Essay: Triangle of Knowledge

The process of a Presidential election, including the party selection of nominees, the campaign, the individual citizen decisions on why to cast a ballot, and the filling of key cabinet posts by the eventual winner, all address what is a fundamental distinction--almost always ignored--between three similar descriptors: 'intelligent', 'smart' and 'well-educated'. In fact, these are very different things. Not only should they not be used interchangeably, but to do so allows nefarious agents to blur and pervert the traits we look for in a person ('elitist', 'snob', 'pointy-headed liberal'), particularly in one as important as the President of a nation.

Together, these three traits of 'smart', 'intelligent' and 'educated' combine to create knowledge (what in the original Greek was philosophus, or 'lover of knowledge'), a trait that even the most jaded political operatives dare not mess with--we all want leaders with wisdom. We may turn our noses up at the idea of a 'philosopher-king', but we all respect people who who are wise.

Here's how these words differ:

• Intelligent: this is the capacity to learn. You can not fit six gallons of water into a five gallon bucket. Some people have a greater ability to understand and know things. And intelligence itself has many components: there are people who almost intuitively understand an algebraic equation, but can't write a simple sentence--and vice versa.
  
  


• Educated (or for our purposes, 'well-educated'): this is an issue of simple opportunity. Perhaps the most naturally gifted physicist in history lived her life in some backwater of the third world, never entering a classroom of any kind--her gift was lost to civilization. On the other hand, when we describe someone as well-educated, we talk about achieving a level of accomplishment (diploma) in educational institutions of varying repute. (The value of education almost entirely derives from the wisdom of the instructors involved, but instead we tend to value education by mistakenly assuming the wisest instructors dwell in the institutions of highest repute--'Harvard', or 'Stanford', instead of the 'community college'). In any case, the purpose of education is to open up minds to things that otherwise would have remained ignored, and the goal of an educator is to perform that function in a memorable and meaningful way.
  
  


• Smart: This is the most mercurial of the three terms, a potion composed of experience, observation, intuition, analysis and application. It is hard to become smart in a short amount of time, because experience is such a vital component. It's what gives birth to such expressions as, 'if I knew then what I know now...', and 'youth is wasted on the young'. But the keystone to understanding smart is that it can exist in some people as a perfect antonym to intelligent. The two do not necessarily go together.

It may be useful to consider a 'triangle of knowledge', with knowledge as the desirable centerpiece, and its degree of achievement reflected by how intelligent, educated and smart an individual may be:

Let's assume the above is the profile of a person with base-level wisdom. The 'smarter' or 'more intelligent' or 'better educated' a person becomes, the further they will push that respective tangent of the triangle closer to the middle...and subsequently achieve a greater degree of wisdom. In this sense, someone who has reached an extremely high level of wisdom will have moved each of the tangents closer to the middle, so that the triangular 'profile' of that person would include an inordinate expansion of the knowledge center. It might look something like this:

But to repeat, this is an ideal...an intellect benefiting disproportionately and simultaneously from a very good education, a very high intelligence and all of the factors that make him very smart about the world.

The far more common reality is that people do not increase each of these components proportionately. In fact, the pursuit of wisdom at any given time forms a personal triangle that is seldom equilateral...almost always what mathematicians would call 'scalene', in that each of the sides is a different length, representing how far education, intelligence and 'smartness' have moved us toward knowledge. Think of it as a distinctive 'fingerprint'. Here's an example:

This person is well developed in both intelligence and education, but for some reason 'just doesn't get it' in the real world. I have a particular person in mind for this profile--Condoleeza Rice. Her level of academic accomplishment is beyond question, and could not have been reached without superior intelligence and the access to extraordinarily well-regarded educational institutions. However, her abysmal performance as both national security advisor and Secretary of State (and with 'abysmal', I'm being kind), betrays an apparently inherent disability to analyze people and situations in the real world, and apply appropriate steps. In that sense, she's simply not smart.

Similarly, were we to put together the 'fingerprint' for George W. Bush, it would be similarly scalene, but the distant attribute in the triangle would be intelligence, not smart. Obviously, he has walked the grounds of excellent educational institutions and unquestionably understands how to work the levers of power in the real world. But by his own admission, and the testimony of those closest to his administration, he has insisted on 'trusting my gut', and all but banned the intellectual give-and-take which is the foundation of developing intelligence. He is a man whose dyslexia likely opened him up to ridicule and separation during his education, and perhaps led him to avoid similar embarrassments in the future. Much of the failure of his eight years...from the Iraq invasion to Katrina to the financial meltdown...resulted from 'outsourcing' whatever intelligence was necessary to the few he trusted, regardless of their own wisdom, and demanding blind obedience to his 'gut' from everyone else.

Of course, this 'fingerprint' is not the entire story for any person. Character matters, and frequently overpowers all aspects of wisdom. A vice president suffering from megalomania, a governor corrupt enough to offer a Senate appointment to the highest bidder, make irrelevant any combination of smarts, intelligence and education.

Which leads us, finally, to speculation about the incoming President. His resume and academic performance certainly speak to both education and intelligence. His reputed insistence on disagreement among advisers as a means to set policy make him the polar opposite of Bush. And criticisms aimed at him for not selecting enough 'new faces' within his key cabinet posts is not a sign of backtracking, but rather a healthy respect for those who have become smart by experiencing the chaos of government and circumstance, reconciling conflicting constituencies, and simply confronting adversity.

What remains to be determined about the Obama White House is how much policy and history might be determined by the nature of his own largely secreted character. Does his insistence on 'inclusion' create risk by allowing wolves into the hen house? Does growing up without a father lead to an over reliance on a 'heavenly father'? Does barely a decade in public office create a vacuum of experience...and if so, who will he turn to first to help fill that vacuum?

Obama's degree of wisdom for his age is unquestionably impressive. Throughout the campaign, opponents fired repeatedly at his character...and hit nothing. Combined, this is largely what inspired his movement--beyond policy and 'change', he is the person most of his supporters want to be, or wished they had become.

But the troubles he faces, aside from the overwhelming docket of doom left on his desk by his predecessor, seem likely to come from his void of experience on the level of management. How 'smart' will he be here? America may no longer be the 'greatest nation on Earth' (or maybe it still is), but there is little argument that at this moment President of the United States is still the most important job on Earth. As we step into a New Year, we should give thanks that no matter what he has yet to learn, the first one through the door is one who already has so admirably fulfilled his triangle of wisdom.

Auto-matic

So, the anticipated transfer of billions to the automakers has now been authorized. Let's review what's at stake:

• The Industry: the big three are creating vehicles few people want to buy. This is of their own volition. For a long time, many people wanted $50,000 SUVs that went less than ten miles on a gallon of gas. Not so much anymore. Just as with Wall Street, we are being asked to pay for their sins.
  
• GM: The right wing wants to use their problems as a stick to beat up organized labor. There is the fraudulent claim that workers make $73/hr in wages and benefits. Untrue. This number is the result of dividing ALL worker costs (including hundreds of thousands of retirees) by the current work force. In any case, labor only represents 10% of the cost of a GM vehicle. If those workers all agreed to work for nothing...and the price of GM vehicles thus dropped immediately by 10%...would they be more attractive in the market? No.
• Chrysler: This is the true crime. Chrysler is not owned by shareholders, it is one of the many properties managed and mismanaged by a private company called Cerberus. Holdings include everything from Alamo Rental Car to Formica to Albertson's Food Stores to Remington firearms to the now-defunct Mervyn's department stores. It is run by John Snow, former Secretary Treasury Secretary under the current Bush, a simple tool in the financial den of thieves. Its intellectual luminaries include Dan Quayle, who is simple in virtually every sense of the word. Now, the point here is that Cerberus has a lot of money from their myriad other holdings that they could themselves use to prop up Chrysler. So, why don't they? Well...they don't want to. Isn't it so much easier just to use taxpayer dollars?
• Auto workers: Yes, letting the auto companies fail will cause job loss not only from those employers, but in related industries across the country. There truly would be a ripple effect. But what has anyone proposed that would convince even Dan Quayle to believe we are not just delaying the inevitable?

Put this in classic gangster B-movie terms. Vinnie, your bookie, has just agreed not to beat your head in with a pipe because you made a weekly payment of interest on the thousands of dollars you owe him. But you haven't retired a dime of the original loan. Vinnie will be back next week looking for full repayment...and you haven't got a clue where you're going to come up with the money.

America...say hello to Vinnie.

Falling Down and Standing Up

President Elect Obama made a rare misstep today, naming quack author preacher Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration. In one sense, this could be seen as simple political payback, since Warren granted Obama a degree of authenticity among the mythology-minded by inviting him to his 'church' before the junior Senator from Illinois had really registered on the electoral radar.

Unfortunately, the real motivation may have been a sincere effort toward the ideal of bipartisanship. Inviting Warren could be seen as saying, 'I don't marginalize all of you true believers'. Yet, at the same time, it is distinctly separatist in granting the exclusionary view of Warren's perverted world view (no gay marriage, no science if I don't say so, etc.) the lead off spot in the Inauguration batting order. This is wrong.

