Video Review: Jesus Camp.

(note: this is probably the least political -in the sense of elections- post I've written so far. But this is kind of the cultural, philosophical, etc. direction the blog will go in the future, particularly after this election cycle ends. A lot of that, I'm sure, will be me trying to apply some degree of rationality to subjects where clearly none exists or is in short supply.)



I've finally gotten around to watching Jesus Camp, I saw it on Youtube over the weekend. A quick aside to anyone who feels the need to leave a comment on a Youtube video: if you are going to claim intellectual superiority or belittle anyone else's intelligence based on their belief system, feel free to at least be able to cobble together coherent sentences decipherable to people familiar with the English language. Other wise it's going to be difficult for people like me to take you seriously. (I'm not talking about misspellings here, I'm talking about a frontal assault on the basic concepts of language and communication.)

Now with that out of the way, this was a very interesting film which was both amusing and saddening at the same time. The film documents the training of small children in an incredibly radicalized form of fundamentalist/pentecostal Christianity. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who haven't been exposed to this kind of movement probably found this film incredibly frightening. Having grown up in a somewhat tamer version of this movement, I wasn't particularly surprised on the whole, but there were parts of the movie that took me by surprise. I think this is because of the complete lack of politicisation I experienced growing up in this movement. I'm not sure if that's because this wasn't as prevalent when I was growing up or if I was just not immersed in it because my father (who was my pastor as well) is a Democrat, who never wanted much to do with the religious right. Most of the kids in the film remind me of some of the kids who attended the Assembly of God-run school that I went to as a child who were brought up to be radicals, far-right Republicans, fundamentalists, and Christians. (and they were taught these traits in exactly that order of importance)

The film starts out with the leader of the camp, whose name escapes me at the moment ( and I really don't feel like looking it up) a seemingly friendly woman who clearly has a gift for working with and connecting to children. It quickly becomes obvious that she is more interested in training up an army of activists than in teaching Sunday School. We start with a meeting at (presumably) her church where she's promoting her summer camp to the kids in attendance. This seems perfectly normal until they bring out the children's "worship dance" team. This struck me as funny since dancing and fundamentalism (which this brand of Christianity falls under the branch of in my classification, though a lot of official Fundamentalist groups would probably bristle at given its fusion with Pentecostalism, but I believe the overlap here is too significant to overlook) have often been seen as natural enemies. I assure you that there was no "worship dancing" in a choreographed sense when I was growing up in the early nineties. The boys seem to be dressed up like soldiers waving sticks around to some of the most un-danceable music you've ever heard. Once this is done with she says to the crowd "let's pray in tongues". This was odd to me because I never saw glossolalia on demand growing up. I heard plenty of people "speaking in tongues" but it was always a spontaneous occurrence. It was also always somewhat unnerving to me as well, but I knew better than to express that opinion at the time. After the service ends we go to a few segments where we meet the kids who will be attending the camp (including one with a horrendous mullet that needs to be seen to be believed. On a tangent here, there should be a law that if you allow your child to get a humiliating hair cut you should be forced to get one too. That's the kind of change you'd see if I was president. We meet the children's families as well. We see one family in the dining room/home-school classroom. The weirdness doesn't take long to start here. While saying grace for their meal they ask God to end abortion and advise Him on what kind of people to put on the Supreme Court. I guess nothing whets the appetite like talking about any kind of surgical procedure. (We will be coming back to abortion many times by the end of the film) After this we see the boy with the mullet "learning" his science lesson from his teacher/mother. Like most of the children in the film he is home-schooled.We see him "learning" that the earth is 6,000 years old and that global warming is not a problem since the "rapture" will happen soon and the "anti-Christ" will take over the earth.( just like the bible does not say.) His text books reminded me of some of the ones we used in the Christian school I went to for 5-years (many of which were put out by Bob Jones University). The scientific illiteracy these kids are left with is not the most chilling aspect of this to me. If you were to destroy all scientific knowledge it would eventually be re-discovered in the distant future. What frightens me is the revisionist history taught to these kids, because if the lessons of history are forgotten then they will all have to be re-learned in a much more difficult fashion. We then cut to another child at the bowling alley where she is seen commanding her bowling ball to make a strike "in Jesus name". Sadly, the power of Christ is apparently no match for this particular bowling ball as it veers off to the right. She then is seen reading a Jack Chick tract! If you're a connoisseur of all things crack-pot you absolutely must take a look at this guy's stuff.

At this point the children are ready to head off to camp. It has also become obvious to me that these kids are being taught radicalism more than they are being taught Christianity. I believe they for the most part will either grow up to be radical fundamentalist Christians or radical Atheists. (perhaps "radical" is not the right word, because there was very little that was moderate about the man from Galilee. I think "militant" is probably a better word.) I'd be interested to see what percentage of the kids in this film would profess any form of Christianity in 20 years. My guess is that there will be far more who become disillusioned with religion than those who stay with this particular movement. The militancy will still be there, because that's what they have had drilled into them, but the faith aspect is not stressed nearly as much it would seem. It also becomes clear to the viewer by this point that these kids are repeating slogans that they have no clue as to the meaning of like "terminal generation", "spiritual warfare", etc.

