open letter to George W Bush

The following is my advice to George W Bush as he prepares his resume for the loss of his job and impending job search.

Dear W,

As you know, the economy is in shambles. Job loss is everywhere and many of your constituents and friends (those not needing a pardon) are hitting the pavement, looking for a job. Since you do not want the embarrassment of applying for unemployment, you may want to work on your objectives for your resume. I know the accomplishments section is not impressive, but the reference list will probably help you get that great next job.

Now, I know we have not always gotten along swimmingly. I have been critical of your lapses in judgment and pugnacious attitude. I have been disappointed by your partisanship, thinking you have mandates when half of the nation voted against you and operating like you were leading only that half of the country.

I have questioned your choices of whom to surround yourself with, your judgment and your hubris. However, I do think you have made some humbler policy choices during the past few years, including picking a more moderate Secretary of Defense and listening to your Secretary of State when she comes with suggestions. In fact, your new found love of diplomacy is something I applaud. I just wish you would sit down with your potential predecessor and inform him of your mistakes and the benefits of this diplomacy thing.

Hopefully these new found passions will follow you into the private world. My advice to you is to follow the lead of another terribly unpopular president upon leaving the White House (and not Nixon). As you know, Jimmy Carter's approval ratings were hovering around the approval ratings of the new Knight Rider program. He was considered by many to be a failure. Now, I don't want to bring it up; but many look at you in the same way, even some Republicans.

We know your options are limited. You are not much of a public speaker and your penchant for nicknames is not considered kosher in most work environments.

Here's the thing: You have a chance to Accomplish a Mission upon leaving. You don't want to be the Commissioner of Baseball. You could get fired if you run the MLB like you ran the Rangers or the USA. You can do so much more than that.

So you need to look at the examples of others that left your line of work. You can follow the lead of another unpopular president, Nixon, and disappear from public life. No one would blame you. You can also follow the lead of your dad and Clinton, doing some very good foundation work while lining the inside of your coat pockets through outrageous speaking fees and sitting on corporate boards, peddling your influence for the almighty dollar. You can even ruin the rest of your legacy by being overtly political (eg. Bill). 

Heck, this is America... and nothing is more American than trying to line your pockets based upon your position in life. No one would blame you. However, you have that 3rd option. Do something with the remainder of your life for someone else. Look at the example of your BFF, Tony Blair attempting to bring peace to the Middle East, or Jimmy Carter building homes and attempting to help the oppressed. You can do it. And I know where...

Africa. You love the continent and have done more for them than any president. You have partnered with nations, faith based groups, business leaders, Democrats and Republicans. People already know you care about solving serious issues on the continent, so focus. Say no to the speaking fees (unless you get to talk about Africa and can give the proceeds to that foundation you will create).

Spend less time with oil company execs when you leave office, unless they are handing money to your foundation. Spend more time with Bill Gates, Rick Warren and Bono. Get rid of malaria. Make AIDS a footnote in history. Cure disease. Bring peace. Think about your real legacy, not the WMDs, Habeas Corpus and Gitmo- but the people you were put here to help. You may have 20 years.

I am counting on you. And I will make you a deal. If you do this, I will never say a negative word about your presidency in the future. 

Blessings,

Rick Bennett

*To other readers: yes, I know we can think about all the things Bush, like the rest of America, HAS NOT done for Africa and the Global South, including serious debt reduction and poverty relief. But, since this letter is to him, I am focusing on the positive. If I say, well you should have done more, I am that crappy parent that demands an A when my kid works hard and gives me a B. I am not that parent. Are you?

possible October Surprises

According to the writers of the Colbert report,

8 Possible Election-Year 'October Surprises'

1. Sarah Palin wins debate using knowledge from Snapple Cap Facts.

2. Bill Clinton endorses Obama.

3. In an effort to appear younger and more hip, John McCain releases a sex ''talkie.''

4. Oak leaves suspend color-turning campaign until financial crisis is resolved. Urge maple leaves to do the same.

5. Sarah Palin turns out to have an embarrassing Ivy League-educated, immensely qualified sibling.

6. Lindsay Lohan goes back to dudes.

7. Osama bin Laden walks into Wasilla, Alaska police station to turn self in. Says, ''I would have been here sooner if you had a decent bridge.''

