Merry Christmas ???

As I sit today pondering the delights of the holiday I cannot help but wonder if Christmas and the other solstice holidays, with their alleged emphasis on "peace on earth, good will towards men" do not concentrate all that good will into one small portion of the year, leaving us free to be our normal mean spirited selves the rest of the year. I don't man to go all Grinch on everyone here but it does seem to me that we all too often assign good behavior to particular holidays, using that as an excuse to behave poorly the remainder of the time.

Chestnuts roasting on an open fire is a wonderful image, full of the promise of loving our neighbors, but do our busy lives compartmentalize these positive opportunities into compact segments, much as we do with most of the other things we do with our lives, giving way to a sort of culturally acceptable schizophrenia; work now, then the drive home, then play with the kids, then sleep, then back to work, ad infinitum. Doesn't it appear sometimes that we are radically different people depending on the circumstance; kind and loving here, cruel and heartless there. We shift back and forth into these becomings easily, never giving a thought to the fragmentation of our existence.

So we cram all of our feelings of gracious community and empathy into these short, swift, preordained periods of time and then return to our thoughtless striving for financial glory and social oneupsmanship the remainder of our fractured lives.  That conservative Uncle of yours gets the benefit of the doubt over turkey and all the trimmings, at least as long as it takes to unwrap the presents, and then its back to reviling him as a monster. We hold off our criticism about Cousin Mary's unfortunate divorce until well past dessert, after the tryptophan wears off and we get off the couch looking for someone to dominate once again.

Perhaps this is a harsh assessment. Maybe the ghost of Scrooge has descended upon me in a fit of bah humbuggery. I just wish everyone would treat everyone else with the same loving kindness and forgiveness they muster up every Christmas day for the other 364 days of the year. Things might be better all around.

What Kind of Together Do You Want?

It's been awhile since my words have graced this corner of cyberspace. Electoral politics reared their ugly head and I was embroiled with this, that and the other thing, trying to get those I identified with elected. Oh, I had plenty of time to write, but when I arrived home after a day of campaigning I was exhausted, partly from the work but mostly from the stress of not knowing if the country would be led in a better direction. Besides, if I had anything to say it would probably be a diatribe against my candidates opponent and lord knows there was plenty of that to go around, offered by better minds than mine.

I have been devoting those brain cells I have left to a concise definition of the difference between the two isolated and polarized political camps that populate modern American politics. This conundrum has perplexed lots of pundits from both camps, although traditionally conservatives have done a better job of lying about liberals than vice versa, thus giving the appearance of clearly delineating a definition of "those who hate America". These distortions aside, few experts have been able to divine a concise and accurate presentation of the differences between conservative and progressive character. Perhaps George Lakoff has come closest to the pin, describing conservatives as espousing "strict father" values with progressives choosing "nurturant parent" values instead.

The understanding of strict father and nurturant parent mentality unfortunately drifts about too much for my tastes. In general they provide a fairly accurate description of the two dominant modes of political thinking we see expressed today but who really knows exactly what they mean.

To accurately pin down a clear understanding of these differences in a sound bite easily digestible by the masses we must use few words (a struggle for this writer it is clear). They must be easily understandable by a majority of Americans and have elements both of commonality and separation, as that is the true nature of Americans, separated by ideology but bound by great commonality of purpose. Let me offer my contribution to this struggle to nail down a definition once and for all. I do not say it is the best solution, only mine. I do feel it has merit however slight it might be.

Lots of people I have talked to say that conservatives are about me and liberals are about we. This is concise to be true and descriptive but, I feel incomplete. I know plenty of conservatives that care about people and progressives who look out for number one. I hear others say conservative favor corporations and progressives are for workers. This again is basically true but narrows the scope of consideration to issues of commerce. Once again, in refutation, I think we all know conservatives who care about working people and progressives who are quite corporate in their approach to business.