On the other hand, today also raised the potential for a true healing moment this nation needs--the prosecution of Dick Cheney (and hopefully others). You probably remember the days when the act of denying fellatio was seen prosecution-worthy in order to prove that, 'no man is above the law'. (No matter that the reality was that no state or municipality in our country would have moved forward against this 'crime').

Cheney's final act of defiance--in effect, saying, 'yeah, so I cooked the intelligence books in order to needlessly send thousands of people to their death...yeah, I did declare torture legal just because I said so--so what?...'--this man is daring Obama to call his bluff.

There are millions of us who fervently supported the Obama campaign to change the tone--and the tone, in this case, is to prevent traitors like Cheney to do what he wants and laugh at the rest of us.

Lock him up.

24

For months, those bastard union writers deprived America of its essential reminder--that there are bad people out there, and that only the few, the proud, and the lawless like Jack Bauer stand between us and our future as just another backwater terrorist outpost. Who knows, if the writers' strike hadn't erased 24 from the prime time schedule through most of 2008, maybe Sarah Palin would have assumed her rightful role as the lacer of John McCain's Metamucil.

But no matter. Jack is back.

Well...back for only a night. The two-hour remnants of what would have been the entire season has aired, and we can all rest assured that since all is still wrong in Jack's world, perhaps then all might be right in ours.

Relax, and understand...

• Automatic weapons have no effect on Jack. They either unfailingly veer away from him at the last instant, or simply bounce off;
• If you have any hope of capturing him, you better bring at least 20 guys packing heat; anything less than a couple dozen-to-one is a hopeless mismatch;
• Not only is the U.N. the bane of true freedom fighters around the world, but as this spectacular shows, the organization is even more dangerous when a typically clueless and craven Frenchman--yes, a guy with a real fake French accent!--is in charge. God help us;
• American bureaucrats in the field are still mindless tools, while their higher ups in the government are actually supporting the very terrorists that Jack is trying to defeat! Government sucks, man!
• All this leads at warp speed to a moral dilemma not seen on screen since Sophie had to make her choice; while the last chopper is about to depart, Jack pauses to the last possible moment, struggling with the singular good-versus-evil decision that may define his character forever: is it worth the lives of the dozen young boys he's pledged to safeguard...if it means agreeing to testify before Congress?!!!

Egads, what more is a man supposed to endure? The guy's been beaten, kidnapped, tortured, betrayed, forced to turn his back on love, family and even country, all in order to save us. But this...well, this is too much--face a freakin' subpoena?! Do not let impressionable children see this.

I can hardly wait for the next full season to pick up in January. If you witnessed this harrowing prequel, you could rightfully fear that Jack has finally met his match, in the form of duplicitous, liberal, U.N.-loving Congressional committee...and in the face of this fire, he must certainly fall.

But if you think that for even a heartbeat...then you don't know Jack.

Sports Hell

Time out for sports. The Northwest is a sink hole.

Baseball was bad enough. The Mariners lost 100 games with a payroll of $117 million. No major league team previously had ever spent so much for so little.

Then came football. The Seahawks, perennial playoff contenders of late, stand at 2-10, with nearly 100 points more allowed than scored. And relatively speaking, that's good.

The University of Washington finished winless in 11 tries, including a loss to their dreaded cross-state rivals, Washington State. But the Cougars can hardly crow with two wins against 10 losses, in the process giving up an impossible 546 points.

Combined, the three football powerhouses stand a collective 4 and 31, losing by an average of 36-15.

And any thoughts of finding some solace in the fortunes of the Sonics this year must be tempered by the knowledge that they no longer exist. They have moved to Oklahoma City...where they still stink.

Change

Oh, the idiocy.

Today Barack Obama was confronted directly by Ed Henry of CNN on the promise of 'change'. How could that be true, Henry said, when so many of Obama's stated and rumored apointees had ties to the Clinton administration?

This should be simple. People wanted change from George W. Bush. Not from Clinton...or Reagan...or Rutherford B. Hayes. The fact that every cable airhead is talking from this same speaking point proves the idiocy. The only way it could be defended is to conflate the performance Bush II with Clinton. In other words, both administrations were equally flawed, so none of those who contributed to them should ever be allowed back at the levers of power.

If there is any journalist...no matter how inexperienced or dense...who believes that to be the case, they should turn in their final expense report and move on to a profession more to their suiting.

The Clintons

I don't agree with everything Bill Maher says on his HBO show, and certainly I was particularly peeved when he joined the liberal chorus slamming the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. She was never the enemy...but somehow, many media mavens conflated her with their alternate evil, George Bush. Pathetic.

So predictably enough, now the jackals in the media are out of sorts baying at the idea of Hillary Clinton returning to the national spotlight in the role of Secretary of State.

First, if that's what Obama deems best for the country, he should do it.

Second, if Bill Clinton necessarily is part of the package, why is that a negative? He was the most effective negotiator of conflicting international interests in a generation. He was what Henry Kissinger always wanted to be. Of course he needs to be vetted--any spouse would. That doesn't make it news.

And finally, if there is concern about the 'baggage' that the Clintons bring to someone else's administration, the media should look in the mirror to see where the baggage was manufactured.

A suddenly-realistic Bill Maher this week responded thusly to the dense Arianna Huffington who commented drippingly, "it looks like the Clintons may be with us again for the next four years, in all their glory, and with all their psycho-drama...":
"I think Hillary Clinton is very capable, as we all do. I'm not one of those people who think a lot of the drama comes from the Clintons. I think it comes from people covering the Clintons who don't have a life, who need to find gossip and drama somewhere. Other than the incident with Monica Lewinsky, I really can't think of anything that rises to the level of horrible gossip or even lying with these people...and of course, that was nothing to begin with. These are two of the most serious, devoted policy wonks that this country has ever seen. And as far as people hating them and saying they're full of drama and baggage, that's everyone else projecting their issues onto the Clintons. Basically they're boring people."

If Maher sees the light, might there be others?

Not yet. Today two absolute journalistic imbeciles with impeccable political pedigrees--David Broder of the Washington Post and Tom Friedman of the New York Times--tut-tutted about the credentials of Hillary as Secretary of State. Why is there no licensing of journalists? These are two people whose foreign affairs expertise helped cheer lead us into the tragic invasion of Iraq. The blood of that conflict is on their hands, as well. They are self-absorbed idiots, adored only by their own ilk.

Sooner or later, people will see which emperors have no clothes--even if the press passes remain in place.

Old New York

I spent last week in New York, some of it talking with financial analysts who have covered the retail sector for many years. These are insiders...the experts paid to see trends before we do, and place their bets accordingly. So it was more than a little perplexing, after asking them what comes next for the economy, to hear them answer uniformly, "who knows?"

There were still people in the high end stores. I suspect there always will be. And a round of drinks for three in a middling mid town hotel bar still cost $75. Obscene wealth is not yet fully out of favor.

But 99% of us aren't rich. A long time friend with a nice family and a nice house and a nice big SUV and an even bigger mortgage recently confessed, "we sat down last night to take a hard look at our finances. We've been bad. Really, really bad."

Every serious recession brings expectations that there will be a moral awakening across the land, that people will lose their fiscal shortcomings, begin to save and appreciate 'the things that really matter'. But that typically lasts only until the early days of the next boom.

Could this time be different? Even without a surging conscience, might the sheer shrinking of credit cut down the hilarious materialism?

Best Buy, a cathedral of sorts for shiny, expensive technical things, has just unveiled a new slogan: "You, happier". That pretty much sums up the national lust of the last decade.

But now, maybe not so much anymore. One can hope.

Inside Grant Park

Here are the words of a lifelong friend who was among the crowd listening to President-elect Obama last night...