As we pan over the camp grounds we notice that a) this camp makes the one in the "Jason" movies seem bright and cheery by comparison and that b) the camp is named "Kids on Fire!". I don't know about you but when I hear the name "kids on fire" I don't think of kids who love Jesus, I think of that picture from Vietnam of the girl who'd been napalmed. I also think that an accurate name for most summer camps would be "Kids Being Molested". Seriously, if you're ever bemoaning the fact that your child hasn't been molested yet, send them to summer camp. One last joke here, I want you to picture in your head what kind of logo you'd draw up for a place called "Kids On Fire". As we progress through the week of the camp, we see a lot of more of the kids repeating what they have been told about "reclaiming America for Christ", etc. with no sign that they understand what that means (I don't know what that means either). What we never see show up is actual biblical learning or any mention of how Jesus lived and taught us to live. This could be because that was edited out of the documentary, but I wouldn't be surprised if this weren't the case. I won't lay out everything that is shown from camp, but a few things really annoyed me. At one point we get an interview with the camp director talking about how she has the "skill" of being able to walk up to a group of 5-year olds on a playground and convince them to accept Jesus. Now, I don't make a habit of walking up to kids on playgrounds, (people tend to be on the lookout for that kind of thing, or at least they should be) but my uncle Gerald had a "skill" of being able to convince kids that age that he could pull his thumb off and put it back on. So convincing the kids to repeat a prayer is not nearly as impressive to me as being able to teach them how their religion says they should live their lives. That is a gift; scaring the bejeezus out of them is not.
A while later we come to the most well-known scene from the film. At the end of one of the services a card-board cut out of George W. Bush is brought out and the kids all reach their hands towards it and begin praying and crying and carrying on. The creep-o-meter really went off the dial here. I realize that they were praying for Bush and not to Bush but it's still a jarring visual. The Bible does say to pray for the leaders of your nation, but somehow I doubt anything like this would have happened if Bill Clinton (or Obama, McCain, Hillary, etc.) were in the White House. After recovering from this we go to the last night of the camp where the children are treated to a guest speaker. At first I'm kind of leery of him because as a rule I tend to distrust skinny preachers. But he seems nice enough and tells the kids how he has something to share with them. At this point I'm optimistic thinking "alright maybe he's going to tell them about Jesus; how he lived, what he did, what he told us to do, because it's off-base to expect anyone to "know Jesus" in an abstract sense when they don't know who the guy was". I'm also thinking "I wonder what's in the case he's holding". He opens the case to reveal......plastic dolls of fetuses at different stages of development! Apparently Christianity is all about being an anti-abortion activist! (note: I refuse to use the euphemisms "pro-life" or "pro-choice") I remember being given a plastic fetus from some group or another when I was in the 6th or 7th grade. Apparently people feel that if kids see the doll, they'll never be able to have an abortion. I happen to know for a fact that this view is a crock. Eventually the kids gather around the speaker and pray and then chant "Righteous Judges!" over and over again in the most creepy manner possible. I'm left to wonder if any of these folks see the irony in this. You don't want your kid going to a public school because of sex ed so you home school them at home like a good percentage of the kids in this film. You don't want your teenager to know about condoms but it's okay to teach 5-7 year olds about abortion in the most graphic possible terms? How can these views be reconciled? Don't any of the kids throw up or ask how the baby got there in the first place? I realize I'm probably expecting too much thought here.
As a bonus feature, we get to watch the kid with the mullet go listen to Ted Haggard ham it up for the documentary cameras from his pulpit. In an unfortunate coincidence, Ted is talking about homosexuality being wrong. I'm not going to go for the easy joke here, other than to point out that he looks very relaxed, yet very energetic at the same time. Overall, I think the incongruity in this instance was a microcosm of the film as a whole.

A More Perfect Union?

Barack Obama's speech this week on race was honest, thoughtful, moving, and I fear, an unmitigated political disaster. I think he knew all along that it would become necessary at some point during the campaign to give a speech like this with regard to some racial incident arising during the campaign. I believe, however, that he expected it to be necessary at a later date in the campaign in response to some kind of race-baiting carried out by the Republicans. (I hope an incident like that doesn't occur, but sadly I am fully expecting it from some 527 group) I don't think he expected it to become necessary in response to an uproar over the outrageous statements of his own pastor.

The speech itself was one of the best I've heard from any politician on the subject of race. He dealt with causes of resentments on both sides and spoke from the heart in my opinion. The results of the speech are where I see some problems arising that may come back to haunt him in the fall. The idea that we need a national dialogue of some sort on issues of race relations is something I think is absolutely true. But here's the rub. (Read the next sentence two or three times because if I had to some up my view of politics in one sentence, by which I mean elections not actual governing, this would be it.) Politics is not about saying what is true; politics is about saying what people want to believe is true. I don't have numbers to back this up, but I don't think most blue-collar white voters (who will decide the election in the key rust-belt states) want to have a dialogue on race. For one, it sounds like the kind of conversation that could lead to someone getting their ass kicked. Secondly, as a nation our preferred way of dealing with major issues is to ignore them and hope they go away. For example, I had a conversation with a blue-collar white man the other night who said: "I just don't see racism as a problem. I think it's a waste of time to talk about". This was amusing to me on one level because racism wasn't a problem for us white men in 1960 or 1860 for that matter. But I think this is indicative of many people who saw Senator Obama as kind of a Tiger Woods of politics up until now, but now view him as "the black candidate". The white people who do realize need for such a dialogue are more likely to be educated, up-scale, and politically liberal. This also happens to be the heart of Obama's constituency. As Obama noted in his speech, less wealthy whites are largely immune to the "white guilt" phenomenon and are less likely to support Obama in the fall. These are the voters who have been the ones staying with Hillary in large numbers, even prior to the Wright stuff. This group not only is less likely to suffer from white guilt but are the most likely to experience the opposite phenomenon, a (hopefully small) portion of this group are the people I believe are fuelling the surging nativism in this country, blaming their economic woes on minorities. This is a voting bloc that would otherwise be tailor-made for a Democrat running for the White House in the current economy. I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day who was going on about how the economy is bad because of Iraq and how Bush just wanted the oil,etc. (which I wish was true, that would be less frightening to me than the reality that he believes he's on a mission from God.) So this guy should be someone the dems could bank on in November. But he ended the conversation by saying: "but we're gonna have a race war if that LaBamba gets elected!" There's no way of knowing how many people like this are out there and I hope it's a small number but I have a nagging suspicion otherwise. Fortunately for the Obama campaign all this happened in March and not October. The sooner he can get back on message and have us talking about hope and change rather than black and white, the better. I don't want to see him lose the election because of the race issue, I want to see him lose the election because his solution to this issue laid out at the end of his speech is the same as his solution to every issue: throwing more money into failed government programs. In a forthcoming post, I'll lay out what I would do to rejuvenate America's poor inner-city communities (and at the same time the large black and Latino populations therein) and how McCain can make up some ground in these areas.