I have always loved words and their etymology. Where words come from gives us a clue as to the reason for their creation. Words arise from a need to communicate something. Their roots give us a glimpse of their real meaning. The words I have chosen to describe the difference between conservatives and progressives are simple and related. Simply put conservatives compete and progressives cooperate. Both of these words are from the Latin and have as a prefix the Latin co or com, meaning together. Everybody, whether they care to or not, acts together. Even the hermit, far away in his mountain cabin, cannot get absolutely everything he needs from the land. He had to buy an ax somewhere and for some unknown reason most hermits drink coffee, necessitating some kind of relationship with Juan Valdez or his surrogates. Society is a series of individual acts that impact other individuals. We cannot escape it. We are social animals.

The roots of these two words are also related but subtly different. Compete has as its root the Latin verb petere, which means to aim at. Put the prefix and root together and we come up with an intentional meaning of aiming at something together. To compete means we all have the same thing in our sights but the implication is that only one of us will reach the goal, that all others will fail, unless you are Robin Hood and can split the sheriff's arrow at the bullseye. Few of us can compete at that level. This type of problem solving implies that we all start with a quiver of arrows and a bow, essentially equal, but the skill of one individual will out. There is only one winner and everyone else loses.

Cooperate, on the other hand, has at its essence the Latin verb root operari which means to work. The word means to work together. As we can see there is great similarity in the two words. Both of them refer to people acting together to accomplish a given goal. The difference is in the focus of the two roots. When people cooperate i.e. work together, they accomplish a common goal and all benefit. They use their skill not to outwit or defeat an opponent but in accord with and augmenting the skill of others to produce a given result. Of course, there must be accord from the beginning of the task. In competition there are a variety of personal goals in play. Some compete simply for the thrill of winning, some to glorify themselves, some to prove a point. When people cooperate they have already thought out and agreed on the goal. This is work, something that many ego oriented competitors find boring and ultimately wasteful. Just set up the damn target and lets go at it.

So how do these related but finely differentiated words describe what I say they describe? Conservatives believe competition is the way to solve problems and act in the world. They posit that the most skillful will find the best solutions and that it is in all of the losers' best interests to meekly accept that superiority. They believe in the competition of the free market system. They believe that each human interaction is a test of competence (notice where that word comes from). They believe that only the strong survive and that as Orwell so succinctly put it "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". They believe in helping those who have less than they do but from a philosophy of "charity" which they tout as a virtue but from which they most often simply confirm their superiority. They give to those "beneath" them to feel good about themselves and their higher status. The people they give to do not deserve charity but the magnanimous conservative grants them the clemency of his gifts if they jump through whatever behavioral hoops he sets out before them, like a Roman gives the thumbs up to a particularly effective slave warrior in the Colosseum. 

This is not to say that many conservatives give for altruistic reasons for there is such a thing as compassionate conservatism but unfortunately the former reasons are all too prevalent among those who worship the modern philosophy of Objectivism which rejects altruism out of hand as a weak and timid response unworthy of those who understand and have the strength and discipline to be powerful. Conservative give of their treasure to show they have won, to confirm their competitive victory.

Conservatives believe that the purity of one man's (or corporation's) skill and power trumps the "compromised" and inherently weak mutual decisions of people working together in cooperation. They believe winning is everything. They want to drill in ANWR because not to drill is to admit weakness in the face of the power of foreign oil. They teach their kids to kick ass and take names. They teach them that making money is essential in proving their value. They believe in personal responsibility but twist the meaning of that noble pursuit into one where one is only responsible for oneself and not for others. The conservative world is one where all individuals are constantly bumping heads and chests with the winner becoming the Alpha and everyone else cowers. It is innately animal and hierarchical. It is regressive, involutional and wastes an incredible amount of energy.

Cooperation, while retaining the same aspect of acting together as competition, does so from an entirely different philosophic perspective. Progressives cooperate because, in the words of the late Paul Wellstone "We all do better when we all do better". In fact there are plenty of bromides that describe a progressive philosophy of cooperation, " A rising tide floats all boats", "...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. ", "United we stand, divided we fall", etc.

