Well I suppose ‘art’ is a little generous, but there was an interesting movie released several years ago starring one of my favorite actors of all time, Samuel L. Jackson.  I can’t think of another actor who can go so seamlessly from badass roughian  (Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction) to gentle sophisticate (The Red Violin).  We got to see the softer Sam in 1993’s “Amos & Andrew” where he played Andrew Sterling, a successful black urbanite writer who buys a vacation home in a small New England resort town.  One night, the local constabulary mistakes him for a burglar.  Fortunately, the cop in the movie had slightly more sense than the one who confronted Professor Gates.  The movie cop knew exactly what kind of mess he’d just made.

We all know what came next in our real-life version.  Subsequent right-wing noisemakers, when not honking the ‘behaved stupidly’ horn, are trying to paint this as a classic case of intellectual snob vs. the working class civil servant, (Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Gates of Political Distraction,” July 29). They would have us believe the only racist in the room was Professor Gates.  In a phantasmagorical role reversal, the neo-cons attempt to convince us it’s not a race issue at all.  The real issue is one of the downtrodden, long-suffering police officer just trying to do his job, which should not include taking verbal abuse from an arrogant, limousine liberal.  Really, now.  Let’s take a quick inventory of reality, shall we?

Professor Gates has:

• A valid driver’s license
• A Harvard ID
• A set of keys that fit the doors
• Dark skin
• A police officer in his house making absurd accusations
• A perfectly good reason for being a little pissed right now

Officer Crowley has

• A gun, handcuffs, pepper spray, and a big stick
• A small army just a radio call away
• A badge giving him the right to arrest and detain anyone he deems troublesome
• The benefit of being white in a notoriously racist nation
• A possible chip on his shoulder and some heightened anxiety due to the fact than an angry black man is yelling at him

America has

• Cops who go on bizarre power trips on routine traffic stops
• Crowd ‘management’ officers in full-blown riot gear who shoot female lawyers in the head with rubber bullets then laugh about it later
• Deputies who beat the crap out of teenaged girls simply for being petulant
• Law enforcement professionals who will shoot a restrained suspect in the back

Who is more likely to have the advantage?  The angry black man, or a white man in a blue uniform with a big stick?  We don’t have to page too far back into our collective consciousness to find the answer. 

If that’s not enough to prove it’s a race issue, what about this: Would the story have landed above the fold in any pissant newspaper if it involved two white guys?  No.  Would we have heard about a black officer questioning a white professor?  No, because it’s not interesting when a white man breaks into his own home.  In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that, upon seeing the homeowners ID, a police officer might even HELP a white man get back into his own house.   

Of course this is a race issue, people.  For pete’s sake.

In a better world, hard-working police officers could protect us without being shot at and killed by crazy people.  In a more perfect union, Professor Gates would have been a bit more rational and understanding.  He would’ve provided his documents and calmly invited the officer to vacate the premises.  First thing in the morning he would have called his attorney, filed a complaint at the Mayor’s office, and composed a letter to the editor of every local news outlet with carbon copies going to the ACLU and NAACP.  Then he would have made big money on the lecture circuit and maybe even been asked to head a new federal commission for improved race relations.  Heaven forbid, a good teacher might turn this into an educational opportunity…

Sadly, having a black man in the white house for a few months is not going to erase more than 200 years of bigotry and ignorance.  We all still have a lot of growing up to do.

Why does this prospect worry me?  Golly, where to start…  Installing the very oldest of Old School Politics is a problem.  McCain can conjure the “C” word [Change] all he wants. Even with the perky new blood provided by his intended VP, no one will convince me he has the slightest notion of what it’s like to live in the 21^st century, let alone what kind of real change will be required if we’re to survive it.  His handlers saw him getting into trouble when he admitted to knowing so little about economic policy.  Seven houses later, all those lively open-forum media sessions got wound up tighter than Cindy’s chignon. He started coughing up all the usual pre-chewed and sanitized-for-your-protection pulp as provided by the pollsters and communications experts.  Now every time his audience gets a little drowsy, he trots out that tired old POW speech.  All of the armchair patriots start hooting and revving their engines and my bowels go a little loose.  The idea of letting a Viet Nam vet with a notorious temper and a big chip on his shoulder make foreign policy decisions should make everyone run for the crapper.

