New Shiny Blog!

It's oscar season, and now I get to focus on my other true love, but I decided to do so in a new blog. Hope you visit it and enjoy.

Media Meltdown: The election and my nerves

So... sorry about the dearth of posts. I've been so full of all things election and the constant flow of information that it's been hard to collect my thoughts long enough to express them coherently. I have to say a big huzzah to a column by Larry David in the Huffington Post in which he chronicles the jangling of nerves that accompanies this political season. There's just too much, I don't even know where to begin. I think I'm going to give my fellow nervous dems a list of my fellow iconclasts to help them through theses undoubtably torturous next six days. I'll do a short feature on each. stay tuned.

Piling On: Do I Really Have to Defend Colin Powell From the Charge of Racism?

I might not even post on this issue if it were only Rush Limbaugh saying this, but we've got normally even handed logical people like George Will and Pat Buchannan picking this up and running with it.

Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama and now Obama's lead has gone back to double digits. So what else but bring up the charge that Colin Powell endorsed Obama because Obama happens to be of the same race as Colin Powell. It reminds me of a scene from Liar Liar

Fletcher: Objection your honor!

Judge: On what grounds?

Fletcher: It's devistating to my case!

In short Powell, a univerally hailed centrist, has just taken away part of McCain's argument that Obama is a dangerous outsider who can't be trusted. So the only attack left is the most odious.

**sigh**

Okay, Colin Powell was free to endorse any presidential candidate and in 2000 he supported George W. Bush. Not Alan Keyes, not Al Sharpton, not Carol Mosley Braun. If Powell made his decisions based on race, he would have joined Jesse Jackson's campaign and not served in the cabinet of George H. W. Bush. Powell has had no record of supporting, promoting, or following someone based on their race.

"But none of those guys had a chance," I hear you say, "Barack Obama does and Powell just wants to be a part of it."

Point to one moment in Colin Powell's life in which he didn't have the country's best interests at heart. I can only think of one that comes close: His case of Saddam's WMD's to the UN. He said then that he truly believed the intelligence and was speaking candidly. I believe him because in his decades of service to his country he has never been known to lie. Those who speak against him now and say his endorsement is racially motivated should choose to believe him for the same reason.

Losing My Lunch: McCain's Moral Entropy

McCain is using robo calls to mislead and smear Barack Obama with the ridiculous threadbare connection between Obama and Bill Ayers. Besides being repugnant, they are in some cases illegal, and in all cases hypocritical. He's using the same firm that spread lies about him in 2000, the ones that said he had fathered an illegitimate black child. Apparently, none of that bothers him.

Look at this exchage from Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: But Senator, back — if I may, back in 2000 when you were the target of robo calls, you called these hate calls and you said...
MCCAIN: They worked.
WALLACE: ... and you said the following, "I promise you, I have never and will never have anything to do with that kind of political tactic."
Now you've hired the same guy who did the robo calls against you to — reportedly, to do the robo calls against Obama and the Republican Senator Susan Collins, the co-chair of your campaign in Maine, has asked you to stop the robo calls. Will you do that?
MCCAIN: Of course not.

So, McCain's word is negotiable at the expense of winning an election. What other conclusion can one draw from that statement? This is rank unapologetic hypocrisy. Do conservative politicians think Fox News is an island where they can say whatever the hell they want because no one with half a brain cell is listening? Because we are listening Senator McCain, and we heard you. The message is loud and clear from Palin to Ayers to Joe the Plumber to Robocalls, McCain believes Campaign first, Country second.

The 14th Minute of Fame: Why Joe the Plumber is Irrelevant

I slightly regret my earlier post on Samuel Wurzelbacher aka. Joe the Plumber, but not because I feel sorry for him, as Fox News believes I should. His ability to complain about inquiries into his past ended when he signed up for that slew of interviews. No, I regret my post because it played, ever so slightly, into the hands of the McCain campaign.