The point of cooperation is to maximize the collective skills available to best and most efficiently solve problems and accomplish tasks. Progressives believe that no one person has all the answers. They feel that we all have gifts, in different areas, and that together we can apply those gifts to the benefit of all. Progressives teach their kids to share. They tell them to be whatever they have a passion for. Progressives value what are apparently weaknesses in others for they know that accompanying those weaknesses are commensurate strengths. Progressives believe not only in individual responsibility but in mutual responsibility where people are responsible not only for their own actions but also look out for others. They temper their decisions with honest concern about the welfare of people they don't even know, save that they are members of the human race and thus worthy of that concern.

The progressive world is one where people work together to make things better than any one of them ever could acting alone. It is evolutional and always looks forward, knowing the past is to be learned from but can never be relived. Progressives seek out win-win situations. They recognize that resources are scarce and precious and work to be efficient in their use of energy, especially human energy.

So in essence we find two systems, one which envisions being together as individuals all vying for the same prize and another where being together means we give up a small portion of our individuality for the good of the whole. To be frank both systems work. The true question is which system will bring us closer to potential extinction and which will bring us into a new dawn of human endeavor. For me the answer is clear but then again I am but one man. Perhaps we can work together to determine which course leads to a future and which does not. I am ready to help.

Mad Avenue

Does anyone else see the relationship between Madison Avenue culture and values and the moral and ethical decline of America? I don't think it is a topic that comes up often, with such juicy stuff as Iraq, oil, the economy, health care, the environment and transportation dominating the sociopolitical dialogue. The pervasive culture of advertising in America is probably more effective as a back burner issue than if people were discussing it daily. I believe that strategy is by design. Madison Avenue doesn't want you to know just how much they effect your life. 

It's ok for men to lie to their wives and girlfriends in order to go out drinking with the boys. An expensive, hot car will help break the glass ceiling for women. Fast food is cool. Having gray hair means you won't be getting any more sex. Go ahead and marry that trophy wife, you will still be able to satisfy her with the help of our pills (although you may have to invest in matching bear claw bathtubs). There is such a thing as clean coal and it is good for America. These are just some of the myriad lies, half truths and myths that advertising would have us believe. And I haven't even addressed the female body issues which permeate our marketing landscape.

Advertising is such a deeply established tradition in America that we barely notice how ingrained in our consciousness the messages have become. I continually tell my teenage daughter that someone has spent plenty of money trying to get you to spend yours. She sort of gets it. I also tell her that if somebody is spending lots of money trying to convince you that something is good for you it probably isn't. 

Advertising is a multi-billion dollar business and much of our broadcast entertainment would not exist without it. I often wonder if paying for TV and radio would be a better alternative than being subjected to the constant brainwashing of ad after ad imploring us to buy stuff we don't need. In any event, not everyone has the requisite will to resist the bombardment we are under over the airwaves and in print media, not to mention the supersized billboards that distract us on the highways.

Americans must change their lifestyles to adjust to the drastic changes they will experience in the 21st century. Madison Avenue isn't helping one iota.

Driving Ms. Crazy

One metaphor I have often used to delineate the stark difference between conservative world view and progressive thought is the freeway analogy. In it one compares conservatives and progressives with drivers on a freeway. Conservatives champion individual responsibility and this is a good thing , make no mistake about it. But a world full of people practicing individual responsibility implies that responsibility is tied to individual self-interest. Humans naturally feel responsible for taking care of themselves and a focus on individual responsibility is only as valuable as the individual's interests allow.

If someone's self-interest goals are to make lots of money they will take the responsibility upon themselves to make that happen. If a person's goals are to assure his family is safe their responsibility may take the form of buying a gun and learning how to use it. This, in and of itself is not a bad thing. It is when individual's needs intersect with other's needs that volatile situations can be created when self-interest goals clash.

