god, you say, what is happening in Iowa? Do they even get six murders there in a year? Oh, I can see where you'd get that idea. But no, only one of the murder stories was "fresh." The other five were all related to murders in the past - something had happened in the murder trial, an anniversary of a murder, etc. I asked myself, of all the things that went on in my community today, why did they cover those? I know for certain that there were people out there doing things much more newsworthy. People everyday do important work on important issues, but the local news leads off with six murders, 15 minutes on the weather, a couple of minutes on sports, way too much small talk . . . you get the idea. You've seen it.

But that's just the local news. And I can't blame only them. And I'm really not interested in who's to blame. I think we all have a responsibility to improve public discourse, to ask each other questions, to open the lines of communication. It's the only way we can improve things; and I don't necessarily mean politically. (Although it certainly wouldn't hurt.)

Any improvement in our own personal connection to our community helps fight apathy.

We've become apathetic, I believe, because we are no longer given the chance to be participants in an honest discourse, an honest democracy, and honest business to customer relationship. We have become witnesses to idiots screaming at each other in the parking lot. There is very little chance to interject. We need to start our own conversations; and they must be conversations, not the jackass hyperbole of Rush, O'Reilly,Fox News and (yes, it's true people) Air America. Whether it's saying hello to your neighbors or getting to know the guy the owns the local hardware store, any time you take to start conversations in your community will help fight apathy.

So I was wrong. I became apathetic. I allowed myself to get wrapped up in the left vs right shouting matches that pass as discourse and I crawled into a dark hole. It was a mistake. But now I've climbed back out.