Forget that Wurzelbacher's background includes several shady areas. It doesn't matter if you can draw up conspiricy links from him to the Keatings and the McCain camp. It doesn't matter at all. It doesn't even matter that Joe would benefit more from Obama's proposed tax plan than from McCain's

Here's the point: "Joe the Plumber" is relevant only as an symbol of the moderate, undecided voter; a vision of the mainstream, blue collar worker that we can identify with. This is McCain's hope in using him (whether it was organic or faked) and McCain is trying to swing the moderate vote. And Wurzelbacher is not a moderate, nor do I believe he is undecided. He has radical, extreme right wing views that are outside of the mainstream of America. Anyone who thinks American troops should be treated like Jesus in Iraq and who doesn't want Social Security does not speak for the majority of Americans. He is obviously a McCain voter, and has always been. Whether the lie was his or McCain's makes no difference. The point is he does not speak for mainstream America and is therefore irrelevant. I will no longer speak or post about him because he and his views have no bearing on this extremely important election year.

Losing My Lunch:Caribou Barbie's McCarthylicious New Chapter to the Campaign

"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe... We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom." - Sarah Palin

Weeks ago, the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum poked holes in Palin's provincial logic. But this is that same idea taken to a ridiculous extreme. I doubt Palin would think I'm from a very Pro-America place. I've always lived in big cities, from Austin to Dallas to Ft. Worth, to D.C., to Baltimore. I'm a child of the suburbs and have little to no connection with what Palin would call the "real America". But, last time I checked, they still have factories, police, and teachers even in the big city. Last time I looked they still recruited people from cities to fight wars. Just because the community is larger doesn't mean that we do nothing to serve that community or our country. In fact, often the sacrifices are far greater. We would do well to honor the service of every person who donates their time to improving the lives of those who live around them rather than their bottom line.

Barack Obama is such a person. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review and could have his pick of all the high powered law firms in the land. Instead he and Michelle gave back to their community. And for that Palin et. al. ridiculed him.

Now it has gone even farther than that. Michelle Bachman (aptly called the bats#$t crazy congresswoman from Minnesota by Stephanie Miller) has decided that there might be some people in the US Congress who are anti-american. Chris Matthews does a wonderful job of pinning her down and making her commit to her insane claims. He does nail her down to being suspicious of Barack Obama's patriotism.

I have a question for Bachman and the anyone else who shares her viewpoint: If Barack Obama and city policemen and firefighters and teachers and soldiers all dedicated their life to service of their community, for what reason did they do it than for LOVE OF THEIR COUNTRY? Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Barack and Michelle Obama as well as the actions of public servants, yes even the ones in cities, are deafening compared to any words or assosciations warped by pseudo-populist politicians praying they can engender a cultural divide.

Not everyone small town person is Jefferson Smith or Longfellow Deeds. Sometimes you get a Bob Ewell or a Jerry Lundegaard. Being provincial does not make you superior, nor does it make you inferior. There are good folks and bad folks; nice folks and mean folks; honest and crooked; hopeful and bitter, everywhere, in every city, small town, hamlet, and dry county. You cannot parcel out patriotism by geography. And to do so only seeks to divide this nations citizens against each other and hurt our national unity. Now THAT's Un-American.

Crumbling Pedestal: Joe the Plumber Quacks Like a Duck

There's the real star of last nights debate according to John McCain (although MSNBC's focus group gave the topic of Wurzelbacher a resounding thumbs down), and by the end of the night everyone was saying his name. Yes this strapping, rugged, man with his head shaved to cover up his male pattern baldness ala Bruce Willis, was soon being interviewed by all the major media outlets. ("I think he should model!" intoned Joe Scarborough's airheaded co-host.) He claims to be undecided, but sounds very negative on Obama's tax plan because it will hurt his bid to buy his employer's plumbing business. My goodness! What a stroke of luck! John McCain, in the 11th hour found someone whom he could prop up as an example of the very person who would be hurt by Barack Obama's tax plan. (Being only 5% of the population and only 2% of small businesses, it's hard to find)

Sound a little too convenient?
Let's begin:

1)one is not taxed on the worth of one's company, but on their profit. It would take a herculean plumbing outfit to earn a quarter of a mil in Cincinatti. If Joe is pulling in 250k net, then I don't care if he's a plumber, an architect, or a stock broker, he can afford to pay a little more.


2) Joe is not a liscenced plumber and it is highly suspect that the outfit he works for would clear 100k, let alone 250k. So, Joe was lying... or misinformed... or one hell of an unliscenced plumber.