As for his rabid little haus frau Sarah Palin, I’m irked on multiple levels.  First, I resent the fact that the Mac Attackers have the nerve to cry “sexism” every time someone challenges her policies.  (I’m an equal opportunity grumbler – the sexism whine was one of the things that irritated me about the Clinton camp, as well).  I think it’s ridiculous that I should be expected to make any kind of allowances or wave a feminist flag for her simply because we share a plumbing diagram.  She’s a hard-core Christian Rightist who believes our current occupation of Iraq has an explicit mandate from God.  That’s just the biggest, fuzziest cloud of concern I have.  Of course, I know that it’s as easily dismissed as the Reverend Wright doppelganger. Fortunately there is much more available in the way of hard, documentable fact:

• “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” said the Pit Bull in Lipstick, “except that you have actual responsibilities.” During her tenure as Mayor, most of the actual responsibilities of running the small city of Wasilla were turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed by party power-brokers to hire an administrator after she had gotten herself into some hot water over precipitous firings (sound like any recent DOJ problems?) which had given rise to a very vocal recall action.
   
• One of Sarah’s main mayoral campaign planks was that of a “fiscal conservative.” During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years, the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. And during a period of unprecedented low inflation (1996-2002), she reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax that even taxed food. The cuts that she promoted benefited large private and corporate property owners way more than they benefited the everyday residents.
   
• Sadly, the huge increase in tax revenues still weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list, so she borrowed.  She inherited a city with zero debt, but left the office over $22 million in the hole. What did this new debt provide?  Was it the infrastructural improvements promised in her campaign?  Maybe the much-needed sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? New library? No. $1M for a park, and more than $15M for a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to (which is still in litigation 7 yrs later, much to the delight of the lawyers involved!). Anyone in Wasilla AK will tell you that the sports complex is a nice addition to the community, but it’s a huge money pit and is nowhere near the profit-generator Palin promised it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5M in new road projects that could have been completed in 5-7 years using normal budgeting allowances.  No new debt required.
   
• As an oil producer, the state of Alaska has enjoyed a budget surplus thanks to ever-rising prices on crude. Rather than reinvesting this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, or applying it to those road projects, Palin proposed distribution of this surplus back to the taxpayer. Message from this Fiscal Conservative: Why save today when you can borrow tomorrow?
   
• As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas were evaluated not on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.
   
• Palin tried to fire a highly respected City Librarian for refusing to consider removal of some books Sarah wanted off the shelves. City residents rallied against Palin’s blatant attempt at censorship, so she backed down and withdrew the termination letter. People who fought her on the library mess are on her enemies list to this day.
   
• As both Mayor and Governor she hired/elevated inexperienced and obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their newly-burgeoning careers.  All were grateful and fiercely loyal.  Loyal to the point of using their office to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).
   
• As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because, she told the press, he “intimidated” her. It’s within every mayor’s purview to hire/fire at will, but this one smacked of retribution.  It’s commonly known that the Chief wouldn’t fire her sister’s ex-husband, a State Trooper. While under investigation for abuse of power, Sarah admitted that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the Chief, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She attempted to replace the Chief with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.
   
• When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best: Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.  It is one of the few jobs not based in Juneau, and definitely one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this lucrative ($122,400/yr) post, she was complaining in the press about the waste of this high salary. Insiders say that she hated the commute, the structured hours… generally, the work.
   
• Sarah became aware that a member of this Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) had engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a ballsy move that many cautioned would be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one masterful stroke by formally – and loudly – resigning.  She cited her unwillingness to serve on a commission that was so obviously fraught with corruption.  Win-win!  She got out of the job she hated, and garnered gobs of media attention as the plucky opponent of the “old boys’ club” and new patron saint of ethics.
   
• No one was better than Sarah was at collecting earmarks from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and gone to great lengths to publicly humiliate him. When in reality she only opposed his “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.
   
• As Governor, she gave the Legislature neither direction nor budgetary guidelines, but then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects and branding them bacon fat. A huge public outcry demanded legislative action to restore most of these projects.  Project that had been vetoed simply because Palin was not aware of their importance and repercussions.  But for the unobservant, she successfully gained a reputation as “anti-pork.”
   
• While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.  How much more of a superficial female archetype can she be?

CLAIMS v. FACTS

• Hockey mom: True for a few years
• PTA mom: True years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
• NRA supporter: Absolutely true; and favors the slaughter of pesky old endangered wildlife from the convenience and safety of low-flying aircraft
• Social conservative: Mixed. Opposes gay marriage, but vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconstitutional).
• Pro-creationism: Mixed. Verbally supports it, but did nothing as Governor to promote it.
• Pro-life: Mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s Syndrome baby, but declined to call a special legislative session on some anti-abortion legislation
• Experienced: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the entire state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000 people.
• Political maverick: Not remotely. Her policies are taken right from the GOP play book, but she does have a knack for biting hands that had fed her.  The State party leaders hate her because she gladly accepts favors but is unlikely to return them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.
• Gutsy: absolutely! They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became such a public figure, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team.
• Open & transparent: No. Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
• Has a fully developed philosophy of public policy: Hardly.  Unless it’s a philosophy of knowing which way the wind is blowing.
• A ‘Greenie’ and land use specialist: Absolutely not. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling offshore and in ANWR.
• Fiscal conservative: Not by any traditional definition.
• Pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. New roadways were developed to early 20th century standards.
• Pro tax relief: Sure. Relief for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
• Pro small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
• Pro labor/pro union. Her husband is in a union.  She loves her husband.  Therefore, she loves unions.  No, there’s nothing in her policies or legislation that suggest she’s pro labor.