March Madness: Round One.

I'm currently sitting at 23-9 in my first round NCAA brackets. Not bad, but not good enough to win me the McCain 2008 fleece. The leaders are currently sitting at 29-3. I'm tied with Senator McCain with 23. The South region was kind to me with no upsets so I went 8-0. I was 6-2 in the east because I tried to get cute picking George Mason and Southern Alabama. The Midwest was also 6-2 because Gonzaga and Vanderbilt went down. I can make up ground in this region if 'Nova and Kansas State make the Sweet 16. (The points for each correct pick go up exponentially each round) The West really killed me though. I only got the top 3 seeds right going 3-5 in this region. I had Arizona moving on, because I forgot about the crap with their coach (one of my rules is to avoid teams that have weirdness going on with the coaching situation, despite historic exceptions like Michigan '89). The others could have happened to anybody (c'mon San Diego, Western Kentucky?) In order to make up any ground in this region, I need Xavier to knock off Duke in the Sweet 16. Oklahoma knocking off Louisville and Marquette taking down Stanford in the second round might help get me back up into McCain-swag territory too.

quick hits 7: RIDIN' DIRTY!

Good Lord, what a week it has been for interesting news items.
-The Jeremiah Wright videos have really made my week. I have several observations about this, but first I'd like to give my first impression and the thing that really stuck out to me about these videos. (and you have to see the videos, transcripts or audio clips don't do the guy any justice) Can this guy PREACH or what!?! Damn, talk about bringing the fire! I'll guarantee you nobody fell asleep during those sermons. My favorite in terms of crowd reaction was the "Hillary Clinton ain't never been called a nigger" sermon. Half the audience is standing up, yelling. Two guys run up and high-five each other behind him while he's preaching. A woman in red appears to be giving the old sieg heil salute. I've probably watched it 15-20 times over the last 3 days. I've heard a lot of commentators ask people: "would you go to a church like that?" My answer is unequivocally YES! I'd be there every week sitting in the front row with popcorn and a soda thinking "I can't wait to hear what he says next".
-My favorite line out of all of it is when he says: "He did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky! HE WAS RIDIN' DIRTY!!!" I was rolling on the floor laughing. The thought of Bill with contraband in his vehicle puts a smile on my face, I guess.
-You know, a lot of the stuff the guy said was true.
-I think he could have at least waited until the bodies were cold before talking about how America deserved 9/11. He may have had a valid point, (I don't think he did,when talking about what nations "deserve" you are trying to speak on behalf of the Almighty which I don't think any of us is qualified to do. And I can guarantee you that when I stand before God on judgment day, I will not be asking Him to give me what I deserve. Justice is the last thing I want in that case.) but seriously 5 days after the attack was not the time.
-I couldn't care less what color Jesus' skin was.
-To correct an inaccuracy Wright committed: yeah, actually Barack Obama is rich and privileged.
-I'm trying to imagine the reaction at my church if the pastor said "shit" or "God damn". It's a pretty funny mental picture.
-Did you catch the part at the end of the sermon where government agents storm the building, shoot several congregants, drag Rev. Wright off to prison and burn the church building down?
You're saying "Steve, that never happened". Yeah, and do you know why it didn't happen? Because Reverend Wright is fortunate enough to live here in the good ol' "U.S. of KKKA" where he has the freedom to get behind the pulpit and criticize the government or say any dumb thing he wants without fear of persecution. Just thought I'd throw in a little perspective there.
- I heard Jack Kemp talking about this situation and he echoed my thoughts exactly. I don't want Obama to lose the election because of what people around him are saying or anything stupid like that. I want to see him lose the election on the issues, fair and square. At this point, though, I'm increasingly suspected that he's a good man who happens to be surrounded by whack-jobs. I guess now we're going to see how strong that Kool-Aid really is.
-This is not a joke. I swear this is true. I checked a copy of Senator Obama's book The Audacity of Hope out from the library yesterday. I got about 30 pages in and noticed 2 pages stuck together. True Story.
-The producers of Nightline, in their infinite wisdom decided that the night the Eliot Spitzer story broke we viewers needed to hear Heidi Fleiss' opinion on the situation. I was relieved because all day I'd been thinking "man, I need to get an ignorant whore's perspective on this story". Way to go, Nightline!
-Word to the wise; if you're a public official who likes him the whores follow Sam Kinison's advice. Make sure it's some Cambodian girl fresh off the boat who speaks no English and couldn't pick you out of a police line-up even if it was you standing between 2 midgets wearing hats. And just because you're in a different city doesn't mean you're less likely to get caught.
-If you need to throw up, check out the latest issue of Rolling Stone, their puff piece on Obama was what prompted me to write that "dentist" post. Apparently his middle name is the key thing that will get the Arabs to like us. I guess their problem wasn't our support for Israel or troops in Muslim holy lands (both of which President Obama would continue), no, it's all about names. I mean, it's not like people with Arabic names are killing each other every day in that part of the world.
-I'm trying not to let this become strictly an anti-Obama blog. I like the guy, I really do. But this stuff just seems to be what holds my interest. I'm also trying to come up with some non-political stuff to keep from getting burned out.
-I read a good article by James Carville this week about how thin every one's skin on the left has gotten. Quit calling for peoples' resignations every time they say something mildly hurtful to you already. So what if you got compared to Kenneth Starr or called a "monster"? Grow up already.
-I don't have a problem with the fact that Samantha Power called Hillary a monster. I have a problem with the fact that Samantha Power was a Senior National Security Advisor in the first place. Let's see, a 37 year-old who did some reporting from the Balkans, wrote a couple of books, and tries to be "edgy" in interviews to show how cool she is. Sounds qualified to me. This is one reason I'd rather have Hillary as president than Obama. I'll take my chances with "Straddlin' Madeleine (sp?) Albright and Wesley Clark over Samantha Power and Tony Lake (who Clinton fired for being too dovish and who resigned during the Nixon admin. because Nixon had the gall to bomb North Vietnam while fighting a war against North Vietnam). Yes, I know the Clintons are corrupt as hell. I know there will be scandals that embarrass the nation. But at least I'd feel like she had adults to rely on for foreign policy advice. Not only that, I can guarantee that no foreign leader would go into a meeting with Hillary and think "now here's somebody I can steam-roll". I pity them if they do. This may seem odd given previous statements I've made, but there's a difference between being a better person and being a better president. Jimmy Carter, for example, is a great human being.
-Seat the delegates!
-SNL had a pretty funny McCain sketch last night. It was an NBC "breaking news" piece where they issued the shocking revelation that John McCain is officially.....OLD. It was hilarious. Their evidence was security camera footage of him going into Bob Evans for dinner......at 4:30 in the afternoon! Darrel Hammond does a great impression too.
-If Hillary comes back, it'll be thanks to SNL.
-I read this week that the "Bible Code" says Clinton will get elected....maybe. Maybe? You know there's a long list of words I can't imagine God using. "Maybe" is at the top of that list, right ahead of "fo'shizzle".
-I bought this memory foam mattress pad this week and I'm expecting big things from it. Well, maybe not big things but it'd be nice not to wake up with bruises from a mattress spring digging into my hip.
-I heard on the radio that they were sweeping the congressional chambers to make sure there were no bugs planted to spy on congress debating the surveillance bill. Yeah, cause I'd hate to have anyone eavesdropping on congress while they debate about eavesdropping on us.
-Lastly, remember every time you see a picture of a hippie you're looking at one family's tragedy.