3) If Joe owed more taxes, he probably wouldn't pay them anyway. He has had a lien placed on his home for the $11oo he owes the government.


I don't know anything for certain, but


1) Wurzelbacher is improperly registered, but even if he wasn't he's registered as a REPUBLICAN, not as an Independant.


2) Wurzelbacher has said the following of Obama:

- "I asked the question but I still got a tap dance... Almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr"
- That his tax plan is "kind of a socialist viewpoint"


On Iraq:
"I'm not sorry that we're in Iraq. . . . We liberated another country. I mean, freedom. Things that every one of you guys take for granted, everything that Americans take for granted, I mean these guys haven't had it. Now they've got it. I mean, that's an incredible thing. That's almost -- I don't know if you guys are Christians or not, but that's like somebody coming to Jesus and becoming saved. These guys have freedom."

On Social Security:
"Social Security is a joke. I have parents; I don't need another set of parents called the government. You know, let me take my money and invest it how I please. Social Security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."

Now there's a nice moderate voice.

but the most troubling and suspicious thing is the simplest.


Look at the picture at the top of this article. It was taken on the night of the debate. When asked, he said he was "surprised" at being mentioned at the debate. Why then were there reporters there to take his picture? Why were there cameras around when he approached Obama? Why was he so eager to go on all of the news shows today? Why does he sound like a Republican plant sent by an increasingly desperate McCain campaign?





Look at this animal. It has feathers and can both fly and float in the water. When it walks it makes a slight waddling motion. It emits a sound one could onomatopeonically describe as "Quack." What pray tell could this animal be?

Ideological Scapegoats: Minorities and The Poor

You know why we're in this financial crisis? Ask any conservative talk-show host or crazy wingnut youtube instapundit. Why, it's the very people that have the least amount of power in this system: poor and minority families. If only these people had exercised "personal responsibility" then none of this would have happened. And of course they aren't the only ones to blame, there's also the liberals in congress who advocate for these irresponsible people, trying to give them something for nothing. They forced these poor banks to make loans they didn't want to make in order to support their socialist ideals. It's Bill Clinton's fault because financial matters take years in order to affect the system, but it's also the liberal congresses fault because they were presiding when the crisis hit.

WHAT??? Does this actually make sense to anyone with half a brain cell?

Let's inject some facts into this. How about this incredible article by David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall. No time to read it? Here are some highlights:

"More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions."

Yeah, but they were also pressured to loan to the less fortunate, right? Certainly that scary CRA I keep hearing about had something to do with it.

"only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans. These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans."

But why? Why did they make these loans if they weren't forced to by the evil, do-gooder liberals?

" In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data....

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market."

It's simple, if people can throw around more fake money, then the housing prices become inflated, which the Bush Administration was happy to put as a feather in their cap for quite some time. And these companies had no reason not to lend the money, they could turn around and bundle the mortgages and sell them to other companies while lying about their true value. It helps their bottom line, and that's all their obligated to worry about. That's the free market baby. Law of the Jungle, Kill or Be Killed, Greed is Good.

So whose responsibility was it to make sure things of this nature don't happen? Why were they allowed to lie to the companies to whom they sold the mortgage backed securities? Because there was no oversight. The comprehensive deregulation, pushed by conservatives, but backed by quite a few democrats as well, made this possible.

The republican line on this issue is beyond false, beyond tortured logic, it is a rehashing of the same old crap. This is welfare queens and affirmitive action repackaged in a new box, but it's still the same old product inside: socially acceptable racism.

It's very comfortable to believe that one group of people are responsible for all the problems in your life. Look at the blind, incoherent rage displayed by Billo and that screaming moron in the cookie monster shirt (from the links above). Clinton, Liberals, the poor, minorities: These are the people conservatives are used to hating. Give them a link from their misery to any of these groups, no matter how vague, and they'll take it with as little proof as possible. Because all this was caused by these underclass, these people who "aren't really Americans." How dare they aspire to the American Dream? How dare they take what they can and hope for the best? They should know their place!

