My New Year’s Resolutions

Posted December 30, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Be It Resolved:

1. That George W. Bush experience at least five (5) seconds of true, unfiltered, undefended, unmediated insight into his own character and the consequences of his actions. And that, once that period passes, its effects remain and haunt him for the rest of his life, impervious to his escalating (and futile) pursuit of drink, drugs, and Jesus.

2. That Dick Cheney, on or before March 1, 2009, become lost on a duck hunting expedition, be last seen wandering deeper into an uncharted swamp, and never be heard from again. And that no ducks be harmed in the enactment of this resolution.

3. That David Addington and John Yoo be kidnapped and water-boarded for video distribution on You Tube, and then released unharmed. Still dripping wet.

4. That Rush Limbaugh be the featured personality of one of those hideous conservative cruises. And that the ship be blown off course, founder, and sink. And that everyone–passengers, crew, Limbaugh–be washed ashore on an uncharted island. And that, after help fails to arrive and death by hunger threatens, everyone realize that, by banding together, they can overcome and consume Limbaugh. And that, while they are doing so, Limbaugh accuse them with his dying breath of “implementing socialism.” And that this act enable them to survive until help arrives an hour later. And that all survivors, newly appreciative of the power of group co-operation, return to the U.S. and become the kernel of a new American Social Democratic Party.

5. That Alan Colmes run into Sean Hannity at a party. And that Hannity utter provocative and disrespectful things to Colmes. And that Colmes, possibly but not necessarily drunk, pop Hannity in the kisser, precipitating a fistfight in which Colmes mops the floor with Hannity to the amusement and applause of all present. And that Hannity spend the rest of his life trying to convince others, and himself, that the results were otherwise, that he “took a dive,” that he “felt sorry for Alan,” etc., even as everyone–interlocutors, family members, the crew of his television show, and so on–laugh openly.

6. That Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, and Dennis Prager be abducted by aliens, examined (non-invasively) on the alien mother ship, be deemed (to echoing rounds of the alien equivalent of derisive laughter) undesirable as specimens, and returned to Earth. And that they each spend the rest of their (vastly abbreviated) careers proclaiming to all who will listen that “this really happened.”

7. That Karl Rove be indicted on some pretext, and assured of a token sentence in a minimum-security facility in exchange for his plea of “guilty.” That he so plead. And then that there occur “some foul-up” resulting in his incarceration among the general population of a state prison, for years, while continually being reassured that it will all be straightened out any day now, which it never be.

8. That Rachel Maddow decide that she might be bi-sexual after all, and come live with me and my wife.

9. That everyone–Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, non-voters, children, and household pets–get what they deserve.

10. That, failing all the above, you and yours and me and mine have a Happy damn New Year, at least. NB: I have never known whether “Happy New Year” means that the entire year be happy, or just the arrival of January 1st be a happy occasion. You decide.

Huckabee: Bleatin’ Good in the Neighborhood

Posted December 1, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Lately I’d begun to worry that the victory of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party would bring an end to the sort of right-wing rhetorical shamelessness we’ve come to depend on for amusement and diversion.

I feared–silly me–that the thought-buffoons of the right would either skulk back into the shadows from which they had emerged, never to be heard from again, for a while; or, alternatively, admit their error, make suitable acts of contrition, and go forth to display unbelievable intellectual dishonesty no more. Our national discourse would be healthier, yes, but our national laugh-life would suffer.

How wrong we can be. Here, from barely a week ago, is Mike Huckabee (universally lauded as “America’s Relatively Sane Religious Nut”) claiming to fellow-blowhard William “The Gambler” Bennett that California’s Proposition 8 “did not ban gay marriage.”

To something like that, the usual rejoinders (“Nonsense!” “Sophistry!” “Bullshit!”) just won’t do. As the Think Progress site which hosts the clip shows, the ballot text itself denominates the measure with the not-that-ambiguous words “ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.”

But the Huckster has his own take on it. “I refuse to use the term, ‘ban same-sex marriage,’” he announces in tones of sturdy defiance–the same ones that many of our top Republicans use to ward off reality. “That’s not what those efforts did. They affirmed what is. They did not prohibit something. They simply affirmed that which already has and forever has existed.”

Will you be shocked to learn that Bill Bennett can be heard chirping what sounds like approval and agreement? Me, neither.

Parody-wise, this kind of fingers-in-ears/nyah-nyah/I’m-not-listening makes its own gravy. Still, it’s worth a try. Thus, when Huckabee says that a law that explicitly prohibits X does not prohibit X, but instead “affirms” anti-X, it’s like saying that the Volstead Act affirmed traditional standards of sobriety, or that the proscription against murder (from the world-famous Ten Commandments) does not so much ban killing as it affirms traditional modes of being alive.

This “affirmation” scam is not only technically inaccurate (given the title of the measure), but it’s logically dishonest and therefore morally debased. It is one thing to affirm that marriage “has and forever has been” between a man and a woman. No one would argue with that. And, having agreed with it, those in favor of gay marriage would add, “…although this state of affairs has and forever has been unfair and discriminatory. This is something we now propose to remedy. We want to expand the possibilities of marriage to include other members of society.”

But Huckabee and others who oppose gay marriage aren’t interested in historical observations of customary behaviors. (And you don’t need a state constitutional amendment to take note of them.) The good, decent folks who voted Yes on Eight do in fact want to institute a ban. How do we know? Because the law says so, in so many words.

One wonders why Huckabee bothers, then, with this silly and easily-refuted claim. Why not tell the world that traditional Christianity is openly hostile to homosexuals and adamantly opposes their right to marry?