Race and the Race for the White House

Geraldine Ferraro touched off a firestorm this week by stating that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position....And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position." She also stated that he's very lucky to be who he is. The first thing that strikes me as ironic in these statements is that she's offering them while campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Imagine for a second how people would respond to a man running for president on the strength of his spouse's accomplishments. He would be laughed off the stage. The same is probably true of any person who had a similar history to Senator Clinton but who was not Hillary Clinton.
Much of the controversy over Ferraro's remarks in my opinion is not over what she said was true, but the reason she felt the need to say them in the first place. First, what she said is partly true. Let's pretend for a minute that instead of Barack Obama, you have Barry Dunham a white politician with similar credentials. He announces his run for the presidency in early 2007 after two years in the senate. His claims to fame are a great speech 3 years prior and a vision of helping the nation move beyond the divisions of the past. He's a great speaker who talks of "hope" and "bringing people together". Would he have generated the same kind of buzz at the outset of the campaign? Would young voters be energized and inspired by him? Maybe, but I doubt it. He wouldn't have had the same credibility when talking about moving beyond the things that divide us. So in this aspect his race did work to his benefit. I maintain that much of his original appeal sprung from the fact that white people do not find him threatening the way they did with Jackson or Sharpton. So from that standpoint Ferraro's comments were accurate.
However, that is not the reason Obama is beating Hillary. His race got people to pay attention at first due to the novelty factor, but it is his skills as a candidate (the ability to deliver speeches that connect with and move people in particular) that have put him in the front runner position. From the very beginning he has made sure not to allow himself to be pigeonholed as "the black candidate" which had it happened (as it may now be due to the Jeremiah Wright/Louis Farrakhan stuff) would have been the undoing of his campaign. The failure to come to terms with the strengths of Senator Obama as a candidate last December/early January are what doomed her campaign (and it is doomed, at this point I think she's trying to get McCain elected so she can run again in 4 years instead of 8). The correct approach for Hillary to take would have been to fire all of the over-priced cronies running her campaign in the wake of Iowa and to change her message from the fraudulent claims of "35 years of experience" it is based on to a more future-based message. This would have been the honorable way to go. Instead she has done what she does best: divide and (not quite) conquer. She has gone out of her way to fracture the Democratic Party. The strategy has been to play groups against each other: young vs. old, rich vs. poor, black vs. female, black vs. Latino, black vs. Jewish etc. The ugliest aspect of this has been the way her surrogates have played the race card from the bottom of the deck (not the least of which being her husband), so in this context Ferarro's comments make perfect sense. Try to make it a question of who have been victimized worse in our society, white women or black men.(by the way, by almost any standard you can use to determine quality of life in our society, white women have it way better than black men on the whole. It's not even close) The mistake Ferraro made was being too obvious about it. So for all Senator Clinton's talk about Republican dirty tricks, she's done a good deal of their work for them. I'll close by saying this: if I had to pick one standard-bearer for my race/gender, I'd take someone like Barack Obama over someone like Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

My Ideological Ranking...yeah.