8. October admits it’s actually January. Election starts all over again.

the beast in the details

Sometimes America's Folk Religion is much more fascinating to me than the intellectual arguments between the respectable leaders of more defined theological beliefs and movements. If eschatology comes up I find myself speaking to other smartypants Christians about the practical implications of Moltmann's theology of hope or making light of the premillenial dispensationalism of our youth.

However, I was observing a meeting today and the present financial crisis came up. To my surprise many in the room brought the conversation (before the actual start of meeting) around to the End Times (not something I had expected). While some were quiet, others started sharing their opinions, what they had heard from others (church or family) and how this could bring about the last days, the beast, the 1 world economy, paperless money which leads to the mark of the beast and how it may be better to move to the woods.

Wow? Where did I just step into? Backwoods Live Oak (my hometown)? Nope. A meeting of professionals at a place that has is not a faith based organization. 

America has its own folk religion and once again I am reminded what it is and how little our theological protestations will change it. This is the theology of the People. I must face it. Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsay and DTS have won the battle for the rank and file (and yet we intellectuals fail to understand popular voting patterns and Dr. Phil).

rambling about Emergent

There has been a lot of discussion around the blogosphere lately about just what is this emergent, emergence and emerging Christianity. It seems to boil up seasonally. Some of it stems from the constant battle for formal statement of meaning in a thoroughly definition driven culture (see below for some of the most interesting).

The best things I am reading are reflections by people that have been part of this nonentity for a number of years. These personal stories are defined by intuition, embrace, nuance and lack of definition (I will call it the smell test- like Gladwell's book Blink; they know it when they see it). They are not defining emergent by the books we read, the right affiliations and friends, the right name dropping, the proper theological stance or the right music listened to. They are not deciding who is "not" emergent by their ecclesiology, liturgy, school attended (or else we not have such a heavy Liberty contigent), politics or denomination. This works for those that are inside (those that "get it"), but frustrates outsiders.

Those standing outside of something must define it, according to their terms, usually because they will refuse to believe those inside, since those in a movement are "corrupted" by their close proximity (there is some truth in this). The outsider does this because he needs to feel a compelling reason for not embracing a movement. This is the case in religion (like I have never done that to fundamentalism), politics, academia, and sports (why I feel so superior to pathetic Cubs fans). Heck, there is not a cultural phenomena that is not within the purview of this tendency.

We all decide whether we see something as dangerous, heretical, unhealthy, untruthful, a poor worldview, poor reasoning, uncool, nonsensical, or uncomfortable. I understand this need. It is quite normal and been around since the beginnings of documented civilization. It is not always, but usually, connected to a desire to feel in power or superior to another.

To think that a D.A. Carson, Albert Mohler or John Piper would consider the feelings, nuanced beliefs and stories of those defining themselves as emergent is naive. The critics of Emergent think one way, while many within Emergent think another way. It is no different when Republicans define, critique and lambaste Democrats on Fox News (or vice versa on MSNBC).

When doing this we are engaging in partisan thinking, which many self defined Emergents (especially newer ones) fall into. According to UVA professor of Psychology, Jonathan Haidt such thinking is defined as "reject first, ask rhetorical questions later." 

Because this conflict is about a way of thinking and nothing as simple as truth and falsehood, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no coming together between most of Emergents critics and most of Emergents participants. Only those critics that think like those within Emergent can understand what is happening (they are out there in dialogue). In fact, this is the case in most instances (in or outside of religion). The problems come from the line of thinking, not the facts (the facts are defined through the lens of the way we think).

It is the same reason some people vote Democratic or Republican (both sides are full of good people with a desire to see American society flourish). It is why most people think in a partisan manner and few do not think in such a manner. It is not because some are smarter, more spiritual, more enlightened or in any ways better. It is simply that some people need a bit more rigidity, more definition and more structure. They need "in" and "out." That must be accepted.