So am I being unnecessarily hard on her simply because I want her to be a true feminist voice: One that represents the all the diverse points of view, depth of compassion, spirit, and sense of reason that I believe are unique to womanhood?  Maybe.  But if that’s asking too much, I could at least celebrate the accomplishments of someone who wasn’t a self-aggrandizing, faith-healin, pistol-packin, nature-killin, well-drillin, lying sack of excrement in Jimmy Choos and a sassy up-do.

I suppose the thing that bothers me the most is that the Grand Old Party was foaming at the mouth to paint Obama as nothing more than a cult of personality.  Then the quickly prop up their own razor-wit glamour goddess and start crowing about her star power.  For Pete’s sake, I can’t be the only one noticing the extreme level of desperation, here.  Hopefully I won’t have to start practicing a new song.

“Oooh, Canada… Our home and native laaaand…”

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. War requires a physical force is to be created and it is the executive will which is to direct that force. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors and compensations is multiplied, and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people.

The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals engendered in both.

No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast ­ ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame ­ are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

­ James Madison, excerpted from “Political Observations”
April 20, 1795 in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Volume IV, page 491.

An enemy that operates in the shadows and views the entire world as a battlefield is not one we can fight with strategies used in other wars. An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for negotiations. Nor can we fight to a standoff — (applause). Nor can we fight to a standoff, hoping that some form of containment or deterrence will protect our people. The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive, facing the threat directly, patiently and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.)

Cheney, of course, is not merely speaking there about Al Qaeda, but about the whole range of Evil Enemies against whom we must seek merciless and final destruction, including those about whom his audience cares most — Iran, Syria, the Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Just compare Cheney’s mentality as he himself described it to the core description offered 43 years ago in Harper’s by Richard Hofstadter of the defining attributes of The Paranoid Style in American Politics:

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. . . .

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish.

Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

What Hofstadter described almost five decades ago as the mental hallmark of the right-wing paranoid is exactly what came out of Cheney’s mouth yesterday almost verbatim. That is to be expected, as Hofstadter noted at the end of his essay:

The paranoid style is not confined to our own country and time; it is an international phenomenon. . . .

Studying the millennial sects of Europe from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, Norman Cohn believed he found a persistent psychic complex that corresponds broadly with what I have been considering a style made up of certain preoccupations and fantasies: “the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies . . . systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque.”

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

That describes not only Dick Cheney and his followers, but Osama bin Laden and his followers as well. As noted a couple of weeks ago, if you read Cheney’s speeches, they sound conceptually almost exactly like those of Osama bin Laden’s (or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s) — we are in an apocalyptic struggle of Good versus Evil; we must obliterate the Evil Enemy mercilessly and without limits; and the Other Side wants to dominate the world with superior force and the only priority that matters is to crush them. This is how Dick Cheney described the cave-dwelling religious radicals yesterday:

We are the prime targets of a terror movement that is global in nature and, yes, global in its ambitions. The leaders of this movement speak openly and specifically of building a totalitarian empire covering the Middle East, extending into Europe and reaching across to the islands of Indonesia, one that would impose a narrow, radical vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, suppresses dissent, brutalizes women and has one of its foremost objectives the destruction of Israel. . . .

And their aim, ultimately, is to acquire the means to match that hatred and to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to impose their will by unspeakable violence or blackmail.

Does Dick Cheney really believe that Osama bin Laden is going to rule over a “totalitarian empire” that subsumes all of Europe, the Middle East and even “the islands of Indonesia,” destroy Israel, and impose their will on the world with their stockpiles of nuclear weapons? One can debate what’s really in someone’s mind only with speculation, but I think he probably has come to convince himself of that. There is no doubt that hordes of the hard-core Twenty-Three-Percenter followers have come to believe that. And our foreign policy, and large parts of the domestic behavior of our government, is absolutely predicated on that twisted worldview.