The saddest thing is, this will hit the poor the hardest. With the minimum wage just recently upped, those dollars will unfortunately be worth less. Why? Because the federal government is going to have to make more money out of thin air just to give the banks the cash they need to loan and keep our economy flowing. It'll probably work, but more bills in the system means only one thing: the dollar will be weaker. How good will that $7.25 an hour look when a box of tictacs costs $7.25?

Blame the poor and then stick it to them. Forget it Jake, It's Wall Street.

Political Relic: The Bradley Effect

No extra comments needed, Nate Silver at www.fivethirtyeight.com has written a great article about the veracity of the famed "Bradley Effect." He does a pretty good job of disproving it and explaining the motives. Check out the article here.

Friendly Reminder: Caribou Barbie and The Friday Dump

In case you forgot (and who could blame you, the mainstream press isn't covering it anymore) a bi-partisan commitee found Sarah Palin abused her office when she pressured Walt Monegan to fire her brother-in-law. The McCain response has been to focus on the only part of the report favorable to them, the part that says the firing of Monegan was proper."There's nothing wrong unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member. You have to read the report," she said with her trademark placating humility. That ignores the fact that she still VIOLATED the the rules of the state ethics act when she HARASSED Monegan, not when she fired him.

She's trying to weasel out of this, and it's unfortunately working because of the gorgeous Friday dump. For those not familiar with the term, the Friday dump is when public officials hold off on releasing their most damaging bits of information until late friday afternoon, hoping that the story will play itself out by Monday, thus avoiding a good amount of the audience. This is the case even when a woman who claims McCain will end all abuses of power. Just let the irony wash over you there. Nevermind that she was cited for that exact offense. Nevermind that she called him 36 separate times (great humorous account of those calls here) Get on some ritalin MSM and cover this. Obama is busy with the economy as he should be, but just because you think the "news cycle" has made this story irrelevant doesn't mean Palin gets a pass for acting unethically, espescially when she claims to be on the ticket of ethics.

Crumbling Pedestal: Rolling Stone Pwns McCain's War Hero/Reformer Persona

Rolling Stone has not been a fan of McCain's for a while, but you have to admit they've done a pretty thorough and exhaustive job in this article. With as many interviews and sources as they cite, it's not all partisan slant and smear. A great deal of this is already on record and conceded, but not discussed. What Rolling Stone does here is paint a very disturbing portrait of McCain through his words, actions, and the impression he's left on colleagues along the way. How can someone exploit a war record that isn't admirable in the least? When the mainstream press doesn't do their job.

Where Credit is Due: At Long Last, McCain Does Have Any Decency

Faced with the ugly spectre of his base and the hatred engendered by his campaign McCain finds it within himself to correct the gross misconceptions of his supporters. And, as is frequently the case with myopic extremists (on either side), civility and honesty are met with Boos. Though it was a decent thing to do, we shouldn't rush to praise McCain either. His campaign has been falsely pushing the word terrorist into the national discourse in order to excite the base. Kahled Hosseini, one of my favorite working authors, believes McCain's silence to this point has been tantamount to consent, and I have to agree with him. But it restores my faith in humanity that he seems genuinely disturbed by the ignorance around him. Just look at his face during the comments...

It seems McCain is learning the wisdom of Adlai Stevenson: "The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.”

Piling On: So you say Sarah Palin is like you...

Are you sure about that? Several people who were intially drawn to Sarah Palin have run screaming after finding out the truth about her. But there are quite a few that have dug in, defended every lie, gaffe, logical fallacy, and too-folksy-to-be-true debate style. That last point is what truly irks me. It's the log cabin tactic taken to a ridiculous extreme.

McCain's surrogates all have the same defense for Sarah Palin's "darn right", "you betcha", wink at the camera style saying: "well that's how people in my hometown of (primarily white city located in Middle America) talk," they say, shaming us for our elitist prejudices. Her lack of decorum is actually a lack of pretense, they seem to imply; a strength and not a weakness. No she's not "slick" like Barack Obama, she's something even better: genuine. A regular gal, "just like me"

So Palin apologists, if Sarah Palin is just like you, I will talk to you as if I were talking to her.

So, what's it like to shoot wolves from a helicopter? How many different colleges did you attend before finally getting your degree again? Five! Holy smokes. I heard about that thing at your job where you collected a per diem for travel and ended up just staying home, did the company find out? If they do buddy, you are toast!