The irony that is not lost on me (and Emergent oldie) is that some of Newbies in Emergent think in a partisan manner. While their brains go first to a more open minded, nuanced place theologically, they still think in concrete (in and out) terms. When I look at blogs, I have noticed that some within our family have begun to define borders, orthodoxies and orthopraxis; whether this is monasticism, Anabaptist principles, Anti-Consumerism (which I do think should be a hallmark), Liberal or Democratic political ideals (but calling it moderate), anti-globalization, natural health and progressive views on women's issues, homosexuality and Biblical interpretation. While I think some of these are noble causes I can get behind, I think the danger lies in definition, which I believe many want- not just those on the outside, but also those on the inside.

I have heard too many friends tell me that a particular Church was not emergent based upon some window dressing or shallow theological point. Admittedly I have done so myself, only to repent afterwards. Just as insidious is the tendency I have seen from some that have "embraced" Emergent from very defined religious traditions (often without severe crises of faith, thought and emotion); which is a desire to define the theological particulars, co-opting the forms of their own traditional creed and systematic theology (even when calling it "narrative"). "What is the Emergent position on ____ _____?" is a comment question.

I have found myself reading many self defined "emergent" blogs and websites and only to be repelled by the insider language, lack of hospitality and inability to walk in the shoes of others (sadly I have even seen this on the Emerging Women blog countless times).* 

In my simpleminded little corner of the world, I look at someone like Morgan Spurlock as an example for Emergent. His show 30 Days is what I imagine those defining themselves as Emergent to be. It is the Anti-partisan way of thinking. It is empathetic. It demands that we consider the other, whether they be gay, poor, rich, gun-toting, Muslim, thoughtful or thoughtless, atheist or fundamentalist. We consider why they think the way they think and we accept them, not always their ideas, but them (with their ideas)*. It is to be considerate, in our actions and in our thinking.*** It is to not villainize others, because we too could be wrong in our thinking (just as arrogance is anathema to a truly reformed mind; it, too, must be such to an emerging mind- this should be common ground).

I feel I am rambling due to outside factors and not explaining clearly that I am coming to realize that (for all of our thoughts about what emergent is) Emergent is simply a way of thinking. That is it (just in a Christian context). And that is very scary to anyone that thinks in a partisan manner (whether left or right/ inside or outside). We said this in 1999, but quickly forgot this and moved to bigger things (I had accepted and promptly forgotten this principle until I saw so many self defined Emergents thinking in concrete, black and white terms).

In fact, when hanging with my Emergent friends, I come to the realization that those I count as safe may not consider themselves in Emergent or out, but their way of thinking (non partisan, considering the ideas of others and not automatically dismissing them, systemic, hospitable) is what makes them part of this movement (so yes, I am defining Emergent). And, when I think of who I consider part of emergent and who I think is not part of emergent, I look to Scripture, especially Philippians 2:1-11 (people that are like minded, not looking to their own interests, etc.)

The other irony is that I seldom use the term emergent, or talk about emergent. For me, it just is and there is no need to define it and confuse things, but today I have used the term more than I have in many moons. But, then again... what do I know?

*when particularly ornery mood,  I would invite those that think in a partisan (but "liberal, open minded") manner that want to define things to start their own camps and leave emergent to the slippery non partisan thinkers).

** within Emergent, I have felt pressure by some to have no boundaries. However, among those I count as longtime friends in this group, there is a characteristic of having one's own boundaries (however rigid they may seem), while holding no boundaries (mostly theological) for others in our community.

***it seems to me that Jesus did this.

__________________________________________________

some of the interesting things about Emergent lately include:

• Mike Stavlund's observations (he is showing some of the ways different thinking occurs religiously)
• Brian on some of the conversations.
• Andrew Jones has been on this topic for over a month. 
• Steve has been collecting a lot of this info at the Emergent Village blog.
• An excellent article that describes what I am thinking about. It explains why people vote Democratic and Republican based upon how they process information and what their mind values. It starts like it is going in a way that disses conservatives and takes a sharp turn quickly. Read it here. According to its author, we need to set aside our halo of our own way of thinking and understand that Liberals and Conservatives both have "deeply conflicting, but equally heartfelt visions of the good society."

food, politics and music (links to waste your day)

a few assorted things from the Interweb...