For the same reason that prompted the first half of Huckabee’s (likewise bogus) quote, the one that goes, “The very people who voted for Barack Obama in California…also voted to sustain traditional marriage.” (Yes, “sustain.” As though gays getting married would, through some unexplained Bad Gay Juju, “destroy” traditional marriage. This idea doesn’t really stand up to rational consideration, but then, neither does much else about traditional religion. So let’s not “go there.”)

It seems to make superficial sense: Obama won, Prop 8 won, so they both must have been supported by the same people. Huckabee would have us believe that it’s Democratic and even liberal to ban gay marriage, although of course it’s not a question of “banning” so much as affirming that not-having-it is traditional, and so not-having-it should be enshrined in the state’s constitution.

Except that his reading of the Yes on Eight votes is wrong. As wunderkind poll star Nate Silver says at fivethirtyeight.com:

Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California’s black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

So: blatantly dishonest on “ban,” and a font of disinformation on the voters, to Bill Bennett on the radio. Why?

Huckabee, we recall fondly, ran for President. We are led to believe that he intends to run again. He must surely be wondering, Why look for trouble? Why risk alienating voters when you don’t have to? Why be all negative-y and bigot-ish and against something, when you can just as easily be for its absence?

O those Republican pols: they’ve still Got It. From Kristol to Noonan to Brooks, from Romney to Giuliani to Huckabee: they will always be with us, and so will their deadpan disingenuousness, their cheery demagoguery, their pseudo-expert revisionism, their special pleading, their myths, their p.r., their fantasies, their lies.

Obama hasn’t even been inaugurated, and the campaign for 2012 has begun. As Dominick Dunne said when O.J. Simpson announced that he would spend the rest of his life searching for his wife’s real killer: Let’s watch!


The Shock of the Newt

Posted November 18, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , ,

Newt Gingrich–nothing if not opportunistic, and never one to decline an invitation to pontificate–gives Bill O’Reilly a serious warning. Can you guess the danger about which Gingrich is so desperately concerned?

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank — for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they’re the opposite, of what you’re taught in Sunday school.

This, remember, is in response to O’Reilly’s recitation of a string of unspeakable, or maybe semi-speakable, atrocities: a woman “getting a cross smashed out of her hand,” a church “invaded” by gay activists, a man being fired. If you had Bill O’Reilly’s delicate sensibility you’d think it presaged the collapse of civilization, too.

So Newt bravely sounds the alarm. What is it, about which these “secular extremists” are “prepared to use violence” to attain? What is it that they are “prepared to use the government” to impose on the Sunday-school-going rest of us? Forced socialization of the means of production? Universal imposition of atheism? Criminalization of Judeo-Islamo-Christian forms of monotheistic worship?

They want to get married.

And not even to us (which would be awkward, embarrassing, and in many cases bigamous, however much of an opportunity it would offer to…you know…those types to plan a wedding, “help” the caterer, and pick out flower arrangements). They want to get married to each other.

There are several things to behold with wonder in this quote from the man whom The Saturday Evening Post, if it existed, would call “either out of his mind or a calculating liar.” One is the explicit encouragement it offers, to religious bigots and other troglodytes, to regard “secular” (i.e., real world) society as its enemy and as a threat to its existence.

Yes, Newt “I’m A Teacher” Gingrich is saying, the fact that gays and lesbians want to get married to each other means that they want to destroy everybody else’s marriages, beliefs, institutions, and lives.

At least, this quote seems to suggest that. It’s hard to be sure. When Gingrich says, “If you believe in historic Christianity,” what–in his quasi-professorial, semi-erudite, pompous-nudnik way–is he saying? What does “historic Christianity” mean? Is he alluding to a belief in Christianity’s existence, as one does or doesn’t believe in Santa Claus as existing historically?

Same with “If you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism.” How are we to pass the quiz if the lecture is so unclear?

These questions have a two-part answer:

ONE: It doesn’t matter what he means. He’s the same intellectually vain gasbag he was back when Clinton was in office.

TWO: He really does (probably) mean, If you’re a Christian, or a Moslem, or a Jew. But he tacks the words “the historic version” onto it to remind Bill-O and the rest of us that he, Prof. Gingrich, is a professor. Or whatever he is.

So much for the messenger’s semantics. What about the message?

The message is beneath contempt, and is a sort of demagoguery-lite intended to keep the Newtmeister’s stock as high as he can manage among the foamingly self-righteous and the devoutly, proudly stupid. If he really believes that gays campaigning for the right to marry are “a very dangerous threat” to straight society, then either he doesn’t know any gays, or he doesn’t know any straight people.

If he really perceives gays and lesbians as a monolithic, radical political force bent on the destruction of all the “values” he and his credulous followers hold dear; and if he thinks that no gay or lesbian is a practicing Christian, Moslem, or Jew, then he’s every bit as provincial and ignorant as the people he purports to instruct.

But I don’t think he believes those things. I think he’s just peddling the same hard-right “culture war” baloney he’s been selling since he arrived, with Whoopie Cushions blaring, on the national scene back in whenever-it-was.

After all, what else does he have to get excited about? His president, his party, his pals, and his policies have been beaten with the strap and sent to their room. Appeals to the twelve sane, intelligent Republicans across the land went unheeded. Ten of them voted for Obama and the other two stayed home and, like sensible conservatives, drank heavily.