It is for this reason that I have always felt that the progressive value of mutual responsibility is a more evolved form of commitment than simple individual responsibility. In mutual responsibility the individual tempers his own self-interest by considering the needs of others as well. They not only take responsibility for caring for their own family but recognizes that the needs of others also have value. After all they would hope that those others would be cognizant of their needs.

Most religions and great cultures have in their creed some form of the Golden Rule. We teach it to our kids and expect that society will run smoothly largely because of it. But a philosophy of individual responsibility can circumvent the Golden Rule in certain instances by narrowing ones focus onto their own interests and ignoring others. This is often not by choice but evolves out of the nature of single-mindedness that is essential to achieving goals. In order for society to function properly there must be some give and take between people with conflicting goals. Individual responsibility can exacerbate this conflict while mutual responsibility can temper it.

The freeway analogy is simple. While driving on a busy rush hour freeway who would one wish to be driving the other cars, persons practicing individual responsibility or ones using mutual responsibility? If you think about it for a minute those practicing individual responsibility might be thinking, "I have to get home as fast as possible because I was late getting out of the office and I have to take Tommy to soccer practice". They may dart in and out of traffic, dangerously, in an effort to shave several seconds of their commute time. They may be hungry and eating a sandwich. They may have a big client on their cell phone. In each instance these people are doing normal things but they are self driven. They make no considerations for other drivers and therefore become dangers to everyone on the road.

The driver surrounded by people practicing mutual responsibility is aware that they also have things to do for themselves but they recognize that erratic driving is dangerous to others. They resign themselves to the fact that Tommy might have to be late for practice. This use of mutual responsibility principles also works to make the individual safer on the freeway. Tommy will never get to practice if dad is in an accident on the freeway. So we see that mutual responsibility serves individual responsibility too, just not always in the way the individual imagines it will. This also models the basic Christian principle that God's plan for us is greater than any plan we can come up with.

The next time you are on a busy freeway try to model mutually responsible behavior. Remember the old slogan, "Drive carefully, the life you save may be your own". And remember that when you do you are living out a progressive value.

For Tom and Michael

I have lost two male friends to massive heart attacks in the last month. These men were the kind of close that meant regardless of how long it had been since we had seen one another there was always an implicit nearness, born of occupying the same cosmic space. We didn't exchange daily e-mails, nor did we have to. There was an easy comfort that they were merrily leading their remarkable lives without needing to consult me. These were the type of friendships that time could not alter.

Each man was famous for being who he really was. One was a leading architectural voice in the sustainable co-housing movement. The other was a master luthier of other-worldly talent. One built, and taught others to build, housing complexes that were communities where neighbors developed familial relationships and lead lives full of meaning. The other built instruments played in major concert halls the world over. His innovations set a new paradigm of artistic capability. The music played on his guitars had meaning.

I have taken two important things from their passing. For perhaps the first time in my life my own mortality is painfully apparent and real to me. There is a hard liberty in this. Also, they each call to me to swiftly burn through any and all impediments to my own becoming, real or imaginary. My mother's passing showed me the path and these two trailblazers have cleared the way for me to assume my true destiny, a road previously thickly grown over with the gnarled and impassable vines of my own self doubts. God brings himself to us in numerous forms and ways, if only to reveal that we, too, are in him.

I treasure these friends, in life and death. I will honor them by emulating their strong connections to the reality of existence with the truest memorial I can imagine by building a meaningful life of my own and for being famous for who I really am.

Wherefore Doest Thou Goest, Education?

As Christians learn that they are not so much "educated" to become good Christians as they are "formed" so did the educational system of the past "form" good citizens rather than simply educate youth. This was a public/private collaboration between the school and the family. School provided the "Three R's"; readin', 'ritin', and 'rithmetic and not much more. The family provided the moral and ethical foundation for good citizenship, they "formed" the good citizen. Why? Because the family felt a moral and ethical obligation to produce good citizens. The civic "honor" of the family demanded it.

The "greatest" generation is a perfect example of this partnership. Men and women with mostly an eighth grade education defeated two dictatorships and became the world's primary superpower. How did they do that with such a "meager" educational experience? They had a well developed sense of moral and ethical certitude. Their parents had insisted on it.