• Ever try to figure out which eggs to buy at the grocer? Us too. It is among the most confusing set of labels ever. Organic is not always the best, if you like chickens treated humanely. Try finding local egg? Good luck. We have actually traveled 30 miles for the perfect farm fresh egg and will eventually just get darn chickens for the back yard. Our favorites are eggs from a local egg producer that seems to do the right thing (and is not organic). However, we can only get those eggs from one grocer (not Whole Foods). I must say that how the birds are treated is as important to me (if not more) as what they are fed.                                                                                                                                                                Well , New York Times tries to "unscramble" the egg claims. Link (hat tip to Treehugger)

• Tired of Red and Blue states? Think purple does not suffice? Check this one out.

• What is this election really about? According to Daily Kos, these are things the President should be doing and we should evaluate our current president according to the list and evaluate whom we should vote for according to that list. here is the list (the source of the actual list should be important to conservatives and liberals) .

• A friend of a close friend in Atlanta made a great documentary on Sacred Harp Music. The right people have shown interest in the project, including John Paul Jones from LZ and some other great artists. They are covering the hymns and a CD is coming out. Check out the news article on Pitchfork.

• Just in case you thought John McCain was running the sleaziest campaign in history, some historians want to let you know he is not. There have been worse. According to them, nothing this year compares to the Swift Boating of Kerry, The foreignizing of Dukakis, the Anti-Catholic campaigns against Al Smith and the normal mundane 19th Century mudslinging. I guess we should all feel much better that this campaign can get much worse (notice that most really negative campaigns have led to a victory by the mud slinger). Link to story

• the Moderate Voice, one of my favorite places for political analysis and coverage, has its analysis of McCain's new found negativity. It may be too overarching to fail, but voters must rebel against it and make him pay (not to elect Obama, but to end this type of campaigning- and stop Obama before he begins it). Link to the always excellent Moderate Voice. 

• 50 Questions to ask about the Last (almost) 50 Days before the Election. Link

I have some more good stuff I have found, but will leave you with this as I head to a long meeting.

Sarah is telling the truthy truth

a few days ago, I realized that there is entirely too much of a kerfuffle being made about Palin's continued use of the phrase:

"I told the congress thanks, but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere."

I realized that she is telling the truth (at least the truthiness) and no one is reporting on it (maybe Fox noticed and is reporting this on Hannity, but I don't watch that). You just have to do a little Clintonian sentence diagramming.

Look closely at the phrase. See that comma? what that comma means is "a large passage of time, between the time I supported it and the later time when it became expedient that I oppose it officially." See that "but?" It means "oops, I had better change my mind."

No reread the phrase... "I told the Congress Thanks (true) COMMA (notating passage of many months) but (notating a change in her mind) no Thanks." See, it is all very simple with a little Clintonian parsing. We have truly entered a postmodern phase of politics.

happy thoughts

I am not the kind of guy that talks much about my actual job (I like to keep it separate from my blog), but today I was on a trip with an admission nurse visiting a man that was just coming under the care of hospice (I work with chaplains and volunteers). As I sat with the man and his wife my mind wandered, as it does a lot.

It wandered, as it does for anyone working in hospice, to my own mortality, thinking directly about my own future demise... thinking of how I will handle it if I (one day) come into hospice care, how I will react when the doctor tells me I am incurable (if I go out that way), how I will say goodbye to those around me, how I will reconcile those feelings, how I will bargain with God and how I will think about my kids, my regrets and my successes.

It can be quite overwhelming to think about death as much as one does when surrounded by death daily (whose very salary is funded by it). However, I thought about how little Americans think about death, how everything in our consumeristic society conspires to help us avoid the subject.. how little we want to think about it. You would think it would make us happy. But, it does not.

According to some wise people, thinking about our death will make us happier in the long run. Could it be that contemplating our own mortality and eventual demise, allows us to live more fully in the present and become a bit happier?*

Sounds nuts, huh? Just to us Americans. A book I read a few months ago discusses this, along with many subjects. It is called The Geography of Bliss. I recommend it.. along with contemplating your own mortality today.

* I think there are many reasons we, as a people, are not happier. But, I will just focus on this today.

Sarah W Bush interview

I am happy with this interview. It tells me what I needed to know about Sarah Palin. She is not a redux of Reagan, Goldwater or even McCain. She is the second coming of our illustrious president, George W Bush. This is very helpful to know.