So Newt pushes “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country.” Never mind what “fascism” really means, or that conflating “gay” and “secular” is at best sloppy and at worst dishonest. Never mind that the implicit content of this little aria is, as he knows full well, a signal to the army of the pious, that “the fags are out to destroy you. Better get ‘em first.”

Oh, and never, ever mind the fact that it’s that constituency, the religious right, who for years (read: centuries) has sought, with maximum self-righteousness, to impose their “series of values” on everyone else. From the Inquisition to the Salem witch trials, from Prohibition to the “pro-life” clinic bombings, from the 2004 platform of the Texas Republican Party (“The Republican Party of Texas affirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation …”) to the Mormons’ financial onslaught in favor of California’s Proposition 8: when you’re looking for a group of good, decent folk that wants to “impose its will on the rest of us,” look nor further than the corner church.

Of course, it’s possible that Newt Gingrich really does believe the proposition that the more gays are able to marry, the less straight people will want to do so. How’s that for comedy gold? “I do love you. And I do want to get married. But two guys in Encino did last week, so forget it.”

Memo to Gingrich: How about walking the walk, bro? They just legalized gay marriage in Connecticut. When are you going to file for divorce? On principle.

A Letter to John McCain from the Office of God

Posted November 3, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , ,

(NOTE: Once again, a sequence of words has appeared in my mind seemingly of their own accord, prompting me to conclude that, for second time, I have been selected by God (or, in this case, His assistant) to convey a message to someone here on Earth. I reproduce them below. E.W.)

Dear Senator McCain:

If it please you, the Lord (From Whom All Blessings Flow) conveys His most divine and sincere apology for not writing you Himself. He (Than Whom There is No Other God) is presently occupied with composing a Writ of Holy Judgment for Mr. George W. Bush, and is finding the task of adequately summing up the past eight terrestrial years to be, as He (To Whom All Praise is Due) puts it, “a challenge even unto My abilities, resources, and omniscience.”

As someone who has attempted to distance himself from the actions and positions of Mr. Bush, yea, even after two terms of all-but-complete fealty to his program and projects, you can, I am sure, appreciate the Lord’s dilemma. There is scarcely an aspect of American life, from the most purely abstract (such as the definition of words such as “torture” and “science”) to the most fundamentally concrete (the prosecution of war) that has not been directly influenced and affected by Mr. Bush and his administration. No wonder God (Blessed be He and Blessed be His Name) has His Right-Hand, as well as His Left-Hand, full.

Therefore He has asked me to “drop you a line” detailing some of the topics He intends to discuss with you after November 4, including certain aspects of your recent behavior that have deeply disturbed and concerned Him.

As others (such as, for example, Mr. Ellis Weiner, of whose mind and computer I have taken the liberty of availing myself for this communication) have said more eloquently than I, you have, over the past year, systematically rejected, betrayed, and turned your back upon every single principle for which you so famously and admirably stood during the past decade. An incomplete list of these violations would, alas, include the facts that:

- Having experienced torture firsthand and announced your opposition to its use, you nonetheless supported the Military Commissions Act, which granted the President the right and ability to decide, on his own, which of the Geneva Accords did and did not apply to the U.S. This, as you were well aware, tacitly enabled the C.I.A. to conduct “waterboarding” and God (BBHABBHN)-knows-what other torturous interrogation techniques.

- Having undergone the scurrilous smearing of yourself and your family during a previous election, you hired the very people who traduced you in order to visit the same treatment–which you previously denounced and deplored–upon your opponent.

- Having (properly) condemned right-wing religious blowhards and bigots, you came to court them openly and praise them unto their (vile, deceitful) face.

- Having said, over and over, that your “first criteria” for selecting a Vice-President was that he or she be able to “take your place” immediately as President, you then chose someone who a) cannot accurately define even what it is that a Vice-President does, b) believes that living “next door” to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, c) openly mocks intelligence and accomplishment as “elitist” and d) apparently imagines that we are currently at war with Iran.

You are, I am informed by the Supreme Authority Himself, not responsible for the things Sarah Palin says. Is not, in this respect, His mercy a thing of everlasting beauty? But you are, He bids me remind you, responsible for having chosen her, and defended her nonsensical utterances, and asserted that she “knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.”

I myself can attest that, at this and similar absurd statements, the angels weep. (Most of them. The cherubim and the seraphim find this woman, and your defense of her, quite risible and laugh almost without cease.)

Meanwhile, the topic of Sarah Palin and the ultimate disposition of her soul remains, to the deep regret of God Himself (Glory unto Him in the Highest), unresolved. While He (in His Inexpressible Perfection) has communicated with her in this very forum, nonetheless He has, for reasons which surpasseth understanding, not heard back from her. Perhaps she believes she has once again been “punked.” To equate the jest of two Canadian wise-guys with the edict of the Almighty–O wicked daughter of Eve! But I exceed my authority here and will say no more on this matter.)

As noted above, the Lord (may His Name be Exalted and Blessed Forever and Ever) will make Himself available unto you as of or shortly after November 5, at which time He will be able to expand upon and render in greater detail His thoughts concerning the above-mentioned issues. There is no need to pray for an appointment. He will find you.

Finally, in closing, permit me to say that God (Who shall Reign Forever and Ever) and I managed to see your performance on Saturday Night Live this past weekend. You, if I may so express myself, “killed.”

Yours truly,

Uriel (Arch.)

Cc God
Jesus Christ

A Letter to Sarah Palin from God

Posted October 31, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , ,

NOTE: The following words occurred to me, seemingly out of nowhere, in the innermost recesses of the mind of my brain. I can only conclude that they came from God. I present them, therefore, not as a “writer” but as a medium, a messenger transmitting the divine text and converting it, as best I can, from a mode of pure thought into the publicly-accessible form of the written word. E.W.