Unfortunately, modern parents are too busy with this that and the other thing, don't have the same cultural imperative or simply lack the requisite skills to impart those same values to their own children. Perhaps becoming the "best" has made us lazy. Whatever the reason today's children are not taught through a public/private collaboration that "forms" them to become good citizens. Rather they are "formed" through the needs of private business for worker bees. This has manifested an educational system that has been given the tacit task, through parental abrogation of duty, of making their sweet young ones into complete citizens without their own input. Educational systems nearly always fail at this task. It is not what education is meant to do. Failing that, the system is capable of turning out good, pliant and unquestioning workers with little conscience or ethics in their stead.

Without the checks and balances of a moral education in the home or with the imbalance of one with a marked agenda, these kids are thrown into the workplace with technical skills but little critical thinking abilities. They are easy to pressure and manipulate and they think nothing of eagerly participating in the cruel and unethical tactics of modern corporate culture. They backstab and step on their associates with ease. They push ahead for profit at any cost without compunction.

Perhaps we should just stop financing this type of "education" altogether. We can just vote away any and all public funds for education. It is certainly not serving the republic. Let corporations fund education if they want to create a specifically skilled but mindless workforce. The homeschooling crowd is onto something. Unfortunately most of them are into forwarding their own personal agendas as well. After all, who but ideologues have the time and energy to educate their own kids.

There is a segment of conservative thought that is deathly afraid of alleged "ultra liberal" bias in higher education. They claim that super liberal professors pressure students to see things their way. College students are not dumb. They play along with the liberal profs, knowing that the realities of life are much different from that which they have been told. They are already aware of the dog eat dog nature of the world from the caustic text messaging and judgmental stares of high school. Not much in the way of liberal thought can pierce that veil of ignorance. Only the truly empathic remain liberal in the face of these "cold, hard facts". They accept that they will never be effective cogs in the machine of private enterprise.

So to change education maybe we need to change who benefits from it. Educational processes need to stop serving business alone and start serving society once again. And the way to do that is to return to the sharing of responsibilities of the past. Parents need to reacquire the civic pride they once cherished and become responsible for "forming" their children to become quality citizens. Quality citizens are the engine that drives democracy. 

Our slavish devotion to commerce is a strong and vicious circle to break but we must place our efforts there instead of spinning our wheels on adequate funding formulas, class sizes and mainstreaming. It is a monumental task but one that must be done.

Are you ready to go back to the future?

Obfuscation As Art Form

I had the opportunity several weeks ago to listen to an ostensibly "fair and balanced" presentation about global warming. They even showed a major portion of "An Inconvenient Truth". It was, however, followed by "The Great Global Warming Swindle", a British shockumentary that contends that dramatic global climate change is a scam and has several allegedly important scientists backing up it's claims. 

The whole thing was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, plus a plethora of local Republican legislators, and featured James M. Taylor, the Institute's featured writer on environmental matters, as host and chief naysayer. Mr. Taylor came armed with lots of "facts" that asserted that: 1. The earth is not warming and is in a natural cycle of climate fluctuation, probably going colder than warmer. 2. If, indeed, the planet is warming it is definitely not anthropogenic (caused by man). Notwithstanding that these are mutually exclusive statements this scenario was interesting to me in that the Heartland Institute is considered a free market think tank. Here is their mission statement, quoted from their website.

" Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do better than government bureaucracies."

 

Reading through this mission statement it is clear, to me at least, that the Heartland Institute is by no means a free-market advocate and is instead a sock puppet for preserving the status quo in major corporate interests and promoting new age conservative ideals. All of their stated missions have more to do with maximizing corporate profits and undermining government than simply advocating for free markets. They reveal a worship of the University of Chicago School of Economics championed by Milton Friedman. According to Friedman the free market is better than government in providing public services. In that sense the Heartland Institute is a free market advocate. However, new age conservative politicians have co-opted Friedman style economics to suit their own global domination politics. To them Friedman's economics means that only profit is moral and that government is always bad. It is these folk who use the Heartland Institute to forward their own purposes.