So, if you:

 

then you will most definitely

the Cipher Speaks tonight

I am ready to hear what the Human Rorschach test (or cipher)* says tonight. I don't think Gibson is up to the task and I think we will get nothing real from her (not her fault- just the way the game is played).

By the way, my feelings about Palin echo those of Mark DeMoss, former chief of staff to Jerry Falwell and quoted by many the past 2 weeks.

“Too many evangelicals and religious conservative are too preoccupied with values and faith and pay no attention to competence. We don’t apply this approach to anything else in life, including choosing a pastor.” Imagine, he said, if a church was searching for a pastor and the leadership was brought a candidate with great values but little experience. “They’ve been a pastor for two years at a church with 150 people but he shares our values, so we hired him to be pastor of our 5,000 person church? It wouldn’t happen! We don’t say, ‘He shares our values, so let’s hire him.’ That’s absurd. Yet we apply that to choosing presidents. It blows my mind.”

*she is a cipher because we don't know who she is. We know people say who she is. Each person has decided on who she is based upon their own pre-judgements, but they don't know who she really is. To some.. she is Hockey Mom, to others she is Machiavelli in lipstick. I wish we could find out tonight. Hopefully in the next 2 months we will find out a little about the real politician, so people can make informed decisions instead of these Identity Politics decisions based upon nothing real (yes, I think it is irresponsible to decide to vote for McCain based upon her. Vote for McCain based upon McCain or feelings about Obama. But, you don't know her. Wait. Be patient. She may be worth it, but you don't know yet.)

Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden

I did not think about the date when Kristi and I watched Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden last night. We had wanted to see it when it came to Tampa in the spring. However, for some strange reason it was in town for only 1 or 2 weeks (which was bizarre to me- Morgan Spurlock has a much bigger name than most documentarians). This is a highly pertinent and very entertaining film, more of a travelogue than a traditional documentary.

Like Michael Moore,Spurlock's personality is a major ingredient of the flick. Either you like him or not. if you don't- you won't like the film. A film making version of A.J. Jacobs , Spurlock inserts himself into the story and walks us through it. However, unlike Moore, Spurlock is an easy going presence and not much of a lightning rod. In fact, I cannot imagine anyone disliking him (unless they have a hardcore agenda). He is a regular guy, just a little crazier or braver. He has opinions, but has no agenda, besides finding out whether his opinion is correct by journeying through life.

Luckily, he invites us to come along for the ride. As I stated, what makes his storytelling work is that walks us through issues instead of preaching. He asks questions and allows the story arch to answer the question, comfortable with ambiguity. In this film, along with his TV show 30 Days, Spurlock shows he is a master at the skill of empathy. He wants to walk in the shoes of others and experience the world from their point-of-view, trying to understand what the "other" sees and how they feel. It is an experience that too many Americans, and a growing number of American Christians refuse to have. It is a skill we look down upon, whether it is asking why non-Americans hate us or gays feel oppressed. We seek platitudes instead of answers, which Spurlock refuses to allow.

Spurlock begins in NYC, frightened of the world he is bringing his newborn into in a few short months. He decides to try to find the most wanted man on earth in an attempt to make the world safer, but really to understand what we are scared of. He heads to Egypt, Israel, Afghanistan and Pakistan, spending time with our "friends" and "enemies," letting them tell their stories, whether it is American soldiers in Afghanistan (the forgotten war- the one we have allowed ourselves to lose),* the Palestinian oppressed by walls, Afghans wanting the US to fulfill its promises, Egyptians angry at their nation's leaders or Pakistanis wanting us to die.

This would be a terribly wrenching film experience if not for Spurlock's utter Everyman Joy and sense of humor, bringing laughter from enemies and reacting like a little boy when he fires a RPG launcher. He is us and that is why this film works, from the goofy songs to the video game (redneck Spurlock vs Osama), this film is fun, educational, nonpartisan and insightful. Plus, it is very short, with very good outtakes (including some more politically minded scenes not in the final cut). Highly recommended for anyone and everyone.

*yes I have pacifistic tendencies, but I offer no illusions when it comes to Afghanistan. The US is not a Christian nation, so it has a right to be there, as long as it rebuilds the country and fulfills its purpose in a proper manner. I support active peacemaking, but understand Just War theory for a nation desiring to protect its self interest and way of life. I am a realist, as well as an embracer of the Christian principle of active nonviolence (I don't expect a nation to fulfill my convictions, but I expect it to live up to its own better devices).