Dear Sarah:

I would ask, “How are you, child?” but for two things. One, who knows better than I, Who Am That I Am, how you are? And two, my purpose in communicating with you here is not to ask how you are, but to tell you how you are.

You are a disappointment to Me, Sarah.

You seem to think, as do many of your co-religionists, that what you profess to believe–and, indeed, what you may actually in fact believe–is more important than what you do. You seem to be under the impression that advertising an ardent belief in Me (or Us, if you prefer) absolves you of any responsibility to act in accordance with what you know–or, at least, what you should know–constitute My values and precepts.

The list of your transgressions is extensive, and includes:

- That, while you know full well My admonition to Love Thy Neighbor, you spread calumny and derision about half of the population, presuming to declare who is and who is not “the real America.”

- That, while you are fully aware of My Commandment forbidding you to bear false witness, you utter lies and deceptions on a routine basis, verily, you seem unable to speak publicly without lying. You have lied about opposing the Bridge to Nowhere; you have lied about firing the librarian and police chief of Wasilla; you have lied about your previous statements regarding climate change; you have lied about Alaska’s contribution to your nation’s oil and gas production; you have lied about Barack Obama’s position regarding habeas corpus; you have lied about your use of a TelePrompter at the Republican convention; and in manifold other ways have you lied, and lied, and lied.

- That, while you are entirely acquainted with My intention to bestow upon Man dominion over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, yet you play fast and loose and get cute with, and otherwise wink at, the danger posed to all living creatures (including Man) by climate change; and you profess to be unsure as to whether these perils are caused by Man, while all reputable study affirms this analysis beyond dispute.

- That, while you are surely acquainted with My Son’s admonition that you “beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye,” yet you persist in criticizing Obama’s (modest, progressive) taxation plans as constituting “socialism,” and abjure it as an evil, whilst never acknowledging that your own Republican Party put in place laws that have resulted in the most egregiously “socialistic” takeover of the nation’s banks in history; moreover, your own state of Alaska–particularly under your administration–is the most socialist of all the fifty states, in its collective taxing of the oil industry and its distribution, to every man, woman, and child in the state, a check upwards of three (3) grand each year.

- That, while you proudly profess to believe in “freedom,” you have lately complained that if newspapers criticize you for “negative campaigning,” they are abridging your First Amendment rights under the Constitution–as though “freedom” means only your ability to say anything that enters in unto your head (regardless of how baseless or slanderous) but does not apply to the press.

Of the sheer stupidity of this last assertion I, Who Am Eternal, shall say nothing, for I love all my creations, regardless of how ignorant, unsophisticated, or just plain dumb. Similarly, I will pass over your inability to answer the simplest question in a coherent sentence, your meanness of spirit, and the great selfishness and want of taste you display in subjecting your poor children to the travails, exhaustion, and abuse of a national presidential campaign.

Rather, Sarah, it is your hypocrisy and mendaciousness that mightily offend Me. I am, as you know, a just and compassionate God. But even I (blessed be Me and blessed be My Name) have a limit to My patience. Thus, I find not only that you are unqualified to be Vice-President of the United States. I find that you are a human person deficient in those basic qualities (honesty, decency, compassion, modesty, personal integrity, a respect for knowledge, and a concern for truth) that are pleasing unto Me and which ought to constitute the character of the righteous woman.

You are not just a bad candidate. You are a bad person. I only hope you will awaken to this fact, acknowledge the error of your ways, and take steps to atone for these transgressions before the Day of Judgment, when I shall be forced to render a decision concerning your eternal fate.

Yours in Me, etc.,
God

cc. Jesus Christ

“McSame”? Try “McShame”

Posted October 10, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , ,

John McCain has created a monster. No, wait. Two. John McCain has created two monsters.

One, of course, is Sarah Palin. This cute ‘n’ sassy Alaskan cookie, this g-droppin’, moose-shootin’ regular gal, this soccer mom who talks like a teen (and whose teen will soon be a mom), this utterly fearless and thoroughly shameless liar who looks like a stripper playing a secretary and who, like many a confident ignoramus, talks to reporters as though they’re the idiots she thinks she’s putting one over on: Forget those big-boob hotties in bikinis menacingly wielding power tools on calendars in body shops. This is the pinup babe for American Fascism.

It’s all here, from the pious jerkwater Christianity that flaunts its ignorance and waits for applause, to the dimpling, sexy-winking speeches not only devoid of content but actively, preeningly demagogic. Poli-sci, acting, and psych majors are encouraged to monitor Palin’s stump appearances; it’s the closest they’ll ever get (if we’re lucky) to watching a natural demagogue at work live and in real time.

It may be too much to hope that national leaders bring out the best in us (although, with Obama, it threatens to be possible), but here is a woman who brings out the worst in people. The lies, the smears, the disingenuous innuendo and high school cafeteria sarcasm, the religion- and terrorism- and race-baiting: this is someone whom sane grownups would censure and condemn if she were running for president of the Student Council.

With Palin we encounter the purest example, in our lifetime, of a candidate whose mere presence on a national ticket demeans and pollutes the very process. To watch her being interviewed is to behold someone not only unwilling, but constitutionally unable, to give a lucid answer to a serious question. As a commenter on a different blog said, This is a woman who is incapable of passing a Turing test, let alone acting as a Vice-President.