A few random thoughts. First, it was probably the most orderly, well behaved large crowd I have ever been in. We were lucky enough to get tickets to go into the 65,000 capacity space which was the area that Obama would eventually speak. It was a sea of people, as you saw on TV. Those that could not get the tickets could go to the North end of the park and watch on another big screen. Or, you could mill around outside the area.
So, this mob descends on Grant Park. Those with tickets are to go right and those without left. Now we are talking thousands of people jammed together. Everybody obeyed. Amazing. No pushing or complaining--nothing. Once you went through 4 lightly screened screens you got into the main Obama area. In the three hours we waited there was not a single problem or idiot. No antiMcCain stuff. No alcohol. Not a single person I wanted to punch---a first. That part was totally unexpected in 2008. And to be there with Carly, Trevor, Becky was very nice.
Second, we were sitting at Trevor's place, actually it is Christie's and it is in Andersonville, and watching TV at about 6:00 or so. It is 70 degrees and it is a totally condo neighborhood. There are lots of condos, close to each other, and because of the temperature all have open windows. So, at 6:15 when MSNBC projects Obama to win Pennsylvania you hear a roar go up that is coming out of all the open windows. I just found it very moving. It made it seem like people were once again committed and they had found a candidate that they-we could all rally around. And, to hear that reaction after just one state's projection reminded me of the passion that still existed. It was a both a tension release and a moment I won't forget.
Third. I'm not sure what they showed on TV but before Obama came out they had a minister pray and then an exMarine talk about the pledge and then a group recite it and then the National Anthem. Now I have not said the pledge or sang the Anthem since probably the Viet Nam era. I always felt it had become manipulative etc. You probably know the feeling. But, last night I found myself gradually saying the Pledge and singing the Anthem. The crowd seemed to be in a similar place. I guess to do it at a sports event is one thing but to do it at a political event takes more philosophical choice. Well like me, the crowd started out very slow to respond and then it grew and grew until most were singing. I'm guessing most people were like me and did not want to buy into fake patriotism but suddenly this was real and it involved me for the first time in years. I did not feel embarrassed but rather I felt at I was proud of America--finally.
Last--I have been waiting 40 years for Bobby to return. Barack is not Bobby but there is a thread from him to Barack. I wore a Kennedy 1968 campaign button on my shirt so that part of my past was now a part of my present. 40 years is a long time and I'm hoping we are finally rewarded.

My View

As a child, I remember watching the civil rights marches. I remember seeing the federal troops desegregating the Little Rock Schools. In 1968, as a young man, I stood on Michigan Avenue in Chicago watching the anti-war protesters ready to march across the Chicago River bridge to Grant Park.

This is the other side of the river. I am humbled. I am thankful. My hope is renewed. I feel that maybe...just maybe...there is a chance for our children and grandchildren in this country.

Amen.

Four Issues

All Hail Barack. For this wonderful moment, those of us in the Boomer Generation have ceased destroying America.

Now, four issues:

1. Terrorism: To what devious extent will the Constitutional/Capitalistic terrorists known as Bush and Cheney go to further cripple America? Obama must be ready to call bullshit. Starting right now.
   
2. Honesty: The economy is in even worse shape than he has acknowledged. Will he immediately admit that not every dream of the disparate wings of the Democratic party can be fulfilled without further crushing our kids and grandkids under obscene debt?
3. Religion: It has no place in politics. It is personal, and should stay that way. Its every incursion into public discourse takes our nation down. Begone.
   
4. Cancer: During the campaign, Obama was criticized for not reaching across the aisle to make nice with his right wing counterparts. To me, this is a badge of honor. These people must be put out of any determinative role in the operation of government. As John Dean once said to the leader of his own party, these reptiles are 'a cancer on the presidency'--Obama's presidency. Chemotherapy upon them.
   

The Winner Is...Authenticity

When it comes to politics, maybe Bill O'Reilly is your guy. Maybe you tilt entirely the other way, to Keith Olbermann. Or somewhere in between, where there are hundreds of other people, mostly New York and Washington-based, who make a good portion of their livelihood as pundits. They listen primarily to each other, and just a few months ago were assessing exactly how the inevitable Giuliani-Clinton campaign would play out.

I'll tell you who my guy is--Aristotle. Sure, he hasn't shown up on Fox News for several thousand years now, but he's still exponentially more perceptive than the rest of the punditocracy combined. In fact, he's already figured out who the winner of this election will be...even if he's got no way to communicate it to us.

Aristotle is the father of modern rhetoric, and politically speaking, there is one aspect of his thinking that is determinative in this election, just as it has been in the last several--authenticity. He didn't use that specific term, but it's the modern name for the final of the three legs on which his definition of rhetoric is based.

The first is logos, or logic. In political terms, it's where the candidates stand on the issues. These can be statistically based, like health care, or primarily emotional in nature, like abortion. But they call all be defined to some degree as 'for it' or 'against it'. These are of overriding importance to voters in either party--but they haven't mattered in months, since the people judging on the basis of logos made their decisions a long time ago.

The second aspect is pathos, or, in our vernacular, emotional appeal. This isn't a simple matter of whose words seem to soar, who pounds the podium hardest, or who can align himself closest to Joe the Plumber. In this election in particular, there is a pronounced and potentially attractive emotional narrative attached to each candidate. When your choice is between the imprisoned war hero, the black-man-raised-by-a-single-white-mother, the guy who instantly lost a wife and daughter in a car crash, or the small-town-girl-made-good, mother-of-a-special-needs-child, it's likely you're going to find something there to respond to. And on this score, too, many have already made up their minds.

But for those last stragglers who have yet to make up their mind--those six or seven percent who for some reason can't seem to pick on the basis of logos or pathos--votes will be decided on ethos. This is the realm of authenticity. Not where the candidates stand...or what they represent...but on an intuitive, deeply visceral level, the conclusions we draw about them on a human level--who are these people? Look at the way he stands...does she make eye contact with her opponent?...one walks across the stage while the other speaks...another smiles coldly in the face of his opponent's barbs. Each of these largely subconscious cues makes a difference--and not just for the late deciders. In this election, ethos has also changed the minds of many who had initially settled on the basis of logos or pathos.

There is little doubt among the pundit class that George W. Bush won the vast majority of his votes in 2000 because he was judged 'the guy I'd most like to have a beer with'--as if the consumption of a lager were the best means to choose the most powerful person in the world. The Supreme Court may have finally decided that election, but passing the authenticity test was Bush's hall pass to that chamber.

This time, the challenge of logos for each candidate was clear from the start. McCain needed to convince that his positions were different from Bush's. Obama was required to demonstrate that his own weren't that far from Bush so as to seem radical.

Emotional narratives were almost as transparent. McCain: 'the Hanoi Hilton made me my own man'. Obama: 'I'm living proof that in this country, any person can become President'. Interestingly, not only has neither candidate challenged these fundamental assertions, but have, on occasion, voluntarily spoken them on behalf of their opponents.

It is on the level of authenticity--what is, and more importantly, what can be made to seem either real or unreal--where this election will be decided. There are a handful of inflection points where ethos decided the result--even if we don't know yet what that result will be.

Walking off the stage in Minneapolis (even though it had yet to be validated with poll data) the McCain-Palin team had wowed the American crowd. They turned around the seemingly insurmountable momentum aroused by Obama in Denver (oops--the pundits proved wrong again). It is hard to argue that at that moment, the then-larger legions of undecideds were falling in love with Sarah Palin, and what she seemed to represent. I'll see your 'black man can be president', and raise you one 'hockey Mom can be vice president'. You can take your Ivy League pedigree and stuff it--after all, isn't that what got us Gore and Bush and Kerry in the first place? What good were any of them? Give me a down home girl every time. America could feel who she was.

Let's call the combined debates the second inflection point. While there would be analysts to pick apart small aspects of Obama's stated policies and positions, I have yet to find one who said, "on the basis of what he showed tonight, he does not have the temperament to be commander in chief." Quite the contrary. Despite his military credentials and decades in the Senate, it was McCain who made most of us uncomfortable. He would not look his opponent in the eye--thus, not as brave as we thought? He pointed and referred to Obama as 'that one'--a willingness to diminish and disregard those with whom he disagreed? And his irrational 'suspending' of his campaign on the eve of the first debate...in order to run to Washington to add nothing to the bailout debate...gave credence to charges that this man was erratic, particularly in the face of a crisis.

In the meantime, Katie Couric exposed Sarah Palin for her provincialism. But the coup de grace for many supporters was the news that this 'small town girl' had been clothed in $150,000 of duds from the least small-town retailers wallowing on the evil coasts. Undoubtedly a good share of the 60% of voters who at this writing declare her unfit for D.C. rendered their verdict on the basis of failed authenticity.

On the other side, the first and most benign charge against Obama from his critics was that they didn't 'really know who he is'. Once the Democratic convention ended, they found out. He's a consistent, serious, and pretty boring guy. Among the four candidates on the national ticket, he indisputably made the least news during the last two months of the campaign. While Sarah was riffing and the Maverick was sputtering and Biden ostensibly gaffing, Barack sat there like Jabba the Hutt, impassively repeating his lines. He certainly didn't seem to define himself as 'the One', as an adoring Oprah had. He wasn't windsurfing on his rare day off...he was taking his daughter trick-or-treating. When he got angry about how the Wall Street meltdown was affecting real people, not the investment bankers, well, he actually seemed to mean it.

Across the land, you could hear Reagan Democrats muttering, 'well, he sort of does seem presidential'.

So how then could it be that Obama could fail the authenticity test? Well, it would be due to the ability of the Karl Rove acolytes to again negatively define their opponent's character. Obama 'won't talk to you about the extent of his association with that radical, Bill Ayers'. Well, actually he had. 'He won't admit that his economic plan is going to raise your taxes'. Well, actually it wouldn't. 'He's a socialist..a redistributor.' Well, only in the sense that all Presidents are, including that good Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, under whom the top personal income tax rate was 91%! It is not by accident that almost a quarter of voters in Texas still believe that Obama is a Muslim...and that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are still hidden in the back of closet somewhere in Baghdad...and that the Easter Bunny will rise again.