This was my score on the test at ontheissues.org. I think I'm a bit more right than this, but they don't have a way of determining which issues are the most important ones to me.

quick hits VI

A rather bizarre week all around. I'll jump right in.

-Last Saturday it was 73 degrees and sunny. Sunday was 30 degrees and snowed all day with strong winds. That was kind of a sign right off the bat that I was going to see some weird stuff go on in the world this week.
-Did you ever think you'd live to see the day when Hillary Clinton of all people would bring up the fact that someone else had an associate who was being indicted? Yeah, 'cause it's not like there are any shady characters she's been associated with (or married to) over the years. I'm not going to research the exact number but I'd be willing to bet she's had her share (and your share, and my share....etc.) So yeah, the only FLOTUS ever to be subpoenaed is trying to smear someone else's ethical judgment.
-I managed to catch 60 minutes last Sunday. One of the more interesting signs that there's some residual anti-Hillary bias in the press was when she was asked for her opinion on the asinine "Obama is a Muslim" e-mail going around. Hillary should have responded: "Oh really, there's a false rumor about him going around on the internet? Just 7,958,322 more and we'll be even". A lot of people don't know this but the first e-mail message ever sent right after Al Gore invented the internet claimed that Hillary Clinton was personally responsible for the deaths of millions of people. I mean honestly, let's keep some perspective here.
-I have a great deal of respect for Senator Russ Feingold. I probably don't agree with him on a single issue, but I like the fact that he's a man who sticks to his principles and doesn't pretend otherwise.
-If Hillary were president and the red phone rang at 3 A.M. it would be for one of two reasons: 1) a girl calling looking for Bill or b) Bill calling to say not to wait up for him.
-A little free advice to the Clinton and Obama campaigns. National Security is probably not the best issue to tear each other apart on since it's the one issue McCain consistently polls ahead of either of them by double-digits. This really plays into his hand.
-I read an interesting article earlier this week about how Obama should not go negative on Hillary. The gist of the article is that Hillary wants a knife fight while Obama has gotten this far by staying above the fray and being "a fresh alternative". If he loses this advantage, he risks becoming just another politician, a first-termer at that.
-A lot of people think that dealing with the Clinton attack machine will be good practice for dealing with the republican attack machine. I beg to differ. You see, the Clintons are still using the old Model 92, which was good in its day but is no comparison for the new state-of-the-art MX47-6 machine we republicans are using. The old model 92 had clumsy handling, left deep tracks, and had a motor which emitted the most annoying whining sound you have ever heard in your life. The one we use now is at the cutting edge of attack machine technology. It features:
Self sharpening blades, larger payload bay, the ability to change directions on a dime, a radio jamming device, stealth technology, run-flat tires, the ability to alter or even reverse reality for a few months at a time, and a guidance system so easy to use that it was driven all the way to the white house by a man viewed by many Americans to be functionally retarded (twice). Sadly, the engine still doesn't sound great. I've probably said too much.
-I'm sick of the fake outrage. All week I listened to Sean Hannity pretend to be so angry about Michelle Obama's statements. Come on, every body knows that when he heard that he didn't get angry, in fact he probably felt a sense of glee bordering on sexual arousal. So can we all please get over ourselves and save the outrage for things that actually matter?
-Third parties would have a lot more credibility if they would build up from the bottom, win a few congressional seats, maybe even a governorship before trying to run someone for president. That would be much harder work and far less quixotic, which is probably why it doesn't hold appeal for them.
-If any liberals should stumble on to this blog: You know Nader's working for us, right? I mean we're just using him to suck away the hippie/leftist-crusader-want to consider myself a radical-but don't want to actually do anything in life that doesn't involve narcotics or wearing camouflage pants and an old army surplus jacket that smells like pot- types. I mean come on, no one really talks like Nader in real life, do they?
-I've never written out a hyphenated reference before so maybe I was supposed to use hyphens between each word rather than just the concepts.
-At some point this week I must get my hands on one of those "John McCain is my homeboy" tee-shirts. They had another one with Mac and Hillary on the front that said "bros before hos" which was tacky (not to mention old) but still made me chuckle. The one with Mac and Obama had a similar rhyming theme, but I didn't find it funny at all. Plus this particular shirt would probably not be safe to wear unless you lived in Utah or Idaho.
-20% of the democratic primary voters in Ohio said race played a factor in their vote. 20% in 2008! This group went overwhelmingly went for Hillary. This doesn't mean 1 in 5 primary voters may harbor some racial prejudices, this means that number were HONEST about it. Makes me wonder how many others voted against Senator Obama because of the color of his skin but weren't honest about it. I hope this helps lay to rest the myth that racism only exists on one side of the political spectrum. I'm not claiming that liberals are any more likely to be racist, I'm saying that racism sadly exists at all points on the political spectrum and runs much deeper than just a person's politics.
- I read the first 40 Psalms this week and I was thinking that if King David had had a myspace page and posted stuff like some of the ones where he's really depressed and I were his father, I'd definitely be taking him in to see a mental health professional. In some of the Psalms it's like he's the original emo kid (only way more popular with the ladies).
-Finally, I heard Karl Rove on the Hannity show yesterday talking about what McCain needs to do in the next six weeks. Rove said that he needs to show voters who John McCain the person is. People know about Vietnam and the whole maverick thing, but voters want to know the man himself before they'll elect him. Rove then told the touching story of how the McCains adopted their daughter Bridgette from Mother Theresa's orphanage back in the early nineties to illustrate McCain's character. I'm familiar with the story so there was nothing new to me there. What was weird was hearing it come out of the mouth of KARL ROVE! I'm like isn't this the same daughter you ass-holes used in a smear campaign against McCain in South Carolina 8 years ago when she was like 9 or 10 years old? Just bizarre. And no, no one will ever convince me that the Bush people didn't have their hands dirty on that one. I also read that over the next few weeks McCain will be visiting some hot-spots around the world just so people know that he's the foreign policy guy in this race. He is expected to visit various European allies and probably Iraq or Afghanistan. If I were him I'd also visit Israel in case he does wind up facing Senator Obama, who seems to be having trouble with the Jewish vote. (this is the only explanation I can think of for a poll I saw earlier this week had McCain and Obama in a statistical dead heat with Mac up a point or two in mother f'ing New Jersey!) He is also planning major economic and domestic policy speeches in April which they are promising will be specific and bold. There had better be more there than just the corporate tax thing or else I will be disappointed.
-That's all for now. Next week I will be talking about environmentalists being tempted to use (gasp) capitalism to solve a problem and whatever else I feel the need to get off of my chest from the coming week.