(And you, Reader: You can give a clear answer to a question, can’t you? So can I. And, like me, you shouldn’t be Veep, let alone Prez, of the U.S.)

Palin may, for all we know, also be inherently unable to give an honest answer in addition to a comprehensible one. It’s one thing to lie, in the sense that “all politicians lie,” by saying they’re going to do X and then, when in office, not doing it. Palin’s lies have been those of the compulsive liar. She’s repeatedly lied about matters of fact, easily refuted via the public record and then, when they’ve been shown to be untrue, she’s kept reciting them.

Is it calculated or reflex? Is she evil, or merely crazy? We don’t know and, you can bet, the “patriot” who has inflicted her on us doesn’t know, either.

We have John “Country First” McCain to thank for Sarah Palin. Or, rather, we have the current, most recent, appallingly monstrous John McCain to thank. Because that’s the second monster he’s created: himself.

You youngsters don’t remember, but back in 2000 there were those Democrats who thought, “You know, that John McCain might not be such a bad feller. Not as egregious as your average Republican, not as self-evidently loathsome as your Gingriches or as transparently phony and mendacious as that what’s-his-name…Bush. Yessir, that McCain might have a future in some centrist post-Cold War Pax Americana…”

The rest was, and is, history. Now there is not one admirable principle that McCain used to espouse that he has not, systematically and thoroughly, betrayed. Not only has he thrown honor and honesty (nee “Straight Talk”) under the bus, he has halted the bus, flung its driver out onto the sidewalk, taken the wheel, and driven back and forth over them repeatedly until no CSI or SVU unit on television could tell you with any certainty what they once were.

To watch him in last week’s debate was to watch Homer Simpson cast–against his will–as Teddy Roosevelt, then pushed out in front of tv cameras and told to recite the talking points, as augmented with affirmation-like incantations meant to convince, if not the audience, then himself: “I know how to catch Bin Ladin. I know how to win wars. I know how to balance the budget.” And doggone it, people are going to vote for me.

The best thing you can say about McCain in that debate was that he refrained from actually calling Obama a terrorist then and there. God knows Palin would have done it if it were on the agenda. And she may yet; if their polls keep deteriorating, she may abandon the pretense of snarking about Obama’s acquaintances and go all the way. She’s on the brink of a success exactly consonant with her most fevered, narcissistic, dream-big, proudly “humble,” God-blessed beauty-contestant ambitions. Who knows what a provincial woman that politically vulgar is capable of if it seems about to slip away?

Palin, in all her sashaying disgracefulness, is not McCain’s creation; but she is his responsibility. And either he knows it, and still feels some residual shame in whatever small fragment of his soul still exists uncorrupted by his own ambition…or he doesn’t, and he’s as gone as she is. I don’t have a sense which it is. It might be the former, in fact; he might be secretly appalled by what he’s condoned and encouraged, but feel–understandably–that the whole juggernaut is out of his control and all he can do is hang on and hope, if not for the best, then the least bad.

Or does he perform small acts of penance in private? Does he rebuke La Palin behind the scenes? Does he care when her audiences yell “Terrorist!’ and “Kill him!” about his opponent? Hillary Clinton rightly took heat for invoking Bobby Kennedy’s murder in 1968; now we have Sassy Sarah prompting her worshipful thugs to shout for blood. Maybe, away from the glare and the cameras, John chides her as you would a “high-spirited” daughter.

No, you don’t think so and neither do I. Dig McCain’s shit-eating grin at the livid, content-free outburst of one citizen’s comment here ). McCain, this “hero,” has accomplished what many (including he himself) might have thought impossible: he has colluded in his own moral castration. Now he’s Sarah’s consort, happy to bask in the gamma rays of hate and rage she elicits by her mere presence on the podium. How long will it be before he refers to it as “the Palin-McCain ticket”? (Having already addressed the American people as “my fellow prisoners.”)

Of course, McCain might assuage his guilt with the thought that it’s all politics. And it is all politics–debased politics, the worst kind of politics, the politics of the mob, of Klan rallies and Triumph of the Will and “The Two Minutes’ Hate.”

Someone–one of his many “friends”–should tell McCain that it’s also the kind of politics you cannot foster and sustain and encourage (or even tacitly permit), and still hope to wake up the next morning with the same self-respect you had before it all started. Before, you tell yourself, you “had to” do certain things.

“Country First.” It sounds like a savings and loan. No wonder it felt right as a campaign slogan. McCain may turn out to be the thinking man’s–no, the fighting man’s–Bush, endlessly acting out his Oedipal grudge and forever compelled to screw things up, crashing planes, his reputation, his country. That’ll show the old man.

Answering the Unanswerable: Advice to Biden

Posted October 1, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Everybody and his or her brother or sister (and that’s everybody!) will be offering advice to Joe Biden on how to comport himself Thursday night in his much-anticipated/ dreaded debate with Sarah Palin. So why should I be any different?

Below, some last-minute ideas, offered free of charge and worth at least twice that. But first we must address the central challenge that confronts any office-seeker on the eve of a national debate against an opponent of Palin’s qualities:

Do we want to make her seem ignorant, or insane?

Anyone? No? Well, I’m not surprised, because it was a trick question. The answer is, neither. Anyone at all capable of correctly appreciating the depth of this woman’s ignorance has already done so, and has either decided they care about it or they don’t. As for “insane,” Palin is too attractive and poised, in that steely, bullet-proof, beauty-contestant way, to behave in a manner openly indicative of mental dysfunction.