One must remember that Freidman was also a strong social libertarian and had an extremely narrow view of government intervention in people's lives. This viewpoint informed his economics and has led new age conservatives to the distorted contention that all that is needed to save the world is to give all the money to private corporate interests. This is what the Heartland Institute is really advocating. If they were truly champions of the free market they would recognize the solid science behind global warming and favor economic development of alternative energy sources and means of delivery as the natural shift in paradigms that they are, and allow the market to adjust as is normal.

Instead they advocate for the obfuscating statement "market based approaches to environmental protection". According to the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and Mr. Taylor's rhetoric this simply means continued use of carbon based fuels for energy. Their denial of global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific information is not a call for a free market solution but support for an old paradigm in the face of a natural switch to a new one. By denying that global warming exists they claim that carbon based fuels are cheaper and therefore better than wind, solar, safe hydroelectric and other alternative fuels. This position could only arise from abject monetary support from the oil and coal industries and does not represent the spirit of the supposed mission of the Heartland Institute at all.

It is a sad world where anyone with enough money can buy scientific support for their agendas. This means anyone, on either ends of the various political spectrums, can buy junk science and claim anything. As a result science is being cheapened as we move away from a rational world into one where things are true simply because someone says so. 

How sad is that?

Mere Hours in the Limelight

Would that there were a way to assure that those hard working, long suffering, non-whining political activists, the ones who get everything done without complaining or expecting any great reward, could be the very same delegates who get to choose party nominees and conduct other party business at the state conventions held every two years. Alas, it would be extremely difficult to insure that these folks, the ones who know how to get things done, were elected to those august positions. The system is set up to promote democracy, which is a different thing altogether from efficiency.

The way the DFL system works (I have no desire to spend much time finding out how the Republican system works) delegates move forward either by being elected by vote of delegates present at senate district or county unit conventions (from those elected at precinct caucuses) or by an enigmatic system known as walking sub-caucuses, a system I will not attempt to describe, it being so esoteric as to confuse even the most knowledgeable politico. Suffice it to say that in either case if one is a comfortable, polished public speaker able to persuade one has a better chance of being elected. Unfortunately not all knowledgeable, dedicated activists have this requisite skill. Many folks who know what is going on with the party and in their own communities, and would make excellent delegates, are averse to tooting their own horn in public. It is not in their natures to gloat over their accomplishments.

The result of these truths is, although meant to increase democratic participation, the system often elects delegates who simply want to be in the spotlight for that one weekend every two years the party meets to convene. They hang out, go to the parties, feel important when the candidates want to personally talk to them, do some voting and then disappear into the crowd, not to be seen again until the next time delegates are selected at the precinct caucuses, starting the selection process for another election cycle's convention.

Try as I might I have yet to figure out a way this peculiar type of perversion can be overcome without also ruining the democratic process. Perhaps we will just have to get used to having democracy run by those who know how to worm their way into the photo ops without ever doing any appreciable work. Wait, aren't we already governed by professional election winners instead of real statesmen. Maybe if we could see past how well a person looks in a suit or how effectively they can sell themselves we might be able to elect delegates and subsequently nominate and elect candidates who are willing to roll up their sleeves and get a little dirty for the common good.

Heaven forbid we elect citizen/statesmen/women who actually remember how to manifest good old American know how.

Important or Impotent?

One thing that conservative politicians tend to do that fascinates me is their proclivity to support relatively meaningless legislation in a blatant attempt to foster the good graces of the working class. They want to show the little guy that they are on his side but cannot bring themselves to support something that would actually help them, like single payer health care or publicly financed elections, but rather find these obscure, ostensibly populist issues to champion instead. Heaven forbid they might do something that would really mean something for the people.