As always, the person whom Cheney quoted most heavily in his speeche yesterday is bin Laden, because they see world events in exactly the same apocolyptic terms. Here is Cheney quoting bin Laden’s thought process which, as is often the case, matches Cheney’s exactly:

Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. The most serious issue today for the whole world, he has said, is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. He calls it a destiny between infidelity and Islam. He said the whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, “The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.”

This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, “Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars.”

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a central front in that war and it’s where they’ve chosen to make a stand.

As always, it is the warped, delusional and paranoid rhetoric of Osama bin Laden which shapes our foreign policy and molds (and mirrors) the thinking of our highest government officials. Osama bin Laden, from the remote Pakistani cave in which we are told he is forced to hide, has proclaimed an apocalyptic theological battle, and therefore, that is how we must approach the world. After all, Bin Laden says so, and — as always — he’s right.

Perhaps most amazingly, Cheney continues to pay lip service to this notion: “The war on terror is more than a contest of arms and more than a test of will, it is also a battle of ideas. We know now to a certainty that when people across the Middle East are denied freedom, that is a direct strategic concern of all free nations.”

But no rational person can dispute that we are losing that “front” of the “war” as completely as is possible. And it is Cheney’s vision for endless obliteration of our “enemies” without negotiation or compromise, which is precisely what is fueling, and will continue to fuel, that defeat.

Jordan’s King Abdullah delivered an extremely important though almost completely ignored address to Congress last week in which he implored the U.S. to stop blindly supporting Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians and instead work towards a resolution, precisely because nothing fuels anti-American hatred and Islamic radicalism as much as Israel’s ongoing occupation. This is what he said:

Nothing impacts this choice more than the future of peace in the Middle East. I come to you today at a rare, and indeed historic, moment of opportunity, when there is a new international will to end the catastrophe. And I believe that America, with its enduring values, its moral responsibility, and yes, its unprecedented power, must play the central role. . . .

The entire international community has vital decisions to make about the path forward, and how to ensure Iraq’s security, unity, and future. But we cannot lose sight of a profound reality. The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.

There are those who say, ‘It’s not our business.’ But this Congress knows: there are no bystanders in the 21st Century, there are no curious onlookers, there is no one who is not affected by the division and hatred that is present in our world. Some will say: ‘This is not the core issue in the Middle East.’ I come here today as your friend to tell you that this is the core issue. And this core issue is not only producing severe consequences for our region, it is producing severe consequences for our world.

The security of all nations and the stability of our global economy are directly affected by the Middle East conflict. Across oceans, the conflict has estranged societies that should be friends. I meet Muslims thousands of miles away who have a deep, personal response to the suffering of the Palestinian people. They want to know how it is, that ordinary Palestinians are still without rights and without a country. They ask whether the West really means what it says about equality and respect and universal justice.

Everyone knows that the Bush administration’s explicit abandonment of any pretense of objectivity or broker role in the Israel-Palestinian conflict — replaced by our virtual participation on the side of Israel in that conflict — has done as much, if not more, than any single other factor to fuel the Islamic radicalism which we claim we are so eager to defeat (the only cause which can possibly compete in terms of significance is our ongoing active involvement in the internal affairs of virtually every Middle East country, as symbolized by our military occupation of multiple countries in that region).

King Abdullah’s message was, of course, the same conclusion reached by the bipartisan, super-Establishment Baker-Hamilton Commission — the conclusion which single-handedly provoked the most vicious attacks on Jim Baker as an anti-semite:

The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and particularly Syria — which is the principal transit point for shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, and which supports radical Palestinian groups.

The United States does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But Cheney goes before AIPAC and sets conditions on our negotiating — as opposed to waging endless war — that are, by design, never going to happen, and as a result, this is how we are faring in the “war of ideas”:

Israel, Iran and the United States were the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major nations. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released Tuesday. . . 

Israel was viewed negatively by 56 percent of respondents and positively by 17 percent; for Iran, the figures were 54 percent and 18 percent. The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 percent citing it as a bad influence and 30 percent as a good one. Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 percent and positively by 19 percent.

We’re sandwiched between Iran and North Korea in terms of how the world perceives us. And there should be no debating whether that collapse of our credibility in the world matters, given that George Bush and Dick Cheney themselves define this “war” as a “war of ideas,” with the goal the winning of “hearts and minds” of people around the world as the key to our national security. It is hardly possible for us to lose that “war” more devastatingly than we are losing it, and the obvious cause is the twisted, bloodthirsty and sociopathic mentality — shared by Osama bin Laden and the Bush movement alike — which was laid out with such ugly nakedness by the Vice President yesterday.