But what am I talking about, you're not working any more because your in jail! That's right! You were issused a subpoena (literally translated: under penalty) and refused to answer it. You're currently in jail for contempt of court (that would be the penalty) and still haven't testified or produced any of the evidence. It's been more than a month now. Have you shanked anyone yet? I hope your "this investigation is politically motivated" defense pulls through and all of this is exposed as a withchunt.

Oh, speaking of that, maybe you can get your spiritual advisor to ward of the "witches" in the world that are the root of all your problems. If you're in a federal jail, maybe you can get the secessionist group, whose members once included your husband, to break you out. If only you had a position of power where you could cover your tracks, hide behind a cloak of respectability, have paid spinmeisters to make your every action seem normal.

But alas, you're just like Sarah Palin but you have none of her power, access, excuses, nor have you had a national media campaign protecting you from questioning and excusing your behavior. And therefore you are a college hopping religious fanatic with ties to radical political groups who would be fired from their job if they weren't currently rotting in jail.

Unless of course you're not. And you're actually a much better and more moral person than Sarah Palin. Someone who wouldn't dream of attempting half of the stuff she's gotten away with. But don't worry, when you say "she's like me", we all know what you really mean. ;)

Random Asides:

- It was hilarious to see Palin and Biden get into a "humble beginnings" pissing contest pitting Wasilla, Alaska versus Scranton, PA. Wasilla is certainly smaller, but Scranton has that factory worker appeal. But neither of them can compete with Obama, the son of a goat herder.

- I have no doubt that plenty of people drop those Ned Flanderisms from time to time. My mother-in-law does, and, being from North Dakota, she even has the northern midwest accent. When she likes something she says "Oh, for neat!" and has often used the regional slang phrase "Ufta!", espescially when getting out of her chair. But the difference is, that is how she acts in front of family. Were she in formal company, or on a job interview, or a vice-presidential debate she'd be prepared, answer the questions, and rely on her ideas to win the debate rather than mugging for the cameras like Gov. Palin.

Shocker Alert: Republicans very concerned about "Voter Fraud"

This article in the Times tells us the shocking news that several key election states have been purging thousands of voters from their roles. Even more shocking, is that Democrats are leading the charge to restore voting rights to the disenfranchised. And, make sure you're sitting down when you hear this one, Republicans are very concerned that people may be illicitly voting. Get this statemet:

"Republicans said in the motion that it is central to American democracy that nonqualified voters be forbidden from voting."

Ah the old republican line of B.S. Since when has voter fraud even entered into our national election radar? 1960? When was the last time a group of people claimed their votes were denied or altered by a corrupt system? Oh yeah, the LAST TWO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

It is a famed tall tale that President Kennedy was elected by "dead men" in Illinois. It seems every conservative is afraid the dead will rise out of their coffins and destroy the country by voting for dangerously unqualified democrats. Since when did the dems have a lock on the zombie vote?

As was once eloquently stated, it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted (Crazy left-wing stuff, I know). I think that standard applies to voting. Better that 10 people commit voter fraud than a legitimate voter be disenfranchised. I can deal with voter fraud, because at worst it would be done on a small scale by those with little to no power. Those people can be caught, charged, and when they are issued a subpoena they'll actually answer it unlike the Bush administration and the current Vice Presidential candidate.

Should we regulate it? Yes, but it's clear from this article that we are fumbling in the dark and in the meantime those with much greater access and ability can purge certain kinds of voters. The kind that are poor, and black, and Democrats usually.

If our infrastructure isn't set up to prevent voter fraud, that doesn't give the government carte blanche to take our rights away. So states are unable to police their own elections and then punish the people they govern by taking away their right to vote, for fear that a few might get to vote a few extra times? Is this as transparantly undemocratic to everyone else?

The Agenda

Thus launches The Daily Iconoclast

You can always count on me to post quick thoughts, shared materials, and links to other fantastic articles. I also promise at least one full column every week.

I have several interests, but my agenda in the coming months is clear:

From now until November this is a strictly political blog.

Starting in November, it will become an entertainment blog until Oscar season has concluded in March.

After that, all bets are off.