Looking For a Dentist.

So, I find myself in need of a dentist. There are several interesting ones out there. But here are the qualities I am looking for:
-I need a dentist with "an overwhelming sense of dignity and majesty".
-A dentist with "an overwhelming sense of hope"and "a deep and compassionate understanding of the human condition"
-I want a dentist who can unite all the teeth and move the mouth forward in a positive direction. Some one who opposed drilling from the beginning and feels comfortable putting his hands in any kind of mouth. That's very important, "bringing all the teeth together, because there are no yellow teeth or white teeth". And I'm willing to trust them on it. I don't need to see a history of doing it in other mouths. Saying they'll do it is good enough for me.
-Some one with "a deep hope for the future of my mouth". A dentist who understands "that there is a hole in my soul and he is the one who can fill it." (Whether they can fix the holes in my teeth is beside the point.)
-I want to be proud of my mouth for the first time in my adult life.
- I feel that "our emerging, post modern society needs a dentist who's imagination is not bounded by past experience. (My teeth) require imagination, innovation, bravery, and an explorer's heart." I have no clue what that means either, but that doesn't really matter. I feel good about it, damnit!
-I'm tired of the old dentistry. The dentistry of fear belongs in the past. All I've ever heard is how the plaque is looking to destroy my teeth. This is as bad as the misguided "War on Cavities". Did any of the proponents of dentistry as usual ever stop to think that maybe if I had a different dentist the plaque wouldn't feel threatened and would therefore have no need to attack my mouth and kill my teeth? It's just a matter of talking to the plaque.
-I want to leave the chair feeling inspired.......to do something, anything.
-I sense "a spirit of movement" and "a rising sense of community" towards "an evolved dentist" who "is not operating on the same plane as ordinary dentists and in many ways transcends the entire dental profession".
-I want to feel like 400 years of racist stupidity on this continent are completely wiped out because I chose this particular dentist. Wouldn't that be a nice feeling to have? It wouldn't be true, but I'd like to feel like it was.
-I'm not concerned about whether they have very much experience in dentistry. I don't care if they've done any hard work to solve serious tooth-related problems. That's "the thinking of the past". I'm not concerned with how specifically they plan to do it or whether it costs more ( I'm talking a LOT more).
-I know some people are skeptical; you're saying "Steve, that's no way to pick a dentist! You need someone with a clear track record, experience and a good deal of training." I say that that's the kind of thinking that got my mouth into the shape it's in right now. Teeth are hurting and they need change. To those who say we can't choose dentists that way, I say Yes, We Can! I mean, it's not like I'm choosing a President of the United States here.

The Playbook....or, How to Stop This Man.

I was going to hold off on this until Senator Obama formally won the nomination, but I am now convinced that he will win Texas and Ohio this coming Tuesday so I thought I'd go ahead with it. I am going to outline what I think the republican strategy for the general election should be. I've spent some time analyzing the candidates' positions and reading hundreds of comments from voters, so here is what I think needs to be done both by Senator McCain and those of us trying to get him elected. I've taken a few ideas advanced by Newt Gingrich, Tony Blankley and others and added some of my own. I'm going to list some details along with some more general ideas on how to take on Senator Obama and how to try to win over some fence-sitters. This could go on a while so grab a drink and a notepad.

First a list of what McCain shouldn't do.

-Don't try to make the entire campaign about Vietnam. Mention it of course in passing but never let it eclipse your vision for where you want to take the country. John Kerry did this in part because he needed to remind people of his military service. John McCain doesn't have to. To put it another way, in terms of public perception John Kerry is a Vietnam vet, John McCain is the Vietnam vet. The single biggest thing that killed the Kerry candidacy is that he was unable to put forward an alternative that resonated with voters. And while people respect him for this it probably won't translate into wooing too many undecideds. McCain should stick to subtle references like the one about woodstock.

-Don't continue harping on experience. It hasn't worked for Hillary, and it won't work for McCain. Candidates with markedly more experience in government than their opponents do not have a great track record over the last 50 years or so.

-Don't try to out-inspire Obama with speeches. Obama's speeches are inspirational, but McCain's life is inspirational. He needs to talk about issue-specific accomplishments and why they matter today.

-As Newt Gingrich pointed out, the worst thing McCain can do is pander to the right. His strengths with voters are his independence from his party and willingness to take a position regardless of the consequences. Losing this advantage would be fatal. There are still 8 months to go. The stragglers will come on board. The talk radio hosts will shift their attention to how liberal Obama is and bring their people on board.