5 things to know/ remember about 9/11

Politico gives us 5 indisputable facts worth remembering on 9/11.

the disease of Consumerism threatening our lives- come see an event and feel happy

One of my favorite authors for a number of years has been Rodney Clapp, the editor of Brazos Press, a division of Baker and consistently among the best houses in the industry. This weekend Kristi and I hope to attend an event at St John's Church in Tampa that he is speaking at.

The title, which intrigues me greatly is Between Two God's: Christianity and the Challenges of Consumerism. Rodney, like myself and a growing number of individuals, sees Consumerism as a religion, competing with Christianity for the souls of church goers. I have grown to believe that Consumer Capitalism is the greatest threat to historic Christianity in America, followed closely by Nationalism. While the church focuses on the "threat of gay marriage," liberalism and the Emergent boogyman, it ignores Nationalism and consumerism at its own peril.

Heck, even within the Emerging church with its focus on technology, I have seen this insidious cult grow ever more present, with its tentacles wrapping around the very church that preaches against consumption and nationalism. I was going to joke that maybe we can record this event on high def so we can watch it on our iPhones and HDTVs, but I won't do that.

For too long the church has sat idly by and ignored or baptized this extreme consumption (for a number of years I have been obsessed with this, blogging on it periodically). I remember attending a local church in Tampa that justified consumerism and even embraced and blessed it. My wife and I never sat foot in that church again after a pastor talked glowingly about Prada, hoping to reach those cool rich-folk and not offend their delicate sensibilities (small groups conversations revolved around boats, Pottery Barn and getting rich). In the past few years I have been in close proximity to too many pastors and christian leaders  blind to the ravages of this disease, completely caught up in the spiral of stuff, justifying their crap with circular logic that would shame a political campaign director or lobbyist.

What I can applaud is the higher profile this is getting with people like Rodney, Shane, the Sines and most of the New Monastics, along with a number of bloggers. However, we must clean our houses and minds holding each other to a higher standard and speaking directly into the lives of one another to make sure we are not falling prey to this same religion we easily name in the established, seeker, modern and contemporary churches.* We must follow the advice of bloggers like Jonathan Brink and the band Toad the Wet Sprocket, which continues to convict me daily in their song Throw it All Away (lyrics here).**

read this blog post entitled Happiness Does Not Come from a Shopping Mall about a new book called Consumed. 

*since the credit card companies are about to collapse, according to some economists, this idea of rampant consumerism will not be as prevalent. I just wish the church had been speaking out on this issue in the past, before the issue was upon us. We may have kept it from happening.

** yes, I am a consumer- like all people. However, I try to see myself as a recovering consumer, falling off the wagon occasionally and hoping to continue to get this addiction under control. It is why I listen to that song so often, read the works of Berry, Gandhi, the Monastics, Theresa, Francis, Sine, etc. and talk about it so often. I think it is that insidious and Christian leaders must take on the responsibility of leading in this area (especially those claiming the title Emergent).

mini rant about Freddie and Fannie- yes I am being intentionally simplistic

in the midst of this bailout to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I am wondering how many of my Republican friends that fancy themselves ideological Libertarians, Free Market Conservatives, anit-Socialists, "stop welfare mommers," and good ole fiscal conservatives feel about the idea that tax payers are on the hook for such a huge amount of money and the CEOs of these companies will clear about $25 million for taking their companies down, along with all the other executives that will be paid... all because of a government payout.

It smacks of the evil Socialism and welfare for the rich to me. If a mother on welfare should not get money from the government, why should the CEO of one of these companies? Also, imagine how may recipients of welfare it would take to equal the amount of money a few of these guys will make (all at tax payer expense)?

Once more I would mention that I am not ideologically biased? I am a principled (to me) pragmatist and Moderate on these things. I understand the "reason" behind this bailout from an economic standpoint (although Adam Smith and his invisible hand would be wagging a finger at this!). As my friend Brandon and I were discussing, Obama is sounding like Ron Paul on this is (yes, Ron Paulites- you are correct once more).

