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.