Far more than haggling over Iraq bills that are not going anywhere or picking apart the various proposals of each candidate, the critical priority is to demand that these fundamental premises guiding our behavior in the world be meaningfully examined and debated. The Baker-Hamilton Report actually tried to provoke such an examination, which is why it was so viciously demonized and instantaneously discarded. But until those premises are candidly discussed, we are going to remain on the incomparably dangerous path that the Bush presidency has so fervently embraced.

UPDATE: Speaking of endless war, Dick Cheney and AIPAC, Congressional Quarterly reported last week that AIPAC and its Congressional allies were “pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran.” As BooMan documents today, they succeeded: “key language mandating that Bush get Congressional approval before going to war with Iran has been taken out.”

For awhile, many people were resisting the notion that right-wing Israeli-centric groups like AIPAC (as absolutely distinct from the majority of American Jews generally) were “agitating for a U.S. war with Iran,” but the evidence proving that becomes clearer all the time (one commenter here, Gator90, was insistent that there was no evidence of such a connection, but to his great credit, acknowledged that there was in the wake of the CQ story). The AIPAC-type agitators combine with the Cheney-type paranoid militaristic hysterics to ensure that the U.S. continues with its warmonger posture in the world.

I desperately need Yosemite Sam out of the White House.  I’m sure he’s a decent enough fellow and is probably lots of fun at barbecues and family picnics, but he is in no way qualified to be the Leader of the Free World.  And while I’ve pinned all my hopes to Kerry’s old-school legal-eagle and somewhat wishy-washy political lapels, something is missing.  No it’s not his personality, as pundits are so eager to barf out at us.  It is a sense of genuine moral justice with regard to the way America conducts herself on the world stage.

This is a lot bigger than just getting our neighbors’ permission before overthrowing a sovereign government, or living a blatant double standard with regard to the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons.  It’s about respect.  There is a lot of prattling on about regaining the respect of the world community, but not once have I heard anyone talk about our respect for the world.

Instead, both candidates are wielding Osama bin Laden and his Jihadi lunatics like their own personal flaming saber.  Each claims to have the better way to deal with these radical Islamists who are absolutely wrong and clearly insane.  Are they?  Not one of our politicians has the courage to talk about the issues behind the madness: Long term, systematic abuse, manipulation and – most critically – McWorld Domination.  Yes, those cagey corporate multinational (or counter-national) puppet masters bent on lining their pockets with the proceeds of mass Americanization of the world culture.

Make no doubt about it: This is Americanization. The word “globalization” is dangerously euphemistic.  I’d consider it more accurate if I could see any influence of non-American culture in my own little sterilized-for-your-protection back yard, but the Corporations don’t want that because they don’t profit from it.  Americans have the money; Americans want to see/feel/taste America everywhere they go. Ergo, Corporations follow the will of the American wallet.  Think about it: if we didn’t buy Happy Meals, they wouldn’t sell them.  Anywhere.

“What?? Corporations aren’t really to blame?”  For as difficult as it is to control the corporate congloms and manipulators, the real challenge is to change the American way of life.  Our response to their little Buy Me bells is positively Pavlovian.  If we exercised just a little bit of self control and (heaven forbid) good judgment, we could set the whole economy on its ear.  But I digress…

For its own completely legitimate reasons, the Islamic culture does not want to be Americanized.  And if we came down off our high and morally bankrupt horse we’d not only understand their concern, but do everything we could to preserve their way of life.  Admittedly, Islam embraces aspects of cultural repression and inequity that we don’t understand or approve of.  But do we honestly believe they will more clearly see the light at gunpoint or from under a tank tread?  What the hell ever happened to leading by example: show the benefit of a just and equitable society by BEING one. 

With the lackadaisical acceptance of preemptive war, being held prisoner indefinitely without benefit of counsel, and our new and improved interrogation techniques, we’ve all but lost our claim to a moral/ethical high ground.  You can say that they pushed us to these depths; that we were forced to adopt otherwise distasteful policies in response to those evil-doers with murder on their minds.  Is justice only for when things are going well?  When the chips are down, do right and wrong become a fuzzy gray security blanket for the bleeding heart liberal?  If so, then our esteemed forefathers weren’t quite as clever as they seemed. 

The ugly but simple fact is that we don’t value the world around us.  It’s our own personal cat box and we’ll shit wherever we please, and you better thank us for the privilege of cleaning it up.  So people get mad and fight back in the only way we seem to understand: with violence and fear.  We temporarily hitch up our drawers, break out the big guns and put our constitution under lock down.  In the process, we’re killing the very things we’re trying to protect: Freedom, liberty, justice.  In succumbing to this level or moral turpitude, our mask slips.  We become even more of what our crazed enemies hate, and less of an America worth defending.