Is, then, all lost? Is Joe Biden doomed to suffer a TKO, to be correct on all the facts but still “lose,” as some of the (useless) pundits put it, “on points”? Not necessarily.

One plausible goal to which he might aspire is to goad Palin into demonstrating, not that she is out of her mind, but that she is out of her league. (Yes, yes, I know: Everybody knows that already, too. But there may be a few undecideds susceptible to being reminded of it.) How?

Not by correcting her or flatly declaring that her Seasonal Vegetable Medley of proudly-spouted clichés, talking-point truisms, patriotic-sounding boilerplate, and frankly incomprehensible yammerings are “wrong.” Rather, Biden should assume the role of the cheerily befuddled colleague, the sympathetic peer who can’t quite get a handle on whatever chirpy gibberish the Governor has just emitted.

But rather than ask her to repeat or clarify her answer, he should good-naturedly discredit it. And, in so doing, he should attack, not Palin, but her running mate.

Thus:

IFILL: Next question-and Governor Palin, we’ll start with you. The government bailout of the financial industry has proven to be enormously controversial. What is your understanding of the underlying causes of this crisis, and how do you think the Federal government should address it?

PALIN: You know, Gwen, all of us, on Wall Street and Main Street, the outrage, because people are hurting no matter what, and it’s terribly, terribly important that there be equity among the taxpayers as well as both the bad actors and the good actors in the financial community, which is why actor’s equity is so important at a time like this. In Alaska we learned that it’s a question of doing due diligence before you get a done deal done. You’ve got local banks, Fannie Farmer, Freddie Mercury, Bernie Mac, and the whole Banker Bernanke wing of the Fed. And that’s just not fair. You know, there’s an expression economists like to use: “Follow the money.” Senator McCain and I both agree that our financial markets and our economy are intimately connected, so that a solution can only be workable if it’s feasible and makes sense for the American people.

IFILL: Senator Biden?

BIDEN: Hoo boy. Wow. I…I have to apologize to the Governor. I just can’t keep up. Her explanation is way over my head–although what I think she said was, that the absence of regulation that John McCain has championed his entire political life has caused this crisis–which is true–but that the solution to it somehow is even less regulation. She couldn’t have said that, because that’s just silly and absurd. Or maybe she did say that and I’m just too dense to pick up on it. If she did say it, well, she’s entitled to her opinion–although it’s not an opinion any sensible person running for Vice President should have. In any case, here’s my opinion: Republicans come into power, they eliminate regulation in the financial industry, and we get a crisis. The savings and loan scandal. This current emergency. And every time, they turn to the taxpayer to bail them out. Is it hypocrisy? Of course it is. That’s the least of it. It’s also theft… (etc.)

Okay, I got carried away with Biden’s “answer” toward the end there. But you see the point: When your opponent talks in enigmas and nonsense, you can’t refute her, but you don’t have to. You use it as a setup to a) tell everyone what she “really” said, and b) why she’s just slightly off. You do this “respectfully,” the way arbiters and instructors of etiquette teach us to assert ourselves over people we dislike by cloaking it in a smile and in expressions of deference.

A couple won’t leave even after dessert has been served, coffee has been drunk, and everyone else has departed? You don’t say, “Hey. You two. Get the fuck out already.” Rather, as you herd them toward the front door, you murmur, “I’d love it if you two stayed all night, but I’m sure you’ve got a busy schedule tomorrow and I don’t want to keep you.”

So there ya go, Joe. Defer to the lady but hijack her answers. The very vacuity of her replies provides a blank canvas on which you may–and should–paint a portrait of her as you see fit. Her fans–the ones who aren’t really aware that her answers are nonsense–won’t know what you’re doing. If they don’t know what she did say, how can they know what she didn’t?

Bear in mind, too, that (unlike at a political rally or the RNC convention) she won’t have an adoring audience to pause for, to mug for, to draw energy from, to preen and dimple and snark at. So a lot of her rhetorical moves may, in and of themselves, arrive D.O.A.

When Palin was chosen, the immediate cliché in Democratic circles was, “Biden is going to eat her alive in the debate.” As he would–and bon appetit–if intelligence and facts mattered. But Palin’s popularity offers ample proof that–go be shocked–they don’t. People like her style. You can’t refute a style (that’s what “bullying” means), but you can acknowledge it as a pretext for controlling all the substance.

Free Levi Johnston

Posted September 29, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Get this:

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

NOW are we having fun yet? You bet. A shotgun wedding–it’s like a commercial for a breakfast cereal–with real shotguns! Only this time the biggest gun of all will be brandished, not, as is usually the case, by the outraged father of the bride as he drags her, in her knock-ed-up state of blushing pride and soul-baking embarrassment, down what passes for “the aisle,” no, this time it’ll be handled by the mother. Who is Governor of the sovereign state in which the nuptials are taking place in! And–no, seriously–is also the Republican candidate for Vice-President of the whole U.S. of god-damn A.

(While everyone thinks, “Wait–are we sure this is her first?” I know someone who squired Sarah Palin around for a day last March–one month before Trig’s delivery–who swears that woman was not pregnant. Well, “whatever.” Mary and Joseph had a controversial pregnancy, too, and look how that kid turned out.)

It’s not that “you can’t make this stuff up.” You can. But then your head would fall off. Now, however, you don’t have to run that risk. The Republican Party, with the straight face of the salesman lending you his pen to sign the purchase order for the world’s most horrible vacuum cleaner, has done it for you.