If the political affiliations and advisers of each candidate were reversed, I am convinced that by now we would have been bombarded with details on how the 'war hero' McCain had broken under captivity, and made 30-some propaganda tapes in support of his captors. It would not matter whether this was true. The fact that some people believe it to be true would more than suffice for the Rovians.

What is clear here in the closing hours is that authenticity matters. In fact, maybe in political America it matters more than anything else. And it is demonstrated most when, through the magic of television, and the exercise of the last remnants of honest journalism, we can figuratively look the candidates in the eye...unfiltered by a fog of punditry, and the prism of political attack...and make our own judgements--who is this person?

Aristotle knows.

Frum-dumb?

David Frum is a self-absorbed, frequently reality-denying former speechwriter for George Bush. But no matter what he says, he always seems to convey the idea that he honestly believes what he's saying.

As such, his analysis of the fatal strategic decision in McCain's campaign is worth reviewing. In simple form, it goes like this:

• This summer McCain realized he was in trouble, so he rolled the dice on Palin
• The idea was to woo female and independent voters
• However, Palin instead has largely alienated both of these groups, while simultaneously energizing the right wing base
• Thus, her selection has taken the GOP for the foreseeable future down the path of hardening its radical conservative edge...while alienating many more people positioned toward the center

I hope he's right.

Greenspan

There should be not the least bit of surprise in the half-hearted testimony of Alan Greenspan that, yeah, maybe he should have done better. There should be no bewilderment from even a branch bank manager, much less the 'oracle' of the Federal Reserve, that somehow that house of cards would stand forever...that somehow people left to their own devices would refrain from applying criminal levels of greed and malevolence.

Isn't that why we have police departments? Why did anyone think Wall Street would be different?

To that end, we are now faced with two fresh pieces of evidence. First, as is common, nearly half of a Wall Street executive's annual compensation comes in the form of year end bonuses, allegedly tied to his performance, and that of his employer. Obviously, things are not good, and to underscore that, those Wall Street firms have laid off thousands of employees. But despite the smaller number of people on the payroll, the cumulative size of the that huge pool of year end payout money is actually higher than last year. Whether it is fully paid out...and in what way...is yet to be determined. But you are certainly justified to believe these execs will find a way to fully feather their own nests, even if it takes your tax dollars to do it.

And secondly, what about those bailout funds? Remember how they were ostensibly taken out of our pockets so that they could help banks make the loans that would keep American businesses operating...help homeowners pay their mortgages? Well, according to the New York Times, during an internal conference call this week, an executive at JP Morgan Chase told his employees that the government bailout money would be fine source of capital for 'growth'...to buy other ailing banks. Not one word about 'unfreezing' the credit market.

So, the robbers are unchastened. Someone call the cops.

Larry David

The man behind Curb Your Enthusiasm is having a hard time curbing his own.

Dr. No

At her one and only debate, Sarah Palin announced that she might choose not to answer the questions that were put to her...instead, just say what she wanted to say.

Aside from the recurring issue of why Republicans seem to feel that rules are only for other people (see the current VP), the larger issue here is why she refuses to divulge any medical records.

What is she hiding?

Black Friday

This afternoon a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota claimed that Barack Obama was 'un-American', and conflated the terms 'liberal', 'leftist' and 'un-American'. Yesterday at a Palin rally in North Carolina a reporter was kicked to the ground for distracting his attention from the stage to a place where Obama supporters were protesting. Today two offices of the national community organizing group ACORN were burglarized, and workers in other of the organization's locations received racist and physically threatening phone calls. Palin today said there are 'pro-American' parts of the country...clearly implying there are parts that are not.

For more than a decade, the hate wing of the Republican party has attempted to convince their supporters that 'liberal' and 'enemy' are synonymous. 'Liberal' is the new 'black'...the new' Commie'. This is only going to get worse.

These people were already a plague upon our country. Now they are afraid. They are rabid.

Presidents normally are accorded a honeymoon. Obama's is over even before his election.

Third Lunch

I once worked briefly with a guy who had risen to very lofty heights in both print and broadcast journalism. (This is no mean feat, as the two disciplines are mutually jealous, competitive and distrustful). I didn't work with him long enough to gauge whether his talents and performance actually were deserving of his positions, but I do know how he got them--he was the world's most entertaining lunch partner.

Weaving incredulous, inspirational, profane, gossipy and uniformly hilarious stories, you stood up after that first two hour meal feeling guilty for not paying extra for the entertainment. He was that good. So good that you looked for any chance to do lunch with him again. And when it came, it didn't really seem to matter that the second time around the stories weren't nearly so good. Maybe he was just having an off day.

But by the third lunch...along with someone meeting him the for the first time...it was clear that he had just two hours of A list material. That was his act. And hearing all that stuff again wasn't nearly as entertaining.

Which leads me to John McCain and Sarah Palin. All those years we met McCain for just a minute at a time, delivering a couple soundbites on the evening news, he sure sounded 'maverick-y', didn't he? And when Palin stepped on the convention stage and delivered her first speech, she really did seem like a breath of fresh air, right?

Well, now it's old. It's so painfully obvious that they only have a few memorable things to say. And they've said them--over and over again. They really have no ability to adjust to new conditions or a changing environment--just like the current resident of the White House.

It is boring. It is sad. It is their third lunch.

???

Conservatives Become Republicans

William Buckley was perhaps the most famous conservative of his age--when that term meant something in a philosophical sense. But somewhere along the line, conservatives morphed into something far different--modern Republicans.

As Buckley's son, Christopher, has discovered...the old grey cons just ain't what they used to be (from the NYT):

Christopher Buckley, the author and son of the late conservative mainstay William F. Buckley, said in a telephone interview that he has resigned from the National Review, the political journal his father founded in 1955.

Mr. Buckley said he had “been effectively fatwahed by the conservative movement” after endorsing Barack Obama in a blog posting on TheDailyBeast.com; since then, he said he has been blanketed with hate mail at the blog and at the National Review, where he has written a column.

As a result, he wrote to Richard Lowry, the editor of the National Review, and its publisher, Jack Fowler, offering to resign, and “this offer was rather briskly accepted,” Mr. Buckley said.

Mr. Buckley said he did not understand the sense of betrayal that some of his conservative colleagues felt, but said that the fury and ugly comments his endorsement generated is “part of the calcification of modern discourse. It’s so angry.” Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan’s quote about the Democrats, Mr. Buckley added, “I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.”

Sign of the Times

Is it possible that this is both profane and vulgar...and yet entirely appropriate at the same time?

While those behind the microphones--Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, etc.--justifiably are the targets of much of the scorn for what's happened to our nation's economy, it's also important not to forget who the real villians are.

One Man's Terrorist...

Before John McCain runs off and pretends that he and his running mate never meant any harm in saying that Barack Obama 'palled around with terrorists'...(BTW: how come no one uses the very cool syntax symmetry of "pallin' with Palin"?) consider the source. Carl Bernstein has a wonderful depiction of the McCain relationship with American traitor Gordon Liddy. The key paragraph of his column:

During the same period that Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, Gordon Liddy was making plans to firebomb a Washington think tank, assassinate a prominent journalist, undertake the Watergate burglary, break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and kidnap anti-war protesters at the 1972 Republican convention.

McCain as recently as last year said on Liddy's radio show, "I'm proud of you...and (your) adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Nobel Effort

Forgive my hopefulness. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. But consider the winners and topics honored with this year's Nobel prizes:

• Literature: a French writer specializing in environmentalism
• Physics: three Japanese-born scientists exploring the smallest building blocks of the universe
• Economics: NYT columnist and relentless Bush critic Paul Krugman
• Peace: the former Finnish president who spent three decades looking for a way to use words rather than weapons to settle international grievances
• Chemistry: the American/Japanese scientific partnership seeking a connection between unique proteins and the onset of illness, including Alzheimer's disease
• Medicine: shared by several, including the director of the World Foundation for AIDS research

Cumulatively, do these awards make a stark political statement on behalf of the directors in Stockholm? Is that statement a defiance of how the American right wing has diminished both America and the globe over the last decade?

Are they not saying that it is right to promote science over religious dogma? Right to question the motives and actions of the obscenely rich and the relentlessly greedy? Right to promote causes like AIDS research and environmentalism? And only proper to choose intervention before invasion?

To me, this is the coda of the Bush years. This year's Nobel prizes imply the same indictment that echos across the blogosphere in baser form: 'Bush: wrong about everything'.

936

Do you feel richer today? At least a little better? The Dow Jones jumped 936 points...or 11%...or half of what he had forfeited during its recent plunge. In one day.

While traders on the floor of the NYSE celebrated with whoops and high fives, even a first year finance student knew that this had very little bearing on the surrounding economic climate. There was no change in the cost of health insurance or number of foreclosures, nor the debts piling up for General Motors and the U.S. Government.