One shining example of this practice is Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-MN) recent sponsorship of a bill that would roll back the current bill that would phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of the more energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs for residential and commercial use. As is most often the case with these left field issues there is a modicum of truth to her contention that the mercury content of the fluorescent bulbs poses a modest health and environmental risk. Rep. Bachmann argues that folks should have the right to choose what bulbs they use and the government should not be sticking it's ugly hand into their utility closets and bulb sockets. See, I am standing up for your right to do whatever you damn well please regardless of it's wisdom.

When properly disposed of, the fluorescent bulbs pose little danger to anyone and the reduction of energy used by the bulbs themselves means a reduction in the amount of coal used to create that energy, which means a concurrent reduction in the measurable amounts of mercury released directly into the atmosphere by that coal burning process. Rep. Bachmann didn't happen to mention that in her statement. Perhaps she thought it would confuse those good folk who don't want Washington telling them what damn light bulbs to use.

A second example of this creative means of bonding with the working class was then Minnesota State Senator, Dave Kleis' (R-MN) advocacy of making Texas Hold'um poker tournaments legal in Minnesota bars and service organization's clubhouses. Another one of those "common sense" bills that appealed to the breakfast cafe intelligentsia of the heartland. Hell, no one is getting hurt by this friendly gambling. Why can't the boys get together and pound a few beers and have some fun. See, I care about you guys. Why should the state tell you how to have fun. Kleis was so passionate about the issue he got a major New York newspaper to write a front page article about it.

Why did we send him to St. Paul anyway? Was it perhaps to strive to work together with other representatives from around the state to make day to day life better for hard working Central Minnesotans? I thought it was. I guess he was scared to sponsor any bills that made a real difference.

There are plenty more examples out there of this type of false populism from conservatives who, if they follow the party line, (and they ALL follow the party line) rarely if ever do anything that really helps the working class. They dream up these mostly meaningless issues to forward, like knights in shining armor, appearing to be caring, concerned public servants who work hard to reverse injustice but are actually working PR scams.

Instead of working for meaningful health care reform we get light bulb wars and instead of proper state funding of education we get good old boy poker night. The self promotion of these weak attempts to help the people is shameless. Did all of these politicians grow up admiring the circus.

Gee those elephants look cute in those outfits.

Bitter Struggle ???

The powers that be in the media would have you believe that a protracted "struggle" for the Democratic nomination between the two remaining candidates will bitterly divide the Democratic party and destroy their chances of winning in November. It is my estimation that this is simply a fabrication dreamt up by media heads to keep their coverage of the "monumental struggle" in the forefront of the news.

To be frank, I feel that a continued, contested race for the Democratic nomination only serves to help the Dems, through the effect of keeping the race on the front burner of American media expression. It is Senator McCain who is and will continue to struggle to get face time on the news as long as there is a contested race for Democrats. In this sense the race will have the exact opposite effect that the pundits proclaim. The mistake they make is in underestimating the very lack of long term memory that they have fomented in the public themselves, in order to continue to sell sensationalized infotainment instead of focusing on hard news. They are saying (and trying to get us to believe) that a protracted Democratic race will divide the party irreparably, opening the door for a McCain victory. They do this because motion toward a victory for one candidate or another serves their needs. It will make McCain relevant again. A continued race only dilutes the kind of coverage they can offer. After all, you can only spin the same stuff so far before America realizes it is bored. The race itself, however, will offer real intrigue and not the fake kind dreamed up by media types desperate for ratings

People have such a short attention span that they will soon forget any animosity between Senators Clinton and Obama. Once a candidate is chosen Democrats will unite once again against the common issues of continued waging of an Iraq war that grows more unpopular daily, plus the disastrous effects of stone age Republican economic policy. The "bitter struggle" will be forgotten in two weeks. In the meantime Senator McCain will barely be able to get arrested on TV until after the Democrat's convention.