Mencken, thou shouldst be living at this hour. And you too, Twain. And, what the hell, all you guys and gals from ages past (Norman Mailer, Hunter Thompson, P.T. Barnum, Sinclair Lewis, Robert Altman, Sophie Tucker, Nathaniel West, Billy Wilder, John Dos Passos, etc.) who knew that America was (and still is, God damn it) that place of places where nothing is too brazen, nothing is too ludicrous or inane or mendacious or nakedly meretricious, that we can’t at least try it.

Deep-fried Twinkies? It’s what’s for dinner! Polygamous marriages to teenagers in “frontier” dresses? Where are they registered? Possible President who believes humans and dinosaurs existed–living, loving, making it work–at the same time, 4,000 years ago? Join me in welcoming her now. And if nobody told Sarah Palin that The Flintstones was fiction, whose fault is that? (Of course we can tell her now. But it’s too late. The damage is done. She’s a person of “faith” and her mind, to the extent that she has one, is made up.)

“America is a mistake,” Freud told Ernest Jones. “A gigantic mistake, it is true, but none the less a mistake.” But who cares? He was Freud! Didn’t he know that Freud is like totally over?

Besides, what’s wrong with bread and circuses? Everybody loves bread (except certain Jews during Passover–and–may we speak frankly?–if they don’t like it, they can go back to Russia). As for circuses, don’t be so literal. It’s politics; it’s “the culture wars;” it’s The Will to Power and the survival struggle of memes (you can’t spell “meme” without “Me! Me!”)…it’s what Preston Sturges (with uncharacteristic sentimentality) called “this cockeyed caravan,” yes, it’s Election Year Two Thousand And Fucking Eight: a Hieronymus Bosch triptych with computers.

Commenters on a blog I read talk about investing in popcorn futures–that’s how rollicking this whole election deal has become. John McCain, claiming to “suspend” a campaign which is in no way suspended, threatens to ignore one of only three national debates as he plops himself down at the table in the emergency conference meant to solve the most gigantic financial crisis of our lifetime, and then says nothing, gets up and leaves, attends the debate after all, and takes credit for the financial plan three days later. You say “that’s irresponsible”? I say, That’s Entertainment.

Meanwhile, what we are all laughingly calling “the Bush legacy” continues metastasizing. Two-front war on terrorism grinding into its sixth year? Check. Entire financial system on life-support because guys raking in 8-figure bonuses made a boo-boo? Check. Record deficits C.O.D. from the party of “prudence”? Gotcha. Stagnant-income-households paying for four-dollar gas? Done and done. Put-them-all-together, they spell: Let’s have a wedding!

Although first, let’s confirm paternity.

KATIE COURIC: Governor, if there were to be a public outcry for Bristol to take a DNA test, how would you respond?

SARAH PALIN: Like any good mahm, Katie. I would say, “Hey, Briss, let’s do this, and I’ll stay up all night helping you study if that’s what it takes.”

Which is to say, how do we know poor Levi Johnston (The Sexiest Chump Alive) is the real dad? Because the mother-to-be says so? Please. We may be idiots, but we weren’t born yesterday. Somebody do an amnio, or a papal nuncio, or a hi-def video, or whatever it is House’s team of ethnic geniuses and drop-dead gorgeous gals does, and let’s be certain. (Fun Fact: Olivia Wilde, who plays “13″ or whatever her character’s name is on House, is the niece of ALEXANDER COCKBURN. Of Counterpunch! Could you die? I could. I did! I digress.) What if Levi isn’t The One?

Or, as someone wisely asked, “If McCain loses the election, can Levi get a divorce?”

(Memo to the lad: DON’T SIGN ANYTHING. Pre-nup schmee-nup. YOU’RE in the driver’s seat, d00d. Make ‘em pay.)

But ain’t that America? Where the clever work for the unscrupulous to deceive the poor in the service of the rich.

And it’s not even October.

CORRECTION: An earlier draft of this said, wrongly, that Olivia Wilde is the daughter of Alexander Cockburn.  She is his niece.  Her father is Alexander Cockburn’s brother, Andrew.  I regret the error.

Every Day a Little Death: The Five Stages of Democratic Grief

Posted September 21, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1. Acceptance: Okay, fine. Whatever. They win. It’s inevitable, really. A complicated or qualified truth is never as arousing as a good hate-charged lie. It’s not that you can’t make people be intelligent; it’s that you can’t make people care about things they don’t care about. And half the country consists of people who don’t care about the truth.

Maybe it’s rooted in the universal denial of death: we all come equipped with a mechanism to ignore the unpleasantly true and embrace the preferable fantasy. In any case, half the country sees “hero” and “spunky mom” instead of “confused sellout desperately saying anything” and “lying, ambitious religious nut.” It doesn’t matter if it’s “fair.” It doesn’t matter if it’s “insane.” A machine dedicated to exploiting the worst in people will always triumph against a movement asking for the best in people. Meanwhile, since the wall you beat your head against is not going to go away, it’s up to you to stop, take your head with you, and walk away from the wall. I’m outa here.

2. Depression: Who am I kidding? This is a nightmare and the one thing you can’t do in a nightmare is “accept” it. What am I doing to do–leave the country? Ridiculous. Meanwhile, greed and vanity, using lies and fear, will once again manipulate ignorance and resentment. Biden’s decent-man’s sense of modesty and proportion is no match for the turbo-charged ego and effortless mendacity of Palin. The worst people in our public life will win again, and they’ll do it using a secret weapon that’s the most obvious weapon of all: their shamelessness. A hundred rabid sociopaths are salivating in anticipation of taking Rush Limbaugh’s place because that’s what America has become.