One of the most intelligent and contemplative young men I know has had this conversation several times with his girlfriend: if we are forced to head for the hills (literally), to grow our own food, and create our own warmth and shelter, which of our friends do we want to come with us? And why?

This kind of thinking implies a meltdown not just of the markets, but of the entire economy. It conveys the concept of a society without jobs...or income...or protection. It would seem preposterous.

Just as preposterous as the Dow Jones jumping 936 points in a single day.

Blindingly Obvious

The New York Times has never claimed to be the equal of the Wall Street Journal in the depth of its business coverage. But the advantage of being a few steps removed implies a better ability to see the forest for the trees.

Thus, it was truly stunning today to see a front page article in which the author announced the following:
"Anybody searching for cause-and-effect logic in the daily gyrations of the market will be disappointed...instead, the market has become a case study in the psychology of crowds..."

In the words of that noted day trader, Shakespeare, 'twas ever thus'. If ever there were a time when TV news anchors could divine the ups and downs of investors from overarching news events, that time is long gone. But of course, the logical sides of our brains keeps seeking the connection.

The truth of the matter is that even the idea of 'crowds' determining market movement is in and of itself ridiculous, in the sense that the 'crowd' in question includes all of us little guys trying to figure out how to make the next mortgage or tuition payment. Statistically, the only 'crowd' that matters is the exclusive fraternity of institutional investors whose mutual fund or pension decisions truly can move a stock, if not a market.

So when you hear someone on TV--or even the New York Times--convey a connection between external circumstances and market movements, feel free to tune out. They don't know any better than you do. Of course, that reporter can claim they got their insight from someone on Wall Street...thus, it must have at least a grain of truth. But if their source really did have secret knowledge...if they truly could intuit how things would trend...do you honestly believe they would share that insight with a reporter?

This is akin to the chief chemist from Pepsi walking up to the chief chemist from Coke and saying, "hey, your product tastes pretty good! What exactly is in it?"

Trains

Lipstick

Remember when Sarah Palin told that story about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pit bull being lipstick?

Well, my bad. See, in that context I thought she was referring to herself as the hockey Mom side of the comparison.

Character Parity?

On the airwaves tonight, the pundits are somehow trying to equate the emerging nastiness of the campaign equally between the two Presidential candidates. One GOP operative warned that the nation needed to guard against a rival 'who used to hang out with terrorists back in the old days'. The reference was to Bill Ayers, who rose to prominence in the radical Weathermen organization in 1968.

At that time, Obama was seven years old. Can't imagine they hung out much.

Meanwhile, some are also trying to claim the Keating 5 reference to McCain is 'old news'. Unfortunately for all Americans, it is the freshest news possible--tying directly to the current meltdown of the economy. And the Obama campaign's 13 minute video should give every American pause--particularly those planning on casting a ballot for McCain.

The New Cheney

There have been numerous comparisons between the current GOP President and the GOP vice presidential candidate, e.g., "Palin is Bush with lipstick".

But I think the debate tonight proved a far more apt link between the woman who wants to be Veep and the guy who holds the job now.

Palin suggested that there is 'flexibility' in the Constitution to allow the vice president to hold more legislative power. She clearly confirmed that you won't be seeing her between now and election day interviewed anywhere she feels a 'mainstream media filter' threatens her well being. And she announced right at the outset that she may "not answer questions the way you or the moderator want".

You put this together and there is no mistaking the intent: she does not consider herself answerable to the American people.

We have an administration like that already. God save us if we get another one.

Economic Fundamentals

One of the subtle but pernicious memes with which the right wing has infected media discourse is the idea that 'economic fundamentals' are essentially synonymous with the stock markets . If the market goes up, times are good. If not...well, the free market is still our savior.

Politicians aren't immune from this faulty logic. When McCain was lambasted recently for saying that those fundamentals were still strong, he was probably right--in his limited definition. If you look at corporate profits, the amount of cash they're hoarding, and returns from private hedge funds--well, they were all at almost preposterous levels (although even the hedgers suffered once the meltdown began).

At the same time, the entire landscape looks different down here on the ground. Workers who have seen their real wages decline over the years...their benefits wither or die...while the price of necessities soars through the roof--well, somehow they aren't quite so satisfied.

As a whole, the media have not yet figured out how to tell the story of home foreclosures from the standpoint of those on whom the foreclosures are enforced. Instead, it's remained largely a Wall Street perspective of how those loans are threatening six and seven figure jobs...and not those of the people bound to make monthly mortgage payments. (For immediate evidence, please tune in the idiot known as Jim Cramer on MSNBC).

But there is one 'fundamental' that requires special attention. It is the much-loved 'worker productivity'. The ownership class likes to use this as a badge of good corporate oversight. In fact, it is instead a prime indication of the consistent corporate policy of putting shareholder concerns above employee welfare.

The precursor rationale was 'household income', which substantially leaped during the Reagan years. This was quickly submitted as proof of the wisdom of the first 'trickle down' economic policy (the same one properly labeled 'voodoo economics' by the elder Bush when he ran for President). And also, the same policy which its visionary, David Stockman, later renounced. But the real story behind this rise in household income was the average number of people gainfully employed in U.S. households. For that was the time when spouses were not only more readily allowed into the workforce...but declining economic circumstances forced most of them to get a job. The 'family values' crowd, that celebrates the secondary role of females and the primacy of 'child rearing', chooses to ignore the fact that St. Ronnie effectively killed the 'stay-at-home-Mom' option.

'Worker productivity' is the current offshoot. Corporate overlords would like to view increases here as signs that individual workers are simply being persuaded by gifted management techniques to work harder. In fact, it's a simple matter of average hours on the job increasing (most often with little or no increase in compensation). And this happens for a consistent reason--remaining workers are required to take on the tasks of former colleagues who have been 'downsized'. It's a simple mathematical equation--the same amount of work divided by fewer workers equals more productivity.

To finish the loop, those companies who best increase 'productivity' are rewarded with higher share prices...and higher compensation for executives. And until the next economic crisis, these companies collectively cause the stock markets to rise.

To some, this may sound like class warfare--the middle class challenging the monied class.

To that, I quote that noted war time hero, George W. Bush: "Bring 'em on".

Race Tracks

Opposition to the bailout plan among members of Congress was based on the assertion that the government shouldn't waste taxpayers' money.

In order to win sufficient passage in the House, members of the Senate added $126 million for construction for auto racing tracks. Certainly a logical step in a time when all agree we should be looking for ways to reduce fuel costs.

Speaks for itself.

Liberals

Writing in the New York Times today, Maureen Dowd recalled an interview with Paul Newman in which he proudly referred to himself as a 'liberal'.

How few of us there are left.

Many have hidden behind the new moniker, 'progressive', which has yet to be successfully eviscerated by the right.

Now, before moving on with 'liberal', it's necessary to talk for a minute about 'conservative'. At one time, there was a viable academic following for certain tenets that formed a 'conservative' school of thought and political movement in America. But history indicates that almost without exception, such belief systems are subsumed by a larger movement ironically fueled by both fear and hate. In modern American politics, it is the 'conservative' mindset exemplified by the Karl Roves, Tom DeLays and Sarah Palins. Meanwhile, people who think themselves 'original' conservatives--like John McCain--are delusional about what their cohorts really believe and want.

And the sharpest scalpel in their operating room is 'otherness'. If you can create a compelling devil, bias can prosper and power is yours. That's why a litany of lessers promoted by the right is so consistent. In America, we've been told we have to protect ourselves against 'women voters... blacks... unions... Commies... terrorists', and now, of course, liberals.

This is topical because declining McCain polls are making the right nuts, and they are reflexively resorting to liberal-hate at a new level. A columnist today at the right-wing National Review Online made a reasoned argument that the bailout is both ineffectual and un-American--a position I don't necessarily disagree with. But facing the problem of assessing its cause, he immediately went to a familiar source:

The liberal uses crises, real or manufactured, to expand the power of government at the expense of the individual and private property. He has spent, in earnest, 70 years evading the Constitution's limits on governmental power. If conservatives don't stand up to this, who will?

Where to start? Maybe with a few questions. Was it the liberals who ran the mortgage companies who made the bad loans? Liberals who made the decisions at the Wall Street investment banks to package them into phony derivatives? Liberals in the Bush Administration who failed to regulate them? Liberals at Treasury and the Fed who came up with the plan?

And in a larger context, did liberals steal Bush's soul and force him to invent the 'signing statement' that obscured or even reversed the intent of bills that Congress sent him? Did liberals start the tortures at Guantanamo...the illegal spying on U.S. citizens...the killing of 100,000 citizens in Iraq for no reason? Those damn liberals who 'expanded the power of government' to lead us to this dilemma? Right.

Republicans have controlled the House for 148 of the last 168 months. They have packed the Supreme Court with exactly the kind of ideologues they claim to despise. They have run the White House like a whore house for the last eight years.