It is my contention that between rank-and-file Conservatives and Liberals, there is a big difference. One believes in socialism for some things and the other believes in socialism for other things. One believes in welfare for a specific population and the other believes in welfare for another population. It is only the purists on both extremes that believes differently.

I am reminded of one of Gandhi's deadly sins- "wealth without work" 

the free market loving Cato Institute on Freddie and Fannie and here

more on Palin's genius

During the past week, as I have strayed once more into the dangerous waters of political analysis, no longer content to sit by and let my friends have all the fun; I hope I have stayed true to my aims to declare the lack of clothing worn by the emperors and not become a partisan hack declaring my affinity and loyalty to a particular brand of political partydom (which I do not).

Saying that, after watching the Palin as Vice President psychodrama for a full week, I am even more impressed by the diabolical genius that is her rise and nomination. While many commentators and bloggers assumed her addition to the ticket was a cynical (and I will use that term judiciously) attempt to get disaffected Hillary supports, that has hopefully been pushed to the roadside for the weightier reasons for her pick. These more compelling reasons show some of the same strength the Republicans have always shown for campaigning (it also shows that winning has always been of more importance to Republican politicians than governance*).

While we cannot dismiss the desire of McCain and the party to gain access to the loyal Hillary women, it is obvious from the lack of time Palin spent mentioning Hillary along Palin's red meat (caribou?) fed to the delegates at the convention that this is not their primary aim.

It is now obvious that the reason for the inclusion of Palin is her appeal to the base, which is now giving money, offering to volunteer and complaining about the media's Liberal bias. Why?Because the media is stupid enough to play right into the Br'er Rabbit Republican admonition not to be thrown into the Brier patch. Palin gives the Republicans the candidate they need to rally around on core Religious Right issues while playing the gender card and acting as if they are on the higher moral plane (seriously, cynically smart- you Democrats could never pull this off). This is Rovian contempt for the media circus you create and taking the strengths of the other and making them yours at its best. By the way, I think Palin united 2 bases this week, Democrats also.

The second reason for her nomination was shown to me yesterday. Newt Gingrich alerted me to the masterstroke during an interview with Jon Stewart on Wednesday night. As Jon asked the question we have heard multiple times regarding Palin's presence robbing McCain of his strongest argument against an Obama presidency (that of experience), Newt's approach was pure Rovian mad science. That was the point! By highlighting the lack of experience of Palin, people are forced to compare her to Obama, which in turn allows the Republicans to guide the narrative regarding Obama's lack of experience (and knowledge in their vernacular). The circular logic is dizzying, but the effect is a net gain for McCain. Clinton wanted to do this, but could not. Only by bringing a "reformer" with no experience could McCain use weakness to highlight weakness.

While I still think this election is Obama's to lose, Palin is a game changer. Sure, she can crash and burn with one slip of the tongue or grainy video. But, Obama and Biden will not attack her. First of all, you don't attack VPs. It seems ungainly and weak (you attack presidential candidate). Secondly, the media will perceive any attack as sexist, due to the changing of the narrative by the Republican machine (see my last post and watch Jon Stewart's clip for evidence).

Obama's (and all Democrats not named Clinton) greatest weakness is his inability to shape the narrative according to his desires and make the stories the media and professional talkers (and writers) what he wants them to be. This is why Republicans win more elections. They are better at working the refs. The Republicans are Phil Jackson and Michael Jordan while the Democrats are European floppers (sure the refs give you the call every once in a while, but everyone else notices you flopped to get it). To make it work Obama needs to (taking a basketball analogy entirely too  far) follow the lead of Kobe Bryant, the Mamba, and dominate the news cycle, taking every foul as an affront and becoming selfish with the ball to score 80 points on a strong offense/ weak defense. I will leave it to him to figure out how.

Game on.**

* the desire to be elected but not to govern disturbs me greatly. We have created such a personality and identity based election cycle that it is used by politicans to gain power with no desire to put the best person in a job (no one thinks Palin is the best VP candidate- they think she is the future of the party). However, we had a part in the creation of such a system and will get what we deserve once more.

**I had 2 more reasons for the genius of the Palin nomination, but I forgot them in the fog of morning commute and dissipation of the caffeine buzz.

