Shifting to as Serious a Topic

The hanging of an effigy of Barack Obama at a Christian university brings into sharp focus one of the odder issues in this election. Obama is a self-confessed Christian, no less one than McCain.

Both are struggling with their actions as opposed to their alligences. Obama, with anti-abortion and other 'leftist' stances (even silly, made up ones). McCain has similar problems. Southern Baptists, the folks who evilly brought you Messianic Judaism [1] [2] [3] [4], aren't quite happy with his less than Evangelical attitudes, although he's been their best candidate even throughout the Republican primaries: even Mormon Mitt has a looser attitude than McCain, who has opposed same-sex marriage, civil unions, or even live-in partner rights to medical insurance.

Prejudice against a Black American, against a suspiciously non-Anglo Christian, are deep-rooted. The KKK is only one of the ugly cancers that have erupted from the skin of the American psyche. Much more common, and more subtle, are the Muslim insinuation against Obama, even going to the push-poll questions that mangle his name on purpose to slip suspicion and doubt into the vapid White American voter.

Nooses, effigies and other "subtle" signs don't work in their stagers' favor: Americans have had fifty years experience with understanding the real meaning behind these formerly powerful symbols. Unfortunately for the beleaguered McCain operation, these idiots play into Obamas, not his, hands. And the best thing McCain can do is either ignore them, or revile them: both of which strengthen the hand of the left.

As usual, the lunatic right, with its symbols bereft of contextual reality, come out the losers. I'd much prefer an articulate lunatic like David Duke than these fringe nutters: David, at least, made for good and focused press. These idiots are shades of the 1950's. And we all know how that played out in the end.

Instant Feedback on Bush Speech

Everything listed by the President may happen even with a massive bailout. Given the amount at risk, I suggest the following alternative plan:

1. Wait until after the elections to do anything other than take the time to analyze the models and consequences of economic programs
   
2. Ignore the bad loans: let the institutions that took the risk take the consequences
3. Take the $700B and invest it in new loans to small- to medium-sized businesses, and to ensure the continued operation of student loans
4. Have the SEC, FBI and any other federal agency investigate every decision-maker in companies responsible for getting us into this debacle. Engage in a 'De-Baathification' process, keeping the guilty from ever working in the financial industry again.

One last comment.The President called our capitalism the best economic ever devised. For once, I agree with him. But that means that the profits of capitalistic endeavours must be matched by taking responsibilities for losses incurred when engaging in free market activities.

The Money Shot

A quick post: expect follow-ups on this. I've been watching the (selective) bailouts by the government, with my money, to "save" investment companies that have knowingly thrown themselves over the cliff. They've created the same derivative monster that shook the market back in 2001-2002, only this time with real dollars at risk. Taxpayer dollars. Now the current administration, knowing full well that whatever they come up with will fall to the next administration to execute, is preparing a gazillion-dollar bailout package, details, implications and oversight all to be determined. Some simple questions (which I'll drill down on in the coming days):

1. So... what if we let the chips fall where they may? Will I still be able to buy a loaf of bread?
2. If they're using taxpayer funds to purchase taxpayer assets, can't the government just issue us stock certificates in the corporation that will have to own those securities?
3. If I rip someone off, I get prosecuted. Wall Street execs, money managers, hedge fund gurus and their ilk in many cases knowingly 'sold short,' or packaged and hid bad debt in complex, multi-corporate moves (anyone remember Enron?). Where are the indictments? Where's the FBI? I wanna see handcuffs! Lots of them!
4. Even fiscal conservatives and free market freaks are talking regulation. Let's start by doing what Bush did (badly) in Iraq: de-Baathification trials for all involved. Every executive with fiduciary responsibility for cleaning up this mess has to first prove that she or he was not part of making the mess. And furthermore, that they will not profit, other than salary, in cleaning things up. And not own stock in any company (except through double-blind trusts) during their work and for five years after completing helping with the bailout.

That would be a good start.

Hah! Palin, Obama, Lipstick, and fast boats

Funny commentary on how lipstick, pigs, pitbulls and donkeys are part of the political mash. Gotta love the deft hand of Rove in the campaign!

Who's Next?

Iran continues to build its nuclear capacity, while North Korea has apparently returned to its evil machinations and is putting back together what little it agreed to dismantle.

This is the poisoned fruit of the Bush administration's tree. Remember phrase "punish the innocent and reward the guilty?" Sure, Saddam's government was guilty of many things. But not WMD. And certainly not of 9/11. But better to show strength, flog a perceived threat (and clean up daddy's unfinished business and snag a little oil), than actually tackle a serious enemy.

By serious enemy I am referring to the two "Axis of Evil" countries that would entail serious military operations to subdue, and even greater resources to control over the long term. Our military has chewed through billions of pork barrel project dollars, including absurd amounts on 'Star Wars' technology, at the expense of better pay and benefits to recruit more soldiers to the ranks, or practical technologies to protect the troops in the field.

As America's coin in the world declines, other countries will slip into the resulting vacuum. China, with its economic buying power. Russia, with it's kleptocratic power. It's a dark gloom into which we slide, even with a changing of the guard expected in Washington. And the spirit of change, while an instantiatable ideal in America, will in now way auger for a sea change in the threats to America and the world from fanatics who care more about their power than their people.

Maybe we'll need those nuclear space lasers and Star Wars technology after all...

Palin Revisionism

I edited my previous post, "The Palin Paradox," after seeing that (a) I was getting a lot of hits from a right-wing blog called "Eagle Forum Alaska," and (b) said blog pulled their post. That post championed Governor Palin's embracing abstinence-only education. My comment (now redacted because of the broken link) pointed out that Governor Palin wholeheartedly embraced the Bush policies on not teaching any sex education other than not having any (my definition, not theirs).

We all know the best way to do quiet people is through denial, right? C'mon, stand up for your values! The Big Lie won't work, since the Eagle's posting data is found in many other places. And the Big Distraction didn't work, as Gustav fizzled out.

The brave thing to do, the moral thing to do, is to honestly champion what you, and your governor, believe in. So put the page back up, where we can all read it!

The Palin Paradox

The conundrum of Bristol Palin's pregnancy is a great snapshot of modern American views on sex education:

1. "Good girls" do. (Are there "bad girls?")
2. Lust trumps sex ed
3. Parents, even governors, can't stop kids from having sex
4. And, of course, pregnancy is a rational consequence of sex!

I'm pleased that Bristol's parents are behind her. And that the father has (a) stepped forward and (b) will do the "right" thing and marry her. It's a great lesson for parents that would otherwise distance themselves from the little trollop (their POV, not mine), or do some other non-linear thing.

I'd like conservative or religious readers to think for a moment, and then comment on the following question: how can sex education and/or policy be changed so as to decrease the chances that other daughters of religious families get pregnant? At what point is it a better choice to explain prophylactics (physical or chemical) over the chance of an unplanned pregnancy?.