-As Tony Blankley pointed out this week, it's not enough to tell people that Obama is an orthodox liberal, you have to show them.(paraphrasing) "This is a guy who makes Bill Clinton look slow-footed and forthcoming. It needs to be a consistent, specific daily thing from now till November 4th. You can't just lob the 'liberal' hatchet at him it has to be more like a scalpel slicing a way small pieces at a time."

-Don't make the mistake of simply pointing out Senator Obama's lack of substance. His supporters will reply that he lays out all of his plans on his website (which a lot of them have never read, but I have and so should you). It will be far more effective to attack the plans themselves.

-Don't expect the press to make Obama answer the tough questions. It hasn't happened so far and may not happen at all. When it does happen, he will dance around the issues by talking in generalities so vague they will make candidate Bush look like a hard-core policy wonk.

There are more traps that need to be avoided, but a lot of them are obvious enough that the McCain campaign is smart enough not to fall into them. The general population, however, is another matter. So, in addition to the ones above these are the things McCain supporters need to avoid.

-Don't use the word "Hussein" over and over again and don't "slip" and say "Osama". At best this will take people's attention off of whatever you're talking about. At worst it will make you look like a racist (and justifiably so).

-Don't repeat ridiculous rumors. Unless the person you are conversing with is a moron who believes everything that turns up in their in-box (like the mother of a friend of mine who recently informed him that "the constitution says the president has to be a Christian" that's kind of what it says only the exact opposite) not only will this make anything else you say seem suspect, but it could have the effect of softening any legitimate scandal that may turn up. In other words if something legit turned up it could be lumped together with the "Obama as Muslim" crap.

-I would leave the women and children out of it. (this goes for any candidate) I've read some nutty stuff Michelle Obama has said lately but to harp on it, unless it is way out of left field, takes the focus off of any point you're trying to make about Barack. Bill Clinton and John Kerry were not hurt that much in '92 or '04 by having controversial wives and I would expect that to continue. A lot of people didn't like the wife, but voted for the husband anyway.

-Don't let yourself be backed into the corner of having to defend Bush. If the person you are talking to keeps coming back to Bush as though he represents all republicans be sure to draw contrasts between Bush and McCain, giving examples that are both policy related and with regard to the character of the man himself.

-Don't assume that the average Obama voter knows what he stands for in terms of policy.

There are more but you get the idea.

What Senator McCain should do:

-As I heard Newt Gingrich suggest, McCain should invite Obama to do a series of town-hall meetings with him across the country taking questions from undecided voters. Preferably these would be in cities like Detroit and others where far-left ideas have failed so radically.

-I think this is a good idea since McCain's campaign is going to be run largely on a strategy of getting him talking with average voters as much as possible (kind of a New Hampshire on steroids). One caveat I would add though is be careful to make it look like a friendly invitation. Don't act like you're begging for debates. That looks desperate. Gore did it in 2000. Hillary has done it for a month or more to no effect. Maybe begin each meeting by pointing out that you invited Senator Obama to be there (because I think there's no way in Hell he'd actually agree) and leave it at that.

-You can't beat something with nothing. Every attack on Obama's policies should be immediately followed by your own position on that issue.

-Press the advantage on foreign policy. By this I mean don't let every Iraq discussion focus on the past and whether the war was worth it. There are a lot of people like me that believe it was a major mistake, but that the important question at this moment is what happens next. The consequences of withdrawing need to be clearly spelled out. I would also point out that ending American involvement in the war is NOT the same as ending the war. I can't emphasize that one strongly enough. While on the topic McCain should expand the discussion to other foreign policy issues (Kosovo, Russia, South America, etc.) to fully press his advantage on this one.

-McCain needs to acknowledge the problems Americans are facing economically and offer solutions. The left generally has two advantages over the right in this area: 1) They tend to be better at diagnosing the problem. If you look at Obama's speeches, the amount of time he spends laying out how bad things are is a much larger problem than that proposing solutions. 2) Generally liberal solutions are much more easily grasped by the population at large. It's much easier for people to understand the benefits of massive spending than it is to understand capital gains taxes and the like.

-Don't allow Obama a foot-hold as a centrist. The country in general is a center-right country and McCain has a natural advantage there. Point out that there's one guy who talks about bi-partisanship and one who actually has a record demonstrating it.

-NEVER appear on a stage with George W. Bush. Continue appearing with centrists and if at all possible get some younger people on the stage so it doesn't look like an AARP meeting.

There are numerous others that I will point out at a later date.

Now for what we as supporters need to do.

-When dealing with many Obama supporters you shouldn't assume that they know a great deal about their candidate's positions (many don't care). I find that it works best to ask them questions. This is better than just bashing the guy because it plants doubt and doesn't cause them to just tune you out. Here's a typical example. ME: What do you like about Obama? OBAMA'S WITNESS: I just like what he stands for and the fact that he can get us past the partisan politics and move us forward. ME: Well what does he stand for? OW: Well he wants change and he wants to be more fair etc. ME: How specifically will he do that?...... You get the idea. This way you get them on the defensive. Ask the questions nicely as though you're not trying to trap them. You may hear a lot of quasi-religious language. The key there is to say something like "What do you mean by that, exactly?" In an upcoming post I will deal with these kind of responses in detail using actual quotes I have collected over the past few weeks.

-Learn to spot myths when you hear them. A lot of people think Obama is someone who doesn't "toe the party line" on every issue. Actually, he does. It's incredible how many people have projected their own beliefs onto him. Usually I ask if they can name one issue he disagrees with the party platform on. There are none (I can name 12-15 off the top of my head for McCain). He votes with the majority of his party 96.5% of the time. That means that (according to a database maintained by the Washington Post) he has voted against the majority of his party 42 times as of 2/8/08.

-On 13 of these votes I concluded that his vote was more liberal than the majority of his party.