So, let's get this straight. Liberals are the good guys. They always have been. Jesus was a liberal. The Founding Fathers were probably beyond liberal...in the eyes of King George, no doubt terrorists.

Paul Newman was right.

Websites

Once upon a time, about ten years ago, it was decided that every company on Earth needed its own website. They all look pretty much the same.

Then one company invented the best one ever.

Here's What I Don't Understand...

I start with the same proviso as everyone else looking at the bailout: "I'm not an economist, but..."

In honesty, what's happened the last two weeks I've been predicting for several years. I didn't see how it couldn't happen. What our economic engines were doing was creating credit with no assets behind it. Mortgage lenders were giving $200,000 mortgages to people with no possible ability to repay them. Pools of those mortgages were then combined and sold off for even more than the face value they supposedly represented. Institutions purchased portions of those mortgage pools with money they ostensibly had borrowed from someone else. A vicious circle of nothingness. The equivalent of printing money in your basement.

Now, there are no two people in the area of business and economics who I respect more than Warren Buffet and Paul Krugman. And each says America had no choice but to agree to a taxpayer bailout of whomever necessary to free up the flow of credit and keep the economy above water.

But here's what I don't understand. The problem was created by insufficient assets backing up credit. But America is no better off than any of those institutions or desperate homeowners. Our national debt is measured in the trillions already...we've financed our extravagant lifestyles for the last decade or more by selling IOUs to China and other foreign interests. In short, America already can not pay its bills. We are offering more nothingness.

So the problem of asset-less credit being solved by the invention of more asset-less credit works exactly how?

But, like I said, I'm no economist.

UPDATE: Someone saying what I was saying, but much more clearly...

2 Against 1

The most memorable candidates on this day of the first presidential debate weren't anywhere near the stage in Mississippi. While Obama and McCain effectively fought to a draw, it was their running mates who turned in performances which could well decide the election.

Palin, fresh from her disastrous wilting in front of lap dog Katie Couric, followed up with an impromptu exchange with reporters in which she again appeared unable to mouth anything but the same eight platitudes she repeated over and over again during her convention coming out party.

But it was Joe Biden, summarizing the debate during numerous television appearances, who put McCain in his place. In terms of experience, foreign policy expertise and gravitas, Biden simply erases any advantage McCain can claim. And his words also fixed a spotlight on the obvious strategy for his own debate with Palin on Thursday. Aside from pleasantries, he should simply ignore the fact that she's there. He doesn't have to worry about 'beating' her; she will very comfortably point the moose rifle at herself.

And as she does, it should be simply Biden vs. McCain. Toe to toe, jab to jab, this should be their fight. Two salty veterans of the Senate squaring off--even though one of them won't be present. Biden can leave the stage convincing America that his side has two people capable of running the country, while viewers can't help but conclude that the Republicans, at best, have one.

Cowardly Lions

A couple years ago, a book called The God Gene claimed that both the most devout of religious believers and the most fervent atheists carried a certain DNA marker that made their beliefs immutable. No matter how you argued with them, or for how long, there was simply no way to change their minds. It can't be done.

I believe this.

Now, there is news of a similar scientific study that attempted to determine whether there might be a genetic explanation for dispositions toward conservative or liberal beliefs. What they found supports my own observations of my family and friends: "People with strongly conservative views were three times more fearful than staunch liberals", after correcting for effects of age, gender, etc. I've always thought that the conservative affinity for rules, order, hierarchy, authority and even religion was rooted in simple fear. We need to protect ourselves from them.

This is hardly conclusive, and it's hard not to make this appear dogmatic. And I don't mean to say that a conservative disposition doesn't have a place. After all, turn back the clock to pre-historic times and imagine the cavemen who decided to sleep outside, saying to each other, 'Aw, don't worry, those dinosaurs aren't going to do us any harm'. If everyone had listened, none of us would be having this conversation today.

But at the same time, it was probably those same 'liberal' cavemen who decided one day to find out what was over the next hill...and eventually discovered the sea.

The scientist who conducted this concluded,
"...the study added to the growing research suggesting that over millions of years, humans have developed two cognitive styles -- conservative and liberal. Cautious conservatives prevented societies from taking undue risks, while more flexible liberals fostered cooperation.
For the species to survive, you need both."

So perhaps liberals dealing with conservatives just need to understand that they're afraid. And this might explain the need for Sarah Palin to run away from the American people. And the decision of John McCain today to run away from his first debate with Barack Obama.

Fear is in their nature.

Journalists: Ask Questions

Journalism may be the only profession where people get more stupid the higher they rise in the hierarchy.

In any case, they're not all fools. Some possess the brilliance to ask basic questions.

To that end, when it comes to considering the bailout, this former reporter explains exactly which are the right questions to ask.

Weeks and Months

Sensitive to criticism that the administration is trying to pull a $700 billion dollar fast one on the American public...assessing us another $10,000 per household debt before explaining exactly how it's going to help, a White House spokesman explained today that the plan has been formulated as a 'contingency' over 'previous months and weeks' by administration officials.

OK, so that would mean that Bush and Co. knew this was a problem for all that time, but never bothered letting the public know. And that as Bush and Paulson were assuring us that the 'fundamentals' of the economy were absolutely sound--no, wait a minute--DON'T TELL ME THEY LIED!

The Polls are Wrong

Of course they are. They always are. Even when they're right, it's by accident.

But how are they wrong?

Here are two popular and offsetting theories. First, racism. Who is going to state--or even imply--being a racist? To avoid any such consideration, people will often claim their intent to vote for the racial minority candidate just to avoid any such appearance. But when they get into the voting booth, there is no way to tell how they really voted. So, advantage McCain.

On the other hand, do you know someone who owns a cell phone...but no hard-wired home phone? I know at least three. Each is a devout Obama supporter. But 'the polls' are conducted by phone...only to people with land lines recorded in the phone book. So, possible advantage here for Obama.

The latest wrinkle is the finding that by a 2-1 margin, voters blame the Wall Street meltdown more on Republicans than Democrats. So that should give Obama a pretty good idea of how to campaign between now and election day.

But still anyone's guess whether all that can overcome his racial negative.

Ideas

How should the sinners help pay for their misdeeds?

Several very good ideas here.

Please Make Me Wrong...

Beginning in the Reagan administration, the process of 'deregulation' began selling off the assets and authority of the U.S. government to private interests. Much has gone to corporations and other private interests, and even more to foreign investors (particularly the Chinese) who underwrote our drunken spending on houses, SUVs and private school tuition.

The current fiscal meltdown, as painful as it is, at least gave some of us a semi-"I told you so" satisfaction, as the sinners were finally felled.

Now, the former head of Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, is in the driver's seat, taking $700 billion of our tax dollars (and those of future generations) and forwarding them to the sinners on Wall Street--for the moment with no strings attached.

If someone walked into your house, put a gun to your head and walked out with $7,000 of your dollars, what should happen to that person? Most would say he should be apprehended, made to pay back the money, and thrown in jail.

The sinners on Wall Street have done just that. Each of us now owes $7,000 because of what they've done. Will they be apprehended? No need. They're hiding in plain view. Will they be charged? Hardly. And they will never be led away in handcuffs, tossed in the clink or stand before a jury of U.S. citizens. Instead, they will be handsomely rewarded--with our money--for what they've done wrong.

I say let the bastards fail. All of them. Let them work for a living.

Ah, but Paulson says, 'no, that would be a catastrophe!'

OK, pal, I'm willing to take my chances. The country has lived through worse. Let us decide our future...not you and your criminal friends.

This is how revolutions begin.

Meltdown Detailed

For those with a greater appetite for understanding exactly what's happening, the Wall Street Journal has done a fine job describing the issue.

Indefensible

It would be difficult to find a publication doing a better job of explaining the current financial fiasco than the Financial Times. An excerpt from one of today's articles:

This will come to be seen as the greatest regulatory failure in modern history. The degree of leverage that these institutions took on is indefensible. The average large securities firm was leveraged 27 to one in mid-2007. They were not regulated by any prudential supervisor. In effect, they regulated themselves. The lack of transparency was stunning. Many big lenders did not disclose off-balance-sheet risks. In some cases, they did not understand these risks themselves. More fundamentally, we allowed a second, huge financial system to develop outside the normal banking network. It consisted of investment banks, mortgage finance companies and the like. It was unregulated, not transparent and way too leveraged. But with nine separate and mostly ineffective financial regulators, these risks were ignored. That is, until this second system crashed.

Employee Contribution

The Financial Times ran a story today analyzing the contributions made to a company on a per employee basis. They noted that each Nintendo full time employee is contributing approximately $1.6 million to the bottom line, even more than other standouts including Goldman Sachs and Google.

But the value of this calculation is using it as a marker against Lehman Brothers, when it filed for bankruptcy yesterday. With total debt of $613 billion spread across its 25,000 employees, each of those former highly compensated workers was personally responsible for $24,500,000 in debt.