A brokered convention could be the best things American Democrats have ever experienced. It will create a sense of drama that cannot be bought at any price and will thrust the eventual Democratic winner into a limelight they will not relinquish. America has not had a brokered convention for decades. Most Americans have never experienced the thrill of ballot after ballot, bottoms planted firmly on the edge of their seats. It is almost as dramatic as the NCAA basketball "March Madness". We deserve an opportunity to see American democracy at it's contentious best, factions fighting desperately for victory. The Democratic Party can give us this thrill, and as a nation of thrill seekers reacts the Republicans may not be able to match it, no matter how Machiavellian they are able to act.

I, for one, look forward to the possibility of a brokered convention with glee.

Apparencies

I'm not sure if I am appalled or amused, but I certainly took notice of the abrupt introduction of the "fait accompli" guilt by association attack on Barack Obama, which was carefully crafted by Fox Infotainment. As it appears to me, Eliot Spitzer did us all a service by falling on his sword (or was that someone else falling on his sword) so dramatically. In order to get the attacks on the "Ultra Liberal Democrats" back onto the front burner they decided to trot out one of their trump cards. My guess is that if the ex-governor had not screwed up so ignominiously the Fox brain trust would have been able to hold off until later in the game with their footage of Pastor Wright and subsequent lobbing of heavy artillery. 

I mean, really, Spitzer had bought us a good 48 hours of respite from the incessant over-analysis of the presidential race, and Fox would have none of it. In their blood lust for opportunities to make Democrats look ridiculous I believe the media manipulators at Fox mistimed their assault on Obama. By tax day it will be a non issue. The media can only support a major issue for several weeks at best. This would have been much more effective released in October. Perhaps Fox got wind that someone else was going public with this stuff and would not have their own poison parade rained upon. In reality we should be thankful, because the scenario has provided America with a real teachable moment, something the Obama campaign seized upon by cleverly, dramatically, and inspirationally crafting his "A More Perfect Union" speech.

Could this speech be the proverbial sliver lining in the cloud of caustic and acerbic bile that is major media coverage of our impending presidential election? Could Hannity and the like be hoist on their own rapier sharp petards? As I have stated, it is difficult in today's world to manifest truth for more than several weeks. Untruths tend to last a little longer. Obama's words are worthy of the ages. If the moving, meaningful words of this great orator become yet another sound bite, a mere bookend for bracketology, then I suppose we will deserve the missed opportunity that diminishment will represent. Unfortunately my sense is that this speech will become another in a long series of unfulfilled insights offered freely to America by the more visionary of her sons and daughters. As much as those words pain me I hope to God they someday will no longer be true. Obama may not be the person to become our next president but he has much to teach us.

We still have so very far to go.

Changing Horses In Midstream

Up to this point I have used this blog to post my longer, more philosophic, essay-like ramblings. It was my own little universe and I did not feel the need to post daily diatribes on the state of the universe, trying to one up other bloggers on some scoop of political dirt. I had posting permission on another multi-author blog that I used to interject more pithy, succinct commentary on the day to day world of politics into the blogosphere when I felt the desire to do so, and that worked just fine for me.

Recently the owner of that blog removed it from publication. I wasn't even warned in advance lest I had wanted to save some of my more self important posts to drool over, internally patting myself on the back late at night after checking all my sports chat lines and still not feeling tired. Needless to say I was almost aghast. I say almost because I believe I understand why the blog was pulled. That still doesn't make me feel any less upset over losing some good material. Oh well, life is an omelette, not sunny side up.

The sum total of all of this is that the tone and nature of this, my lovely blog, pretty blog, angel baby blog will change somewhat as I incorporate the timely with the timeless and seek to produce work that is either reflective and deep, or au courant and sexy, depending on my state of mind, chemical imbalance and/or frustration with whatever part of the existence by which I am currently flustered.

This means that not only will I wax poetic, posting marvelous musings no one ever reads, but I will also reveal which candidates turn my crank and which particular issues of momentary import have my dander up. I hope you, blessed reader, gains from this change in direction, this course correction. I trust that it will, at the very least, mean more frequent posting, which will be a boon for all of us, don't you think?