And so the “ordinary people” applaud for and collude in their own manipulation. And even if Obama ends up getting more votes, it’s futile to hope that he’ll really “win,” because the machines are rigged and the voter rolls are trashed. There’s nothing we can do about it and there’s no use in even trying. We want a society of justice, fairness, freedom, and common sense, and we’re doomed.

3. Bargaining: All right, look. Maybe it’s not all either/or. Say McCain wins. We’ve still got Congress. Yes, they’re spineless, ass-covering careerists who spend half their time selling their principles to raise money and the other half defending the system that requires them to do it–but even they have some pride. Maybe it won’t be so bad. McCain will surround himself with war mongers and thieves, but even Congress may have had enough of war and theft (and everyone will believe them if they say “we can’t afford it”). So the two branches battle each other to a standstill. Nothing good happens and nothing too terribly bad happens. Then he dies, Palin steps in, and in two months our national life is a cross between Seven Days in May and The Beverly Hillbillies. Couldn’t that be fun?

4. Anger: No. Bullshit. There can be no accommodating these complete and total imbeciles. That mob of credulous people, the teeming throng of decent, self-satisfied, naïve dodos who actually cheered that freak show in Minneapolis, the ones who chant “U.S.A.” as though rooting for a college football team, the “patriots” who think “patriotism” means voting for the guy who tells you that his opponent isn’t “patriotic,” the people who every day live in a fantasy world of made-up “heroes,” superstitious “faith,” self-contradicting “values,” invented “facts,” and proud, defiant obliviousness of history, human nature, science, and common sense: How stupid can people be?

“Well, I don’t really know Obama.” Guess what, Mrs. Sixpack? You don’t know your fucking spouse. You don’t know your fucking self. If you did–if, at the breakfast table, you had the tiniest capacity for honest introspection, and the basic grownup skepticism even you bring to the task of buying a used car–you’d see how you’ve been played. First by Bush and by Rove, and now by their successors. The contempt they have for you is obvious in everything they openly say to you. Giuliani, McCain, even the self-parodying Romney all deserve Emmys for staying in character and resisting the temptation to turn to each other, point to the crowd, and say, “Can you believe these suckers?”

Because that’s what you are: Dupes. Rubes. Marks. You deserve what you get. But we don’t. So, memo to Dems: Fuck it. It’s war. Call every lie a lie. Tell Palin it’s cute that she admits she has the brains of a pit bull but it’s not enough to qualify for the office. Shame McCain, over and over, for betraying literally everything he has ever stood for, and for inflicting that trailer-trash Rapture-ready mediocrity on the United States of America. Tell the morons that whoever tells you that someone else is an “elitist” is really telling you that you’re an idiot. Take off the gloves, then put them back on, then take them off in slow-motion and throw them in McCain’s face. Swift Boat his POW history. Criticize her adequacy as a mother. Ask him why sitting in a cell thirty years ago makes anyone qualified to lead the U.S. in the 21st century. Ask her if she believes in the Rapture and who she thinks will qualify. Ask her if she knows what the Fed does. Ask him if he knows what a server farm is. Are we men, or we moose? Do it.

5. Denial: Calm down. It can’t be as bad as I think. The world doesn’t really work that way. There are too many intelligent, fair-minded people to allow this grotesque possibility to come to pass. Bush in 2000, Bush in 2004: an affront, a crime, yes, but it’s understandable that it was close enough to steal. But this? This fumfering old moral has-been, who no longer knows what he believes, and his provincial beauty pageant runner-up who thinks gall is the same thing as intelligence? People can’t, when all is said and done, be that stupid. Some, yes. But not all, and not most. And the voting machine problem, the vote caging, all that? People are aware of it and dealing with it. It’ll be okay. I really believe that.

(Repeat from #1)

Hey Jews

Posted September 16, 2008 by barbel
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , ,

(To the tune of you-know-what, with apologies to you-know-who.)

Hey Jews
Don’t make it worse
With the curse of
McCain and Palin
Remember
When fundamentalists pray
It’s for the day
You’re weepin’ and wailin’

Hey Jews
Don’t be a putz 1
He’s a yutz 2 and
She’s a chaleria 3
The minute
You looked inside of her kop 4
You would throw op
Go on, I dare ya…

So keep her out and send her home
Hey Jews, to Nome
Wherever she hunts
For moose to capture
For don’t (Juneau?) forget it’s true
Hey Jews
So nu? 5
It’s all killing time
Until the Rapture.

Na na na na na
Na na na

Hey, Jews
As for McCain
It may pain you
To see him squanda
His image, his reputation, and cred
Now he’s Undead
And it’s a shanda 6

But do not vote for John McCain
Hey Jews, refrain
From buying that “I know how to win wars.”
For take a look at history
Hey Jews
You’ll see
That all they know how is to begin wars.

Na na na na na
Na na na…

Hey Jews
Don’t make me bentsch 7
Be a mensch 8
And be patriotic
November
Please cast your vote for Barack
Don’t make me hak 9
Like some psychotic

Chotic/chotic/chotic/chotic/chotic
Oi….Vey…

Na na na
na na na na
Yaidl-de-dah
Hey Jews…
(etc.)

1. A jerk
2. A jerk
3. An evil woman
4. Head
5. “What did you expect?” (Also, “What’s new?” “Anything happening?” etc.)
6. A ghastly shame, a criminal shame.
7. Pray
8. An admirable person, a real grown-up
9. Lit., “bang.” Fig., harangue, browbeat