This is the what happens when a nation's best and brightest financiers are left to do business without regulation.

'Obama Should Attack!'

OK, but how?
Joe Biden has an answer. Maybe even a perfect answer.
Just tell the truth about McCain and his record in D.C.

Who Melted Wall Street?

By now everyone in America has heard the king of all McCain lies--that somehow he and his band of merry lobbyists would clean up the mess on Wall Street that they begat.
Central to the deception is Phil Gramm, shill of the financial markets during his years in Congress, and until recently a key financial advisor to McCain on all matters economic. As this article proves, Gramm more than any other politician greased the skids for a wild, entirely unregulated 'swaps' market that led to the meltdown we're seeing today.

Oh brother

As Thomas Frank points out so clearly, the underlying goal of political conservatives is 'to get less government in business and more business in government'. That's the credo of the Bush administration.

And this is what happens...

Third Party Candidate

It was Perot in 1992, then Nader in 2000--third party candidates who may have decided the eventual outcomes of elections in which they never had a chance.

This year we're witnessing the impact of the most powerful, but unrecognized third party candidate in history--one who may single-handedly decide the next President. His name is racism.

Here is my belief--utterly unscientific, unsubstantiated, and based entirely on instincts I developed not by living in Seattle, but in the big city and small town atmospheres of the 'heartland'. I believe that 10 to 12 percent of U.S. voters will punch McCain's name simply because they could never support the idea of a black man as President. They may not dislike Obama himself; but they would never contribute to the further dissolution of their 'way of life'. Chip in another percent or two representing radical Christians who think any person with a middle name Hussein must constitute a threat to their religious freedom and you wind up with one in seven voters who march uncontested into the McCain column.

Why are the polls so close? Easy. If Obama is trending ahead 49-35 among non-racist, non-religious wacko voters--which seems entirely plausible to me--folding back in that one-seventh segment levels the race at dead even.

Two-against-one may not be fair, but that's what Obama faces.

Who's Authentic?

There are people--millions of them, probably--still shaking their heads over the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Sure, all of his failures weren't as painfully obvious as they are today, but still, the majority of Americans could see the guy really wasn't up to the job, right?

Right.

OK. So how, then, did he wind up loitering in the West Wing for another four years?

The answer, I think, is understanding the nature of modern elections in the Era of Rove. It isn't about issues--the Democrats actually had the advantage there according to the responses to polling in both 2000 and 2004. (Of course, Gore actually did win in 2000, both in the popular and electoral votes, but the point is it never should have been that close). It can't be about 'war heroes'--both Gore and Kerry shutout Bush on that score. Experience? No one seriously believed Bush's part-time job as Governor of planet Texas came close to the Vice Presidency of Gore or the long-time Senatorship of Kerry.

Observers who say the mad genius of Rove is simply attacking an opponent's strength are close to the truth, but it's a little more nuanced than that. You can't attack a strength that's indisputable--for example, if some woman will cast her vote just because Palin is also a woman, you can't very well argue Palin's a man. The point of attack isn't just 'strength'--it's authenticity.

That's really the watchword of our time--who, and what, is 'authentic'? Al Gore is incredibly smart, and not just on environmental issues. Smarter than almost anyone...and obviously, smarter than Bush. But if you can raise suspicions about a rival's authenticity, then strengths can be discounted and almost anything can be believed. 'Gore says he invented the Internet'--wasn't true. 'Gore claims he was the role model for Love Story'--wasn't true. Gore 'is obsessing over changing his wardrobe to earth tones'. Yeah...that was probably top of mind. The point was to paint Gore, no matter what his obvious talents and advantages, as a liar...a bragger...a dandy--someone who wasn't authentic, even to himself.

Of course, half a million more Americans still voted for him, but that didn't prevent Rove from making it close enough so it was thrown to the Supreme Court and the East German judges, or whomever it was that overturned the will of the people.

By the time Kerry stood to run, he was already road kill. Same tactic. The guy's a certified war hero? Nope--'he threw his medals overboard. He's a faux hero'. No matter that this, also, wasn't true...it gave doubters a reason to turn their backs.

But what did they turn toward? Well...in a word...authenticity. George W. Bush was the landslide winner as 'guy you'd like to have a beer with'. The screwup. The dropout. The maybe-deserter. He may have been flawed...even fatally flawed...but at least he was an authentic loser. He seemed true to himself...even if he was eventually proven not to be telling the truth.

If you doubt the power of authenticity, you need look no further than Sarah Palin. Whatever her flaws...whatever issues she embraces that you may oppose...whatever failings she may have exhibited as a wife or Mother (after all, someone wasn't around to monitor the after school entertainment of young miss Bristol)--it all could matter less. If she can only maintain the narrative that she's just got the same challenges and frustrations as any family, then she's a powerful engine for the McCain ticket, one that could power it to victory.

And there's one more important benefit to this strategy. The 'just like me' positioning of C students like Bush and Palin opens the opportunity to push the bias against 'elitists'. The 'best and the brightest' are seen as lacking--they're just too smart. (As Jon Stewart said, 'don't you want someone who's elite in that job?'). This is the argument against Obama. He may be better than you and me...but he's not like you and me. He wouldn't hang with our kind...he's not like our kind...so how could he be authentic in a way that we can relate to? Don't trust him.

All this leads to a sensible strategy for the Obama camp in the remaining weeks of the campaign, and particularly during the debates. They have choices. What they might do--mistakenly--is take the entire concept of 'attack' off the table. Or they may decide to attack the wrong things. Like positions on issues. Or qualifications: if someone contends that Governor trumps Senator, you're not going to convince them otherwise. Or arguments that simply can't be decided, like one's devotion to country, or the degree of care and devotion intended for a Down syndrome infant.

What's open for Obama...almost ridiculously so...is attacking the authenticity of both McCain and Palin.

McCain needs to answer this: "you've voted with Bush more than 90% of the time, including his measures to gift more tax breaks to the oil companies...to deny adequate benefits to war veterans like yourself...to support forms of torture you once said you opposed. Your campaign is run by the same lobbyists you promise to banish. How does this record support your contention of 'change'?"

Palin needs to answer this: "In your brief tenure in the public eye, you've already been proven a liar about things as serious as opposing the 'bridge to nowhere', and as inconsequential as firing the Alaska state chef, or selling the governor's jet on eBay. What aspects of lying do you believe will be beneficial to you and the American public as Vice President--or even President?"

What Rove intends is to shelter his clients from attacks on their authenticity, while again attacking frontally with the same weapon. It's up to the people who populate the media, and particularly the panels on the debates, to make sure these posers face the same sword they wield against their opponents.

But asking those media people to be 'authentic' journalists...speaking truth to power...is not their strong suit.

Obama must attack...but only authenticity.

Free Market

Of all the words that send cold fear surging through your heart--terrorist, kidnapper, rapist, suicide bomber--none should cower you more than this: "free market".

As a wise man once said, "when you hear someone say 'free market', immediately duck and cover your wallet".

What Wall Street wants is a market that's free of interference and regulation when things are moving up...but no one puts their hands out faster or further then those same people suddenly called on to face the implosions resulting from their own greed and incompetence.

This may sound simplistic, but consider what the government has done with your tax dollars to prevent the markets from operating freely:

• 2001: $15b bailout of the airline industry
• 2008: $29b bailout of Bear Stearns
• 2008: estimated $200b bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

And today, sensing that the wellspring of kindness might be running dry, the auto industry is rushing to beg $50b from Washington so that their insistence on burning as much fossil fuel as possible over the last 50 years might be forgiven as a slight oversight.

Of course, you could add to all this the $576b spent to date on the Iraq War, since the main beneficiaries of that blunder are the for-profit military contractors closest to the Bush Administration. That unprovoked invasion may prove to be the largest disguised infusion ever of public funding into private pockets.

So, hold firm to your beliefs, whether a prayer for 'heavenly intervention' or a faith in 'small town values'. But if someone comes within 100 feet of you offering a friendly 'free market' smile, head for the cellar and lock up the kids.

Because our kids will be the ones ultimately called on to pay for the mass delusion of our time.

Deconstructing Sarah

Now that the party of misogyny has done the requisite back flips, outraged that Sarah Palin could be questioned about her 'fitness' to be both Mother and VP, why not ask her a simple straightforward question: if you are elected, will you family move with you to D.C.?

This may seem silly, but remember this is the same hokey (oops, sorry, that should be 'hockey') Mom who left her family 800 miles behind in Wasilla when she took sole possession of the governor's office in Juneau.

Not that it mattered...not that her Iron Dog husband or 'extended family' would let her teen aged daughter run off and get pregnant or anything while she was away.

But I'd like to hear the answer just the same.

Who's Your Daddy?

Throughout modern history, the Republicans have promoted themselves as the 'daddy party', the people who would best protect Americans in times of peril. So it was a gift from heaven that after taking office, and fully ignoring all signs and warnings concerning al Qaeda, the GOP was able to transform the 9/11 disaster they helped enable into an enduring asset for that military deserter, George W. Bush. Hey, you take what's given.