-19 votes were procedural/housekeeping measures or issues that seem apolitical to me (e.g. motion to table amendment regarding regulations regarding regulations regarding federal hopper dredges)

-That leaves just 10 votes in 3 years where I would consider his position more conservative than the party majority! And I was generous in this regard. 2 votes were on the same bill and others I included just because they included opposition to some kind of spending regardless of on what.

- If you know a candidate's policy positions (as well as those of your candidate) and their supporters don't, this will be a major advantage and might even overcome some of the "personality cult" aspect. And it helps if you can talk up your guy at the same time.

-Don't be afraid to inject reality into the equation. Tearing down peoples' dreams and Utopian visions is actually good for them.

-Dispel the notion that all of the new spending programs will be paid for by "ending the war" (which of course we know simply means "American involvement in the war"). Senator Obama, between tax incentives and new funding for domestic programs has proposed $214 billion annually in new spending. This is roughly twice what the (direct) costs of the war in Iraq amount to annually.

This has gone way longer than I expected so I'll stop right here and give more suggestions later. And I'm sure I will be going into each issue in detail I'm sure over the next 8-months. So congratulations on surviving the longest blog post in recorded history. And oh yeah, Mac is back bitches!

Back off Obama already!

Back off Obama already!
I must say I am sick of hearing people ask Senator Obama about the specifics of his plans, or to question him about his position of Foreign policy, or to actually have the nerve to bring up his supposed "lack" of experience. Hello he's in the Senate and has been since January of 2005 that's over 37 months! Let me be crystal clear on his people. President-elect ( cmon its a formality ) Obama is intelligent, charismatic, and my word what a speaker. He makes us feel good, he uses the words "Hope, Feel, and Believe" regularly and that is what matters. He gives me the tingles, that's is after all what I am looking for in a President.However for those that are still skeptical let me make this point. Oh the area of experience, hello Obama works with Republicans 3.5 % of the time and on issues that have broad bipartisan support and are not continuous! He also is willing to work with Republicans and be bipartisan when they agree with him. After all, what it will take is for Obama to talk to them, smile at them, make them feel warm and fuzzy and they will vote for the over 2 trillion in spending, a rolling back of tax cuts for the rich ( who deserve after all to be taxes, hello their rich which means they did something bad to get that way!) they will vote to provide health care for all Americans by putting the control of health care where it rightfully should be in the hands of the Government. Now all this will only be necessary if the American people fail to elect along with President Obama at least 60 Democratic senators, which will of course happen because that's what he wants and we don't say no to our Glorious President-elect. Second he will have plenty of time to learn the ropes as President, hello he makes people feel good.Also on Foreign policy, this idea that he is naive or dangerous is silly and I think Racist. Hello he will meet with America's enemies, talk with them, appear in photo's with them, understand their concerns. This I know will have the effect of disarming North Korea, and opening up their society. Iran will come to the table and after the warm and fuzzies start it will not be long before they recognize Israel, allow free elections and religious freedom, and open up to the west. After all the main reason for these nations opposing America was George Bush and he will be gone. President Elect Obama will express to them that he understands that there opposition to us did not stem from an ideology but from the fact that Bush was a warmongering idiot that didn't make them feel comfortable. I believe that within months of the inauguration we will see a wave of peace break out all over the world as people feel good and wrap themselves in this mans lovely words. As for Iraq, we will begin pulling out in 90 days, again President Obama will meet not with the current government as they are corrupt ( they were supported by President Bush after all) but with the misunderstood insurgents, after apologizing for the election of Bush and after making them feel good about themselves with the use of words like hope, believe, and feel, they will throw down there arms and Iraq will become a bastion of peace. This idea that experience in government and foreign policy is necessary is silly and racist.Also lets talk about President-elect Obama's so called opponent ( the voting at this point is a formality that must be observed). First he is not a baby boomer, anyone over say 47 years old is obviously too old to be President. Second this is a man who had to get elected to the House of Representative and reelected before getting elected to the Senate, obviously not eloquent enough to be an effective President. Second he has served in the Military, over 22 years this was time he could have been attending lectures at Harvard and supporting Barack Obama and he WASN'T! This is a man who understand war, that means he actually thinks war might be necessary when we all know that simply talking to ones enemies and making them feel good will keep the peace. Second this man works with the other party almost 15% of the time. That means he actually gives in and is not a good enough speaker to convince them to do what he wants. He also has at times been willing to risk the nomination of his party to support unpopular causes, again making people feel good and talking smoothly is all it takes. This man has too much experience, he has almost 30 years and 22 years experience in the military it is time for a new generation that can be eloquent and talk in generalities, in broad strokes, with almost a religious zeal and little substance that my friends is what America needs. The choice is clear in November, ( although cmon we all know its in the bag) a man who has served his nation his entire adult life, who sacrificed for his country his freedom, comfort and blood, a man who has worked across party lines to get things done, who transcends party, and has a moderate voting record, another words a hack. Or a man who speaks with words that make you float on air, painting a mural of words in bold colors,not to be bothered with filling in the lines, someone who uses the power words, "Hope, feel, believe" someone who votes with his party 96.5 percent of the time ( as he should ) someone who believes that if you can simply put him in a room with America's enemies ( created by George Bush of course) then he can charm them into liking us. A man who has 37 months experience on the world stage, before that working as a legislator in Illinois and as an organizer in Chicago. That is our choice, what do we answer "YES WE CAN" after all we have never been burnt by a candidate long on Charisma and short on actual experience before have we? So stop all the prattling about specifics, and qualifications, sit back, put on some Obama speeches and let the politics wash you a way to the world that we would wish for rather then the one that actually exists. Yeah man! Obama '08