Jon Stewart... now more than ever

If you ever wondered why we need Jon Stewart, especially in the Mean Season we call Election Year, watch this video which compares statements from Rove on Palin's experience vs. Tim Kaine's, Bill O'Reilly on Palin's pregnant daughter vs. the Spear's pregnant daughter and Dick Morris' comments on sexism regarding Palin vs. sexism regarding Clinton. 

Without Stewart I might go completely nuts:

as an aside, I must say I am growing weary of Religious men telling people they are sexist for asking the questions they are about Palin as mom. Richard Land* (on the right) and Jim Wallis (on the left) are 2 Religious pundits and leaders I greatly respect, but to hear men accuse women of sexism is beyond the pale.

Understand, I think that men (such as myself) should not be asking these gender based questions about Palin as VP and mom, her role as a mother, whether women can "have it all" and other such questions. However, I think women (especially moms) should be allowed to ask these questions. In fact, we need women to ask these questions (and teach/ lead us). Luckily, my wife is asking those questions (and risking being called "sexist" by guys).

*as a Southern Baptist, I never thought I would see the day one of its leaders called other people sexist.

Truth and Lies and half truths and so in

This Sarah Palin thing has caused quite the kerfuffle. It has caused a very close friend of mine that has stopped blogging about politics to think about starting back up. I will keep you up to date.

Watching her speech last night, I was struck by the tone and the content. Throughout her speech (and even moreso during Mayor 9/11's), I found myself stopping the TiVo to talk to my wife about the factual inaccuracies. Now, I was sure Biden's speech was rife with inaccuracies, but since I did not stay up for his speech, I could not tell you.

So, where did I go to find out if they were telling the truth? to St. Pete Times' PolitiFact, a wonderful website that I have promoted before. It has a truth-o-meter to see where on the spectrum of truth and lie statements, commercials and spin lies (because nothing in politics is black and white). It is not comprehensive as I wish, but that may be impossible in today's news cycle.

It is worth seeing to find out the truth behind the claims of these people that want to lead the free world. Palin is already well on her way.

SNL for McCain/ Palin

staying up entirely too late to watch Sarah Palin's party ascent and moral descent*, as she teetered between sarcastic attack dog and small town Miss Congeniality (all purposeful), I came to the conclusion that the makers of Saturday Night Live want... no, NEED this election to head in one direction.

While the SNL staff probably skews Democratic, its producer Lorne Michaels is a lifelong Republican. He wants the Republicans to win out of personal conviction. However, this year offers a potential for comedic impressions not realized in many years. Barak can be made fun of, but his character is not particularly funny. Plus, as a black man, caricature is very dangerous. I saw their Obama sketch earlier and it was not funny (plus, the actor played it straight). Biden can be amusing, usually when his mouth is out of control, but in the end he is fairly conventional and will be among the least interesting impressions a comedian can do (unlike the present VP- a dream for comedians).

This brings us to the Republican ticket. Oh what they offer! First of all McCain is ripe for caricature. Heck, any old white guy is. It will be easy and funny. The folksier the better (see Hartman's Reagan/ Hammond's Clinton). And Palin... I can see the women of SNL fighting right now, each trying on a new pair of black horn rimmed Librarian glasses, putting her hair in a bun and carrying a moose head, hunting rifle while pointing incessantly (the mannerisms are easy for Palin- point, a lot) standing at the office door of Lorne Michaels, waiting for her shot.

Of course, I just wish Tina Fey was not busy on 30 Rock. Watching the speech last night, I felt like I was watching a Bizarro episode of 30 Rock, where Fey's Liz Lemon had a brain transfer with Baldwin's Jack Donaghy. It was awesome. Pure comic gold (it was stand up, wasn't it?). Funnier than anything from the summer's reality shows.

I hope you enjoyed it as much as me.

*I think anyone that runs for high office and plays the party game is selling their soul. usually it takes more than 1 week though. 

hope vs fear, redux

I am in the midst of rewriting this, in hopes that I can get it into Next Wave or something, but until then I would like to link to a couple of postings from 2 years ago on a Politic of Hope vs a Politic of Fear in an Election Year, along with implications of a Theology/ Politic of Hope. I am thinking it needs to be reconsidered because both the Right and the Left are using politics of fear disguised as Hope. We must learn to tell them apart before early November.

here is the original post

here is the post on implications