The logical heir to this mantle was John McCain, a man whose instincts may indeed be honorable, but whose resolve (Hanoi Hilton-induced or otherwise), is sorely lacking. He can talk the talk, but never walks the walk. He is the ultimate paradox--the war hero who wound up with the personal character of a quisling.

Into this breach tonight marched Sarah Palin, striding confidently to the podium in Minneapolis. The party held its breath. Would she be able to maintain composure...even remain upright...under the rigor of delivering a scathing speech that had been authored weeks before for whomever McCain chose?

The answer was a resounding yes. Not only did she deliver, but she relished the very lines that any vice president is assigned...the ones that would 'tear the face off' the opposing presidential candidate. There was no need to rise to a challenge. She was already in her element.

From the moment the spin doctors decided their response to criticism of the Palin nomination, the game plan has been comically transparent. Every GOP spokesperson would challenge questions about Palin's qualifications by comparing them to Obama's. If you can make the battle your VP against their presidential candidate, you have won the fight. Because your presidential contender then rises above the level of that face off. He stands alone. From the perspective of pure argument, the strategy is nearly foolproof.

Nearly.

But now, there will be a new battle for the GOP to fight. McCain himself...the queen of flip-floppers...the 'hero' who decided to surrender to the attacks on his family that made his own wife weep in 2000...the man who felt 'manly' by viciously attacking the teen aged child of the Clintons--that coward must now step onto the same stage to prove himself not the equal of Obama...but of Palin. Because as of now, the pants in the GOP family are worn by Palin.

The war hero...the darling of the media...the driver of the Straight Talk Express...must now prove himself to be the pilot of his own ticket. The question could come to vex Republicans--exactly who's your Daddy?

Full Circle

From the Grapes of Wrath to the seminal TV documentary Harvest of Shame, Americans in the 20th century initially were conditioned to connect poverty and associated family disorders with white sharecroppers. These were the 'poor working families' laboring within the most abundant and prosperous nation on Earth. Most who watched were touched; overall, few cared enough to act. In any case, we understood that the poor and suffering came from the coal mines of Appalachia and the barren fields of Oklahoma.

By the 70's, poverty literally had taken on a new face--a black one.

The crowning achievement of this transformation was Ronald Reagan's adoption of the 'welfare queen' as a staple of his 1976 presidential campaign. Not only had white become black, but in the process pity turned to scorn.

His mythical foil was a woman on the southside of Chicago who invented 80 aliases, 30 addresses and 12 Social Security cards to bilk the government out of $150,000. (In actuality, the person to whom he apparently referred used two aliases to collect $8,000. No matter--the impression congealed). The algebra of the stereotype was settled: poor=black=lazy=waster of your tax dollars. This perfect recipe for a 'southern strategy' would help award Reagan two terms in the White House, and leave conservative politicians wondering, 'how could it get any better than this?'

Well actually, there was one more tasty ingredient to add--sexual promiscuity. As the enemy 'welfare queen' became 'welfare mother', there were even more to resent--not just the single mothers, but all of their 'illegitimate' children, as well.

Now, I interrupt myself to state that there clearly is a problem with unwed mothers, with fathers who desert their families, and how both conspire against children left with a woefully insufficient family structure. And yes, some of these people are black. If not, black fathers as diverse as Bill Cosby and Barack Obama would not be challenging all their counterparts to do their parts.

Unfortunately, no matter how accurate, these criticisms also helped perpetuate the stereotype. 'Poor' and all its associated depictions remained so radioactive that even the Democrats decided to excise the word from their convention vocabulary. 'Middle class' sounds so much safer. And so, all seemed happy in Conservativeville.

But when an earthquake approaches, sooner or later you're going to feel the temblors beneath your feet.

First, it was that damn Bill Clinton--of all people!--pushing welfare reform through Congress. Republicans howled that he 'stole their issue!' In reality, he just reduced the equation. Now that most of those 'poor' people could be proven to be working, 'lazy' and 'welfare' had to be removed. No matter, 'black' and 'promiscuous' still remained--a potent brew if there ever was one! On any summer night, at a million suburban barbecues across America, you could find the already satisfied further satisfying themselves that, as I've heard more than once, 'those people will keep just keep churning out kids--there's nothing you can do!'

Occasionally, a voice would suggest that yes, actually, there were things that might be done. Alas, by that time the church ladies of the far right had crashed the GOP party, tut-tutting that the one thing they would not put up with was abortion. It mattered not whether the 'problem' of unwed motherhood might be reversed by a simple surgical procedure--no dice. We want those babies to be born. Oh yeah, by the way, no contraceptives either. God decides when pregnancy occurs!

By then, the social conservatives had tied themselves in a rhetorical knot--you don't want to 'pay for all those black welfare babies', but at the same time you're refusing to take any steps to prevent them. Unquestionably, a fig leaf (figuratively and metaphorically) was required. And so they invented one called 'abstinence'.

And that became the call of the not-so-wild. They shall pledge to stay chaste, and we will work to use abstinence not only to augment, but in some cases even replace actual knowledge of human reproduction being taught in our schools. Our girls will be saved (at least the white ones from 'good' families escorted by their fathers to creepy 'purity balls'). This must be God's compromise.

And then the results started pouring in. First, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears announces she's preggers--and looks pretty darned happy about it. Then news comes of the 'pregnancy club' among 17-year-olds in Gloucester, Mass.--a suburb that's 97% white. The latest statistics show that teen births have jumped 3%, the first increase in 14 years, and that births to unmarried women of any age are at a record high. Wherefore art thou, abstinence?

And now, finally, the national celebration of the pregnancy of unmarried, 17-year-old Bristol Palin. No one dare call that child-to-be 'illegitimate'! Suddenly, 'unwed mothers' aren't all black. They embody problems that 'affect all families'. And they aren't necessarily the result of 'broken homes'--unless you expand the definition to include mothers whose governor's mansion is 800 miles away from where her teen aged daughters live.

When sexual promiscuity involves our daughters, no longer is it wasteful, wanton, or even black. Welcome to the new world of 'moral depravity, of 'spiritual poverty'. Guess what--it's white, too!

We have come full circle.

Argument

Aristotle explained that all arguments devolve to one of three forms: blame, values or choices. For example, when a Mom complains to her teen, "I told you twice yesterday to clean up your room and you didn't move a muscle. I can't imagine how anyone could be such a slob. I'll tell you one thing--if that room isn't spotless by tomorrow night, you're not going to that party, do you understand me?" In one neat package, she has covered all three.

But the parlor trick in Aristotle's simple analysis is the added dimension of time frame: blame is about the past, values about the present, and choices about the future.

The Democratic convention, despite the hope (future tense) represented by Obama, was really all about the past. With a target as large as George Bush, it was a rhetorical no-brainer to repeat his litany of failures, and attempt to tie John McCain to the blame. (While ironic that Bush and McCain do not get along, and squared off personally as enemy combatants in 2000, McCain's 90%+ voting record in support of Bush gives the connection intellectual weight).
The Republicans, quite understandably, have tried to move the argument along to the present tense...to values. McCain's claims of 'honor' and 'country before self interest' are attempts to both say what his is...and draw a contrast to his depiction of Obama as some sort of self-absorbed 'celebrity'. But the, "here's who I am / here's who he is" framing of the present tense fell all but flat on Thursday when Obama conclusively defined himself to 38 million viewers. Love him or loathe him, it would be hard for many of those watching to any longer claim they 'really don't know who he is'.

At that moment it was difficult to understand exactly how McCain could be rescued from his personal precipice, facing in a matter of days a convention of his own to command. How could he possibly respond?

And then...just like a scene out of an old Western...in rode Hurricane Gustav to the rescue.
First, it gave the necessary cover for Bush and Cheney to skip the Minneapolis trip altogether. As the New York Times reported in a lengthy article in its magazine section over the weekend, "Bush will be ushered out of the spotlight as quickly as possible"--all the better to minimize the blame game of the past. Now, the Gulf Coast wind and rain have delivered an official excused absence.

But what would appear a larger gambit may come to pass in a couple of days, if and when McCain decides to address his own convention by satellite, from the scene of his battle with Gustav. Strategically, this is brilliant. It would allow the smaller man, with a smaller message and a smaller audience, to step squarely away from any direct comparison with the tour de force Obama delivered in Denver.

But beyond that, it could also move McCain's argument away from values, and right into a future of choices. He would appear to already be delivering on his promise to put honor in front of self-interest. He would represent a tomorrow of action rather than words. Never mind that he would have no more official standing in the Gulf Coast region than your pet cat, and by the time of his arrival could have no impact on crisis response.

What he would have accomplished is a considerable feat of political jujitsu, throwing off the yoke of Bush, sidestepping the colossus that is Obama, and at least momentarily shifting the argument from past recriminations to an imagined future of better choices.