With his typical flair for drama, Osama Bin Laden inserted himself directly into the presidential election yesterday, and both parties believed it would boost President Bush's reelection hopes...(read the rest of the NY Daily News story)

I didn't originally think Osama bin Laden's recent statement deserved to be dignified with so much critical response, but after reading a little more reaction from other corners, I couldn't help it.

In short, if you think bin Laden's recent videotaped statement should play into the U.S. election (i.e. - as an implicit endorsement of one candidate or the other), I hope you aren't eligible to vote November 2. Besides the fact that bin Laden didn't endorse either candidate, there are those who seem to think that because bin Laden says one thing, we should do the perceived opposite (the opposite of whatever we think he wants us to do).

Your perception of bin Laden, the U.S. election and the world in general should be based upon something resembling reality, not on campaign rhetoric. If bin Laden's little speech tells you he thinks Kerry will be easier to kick around than Bush, or if it tells you he thrives on having a tough-talking antagonist like Bush -- whatever it tells you, you're probably much better off putting it out of your head, and making an independent judgment on the entire situation.

Because the truth is nobody this side of the oceans really knows who bin Laden would prefer us to elect, though everyone seems to have their own ideas. The more disturbing idea to me is that nobody here really seems to have any objective way of determining if we're even winning this war on terror. Every victory has it downside, some sort of silver lining for those who recruit for al Qaeda. Every time American missiles pummel some compound, and even one innocent lies among the resulting dead, there's at least one more person who is finding bin Laden's rhetoric a little more valid.

It's not valid, mind you, but sometimes our rhetoric is just as likely to be questioned as his. We tend to forget that in this little idyllic sanctuary we call America.

"A politician next door swore he'd set the Washington Arena on fire;
Thinks he'll gladiate them, but they're gonna make him a liar.
He's a good ol' boy who was born and raised in the buckle o' the Bible Belt
Just remember when you step into your voting booth
He'll never lie -- he'll just embellish the truth..."
-Steve Taylor

I haven't published in a few days now, and I even forgot to do a Poetry Friday post. Many apologies to anyone who was waiting for new additions, but I have been extremely busy with a host of responsibilities, ranging from work to school to real life (I'm relieved to report I still have a real life).

The above quote comes from a song by one of my favorite Christian recording artists (which accounted for a significant chunk of my music collection when I was a teenager). As I dwell on concepts like co-opted Christianity and other entire demographics of society that willingly surrender their votes to one party line or the other, lines like the ones quoted above tend to float freely through my head. But I'm tired of politics for the time being, so that's all I'll write about that for now...

"When I was three, I thought the world revolved around me; I was wrong."
-U2

I fondly remember taking several trips to the beautiful state of Virginia in years past. I had the convenient excuse of going down to visit my sister, my brother-in-law and their first two children while they were living down there. I remember once, while on my way down I-81, stopping in a roadside restaurant to eat, and hearing two members of the wait staff joke about how funny one of the other diners (who seemed to speak with a Canadian accent) sounded. The irony of this conversation wasn't lost on me, as these two waitresses spoke with quite the southern drawl themselves.

I, of course, didn't have any accent at all, so in my mind, it was easy to find humor in their perspective on the other diner's accent-- it was almost as funny as hearing them try to mimic a Canadian accent while tripping over their own accents.

I have since realized that even I have an accent. I just don't notice it because it's my accent. And when conversing with many people familiar to me, I also fail to notice any significant accent in their speech -- but even they have some sort of accent. When our scope of familiarity is limited, and our perspective is relatively myopic, it's easy to believe that we are the norm, while everyone who differs from us is, well, not normal.

In a recent response to something I wrote, I was rebuked for relying on biased news sources (and it was suggested by more than one person that I should spend more time watching Fox News). After reading such thoughts, I was initially indignant, but then I altered my internal reaction, simply by re-applying what I had realized a long time ago about accents.

It occurred to me, quite suddenly, that a philosophical bias is just as dispositive as an accent. It's taken a fair amount of cultivation (both formal and informal) to realize that while everything may be relative, everything is not strictly relative to me; whatever we like to believe about ourselves, no human being is the true hub of reality's wheel. This theory is not completely unified, but is analogous to the way most of us discern little things like bias.

To people raised staunch conservative, Fox News may well represent a norm, at least from one perspective, and from said perspective, all other mainstream outlets may appear hopelessly left-leaning. Likewise, to people from a more liberal background, Fox News may well appear to be another wing of the GOP, while CNN, The New York Times, etc., are more synchronous with their ingrained political theory.

I can't speak for either of these theoretical extremes in a firsthand sense. I was raised in a decidedly conservative home, but with enough blue-collar influence to not be a wholehearted conservative. My conservative roots helped me identify a certain fallibility in, and dissatisfaction with, many mainstream media outlets, but I was never really sold on the apparent mission of operations like Fox News or the bulk of talk radio. My mixed allegiances left me with a level of uneasiness with any philosophy that tilted too far to the left or the right.

Again though, this analysis is couched in terms of my individual perspective, and that perspective is bound to be as flawed as anyone's. But what I have learned is to firmly distrust the words of any human being who claims to be wholly objective. Even the most cultivated individuals still have blind spots when it comes to their own idiosyncrasies. Remember, no matter how well you think you know yourself, the accent you'll have the hardest time noticing will always be your own.

It is a happy day in deed. Well, for those of us (like me) who have anxiously awaited a new version of Quick Note that works in Firefox 1.0. Also, I stumbled upon the new version of Stumble Upon that also works in Firefox 1.0.

After finding the newer versions of these two extensions, I also came across another unexpected little tool called Adblock, which is (predictably enough) an extension that helps block web advertisements. What surprised me about this third tool is that it does a noticeably superior job of blocking ads, at least when compared to the ad blocking function of my Norton Internet Security (which up until a couple months ago worked incredibly well, but recently has been ineffective).

Anyway, I'm sure there's someone else out there who was waiting for or could otherwise use one or more of these revamped extensions, and perhaps I wasn't the last person to discover them this time. So this is just a heads up to the wonderful people who already know how utterly superior the Firefox browser is. For those who don't, especially if you're still using Internet Explorer, you might want to do yourself a favor and try out the lighter, faster Firefox 1.0.

Happy Browsing!

"...But every writer knows we have to write to find out
We have to write to discover what wants to happen
We have to write to know where the story needs to go
We have to write to learn why we are here
We have to write to find we are not alone..."

"Personal Work" by Linford Detweiler

I thought this one felt right for today, in its own winding, rhythmic way. The quotation is just a brief excerpt, but you can click the link to read the whole poem.

"Anything I say can be held against me,
so I won't say much, or I'll spill it all."
-Over the Rhine

I have been a bit under the weather for a couple days now, and when that happens, my brain usually finds ways to expend the energy my body cannot. This is especially true when sickness keeps me out of work, like last night. The restlessness that overtakes my brain at such times usually manifests itself through writing -- and often it is you, the reader, who pays the price for that.

I was thinking about settling down last night, among other things. You know, like with a wife, maybe a kid or two -- who knows?

I think what prompted this is my mother asking me the other day if I have a girlfriend right now. I answered, like any uncommitted single male, in the vaguest terms possible. I could have been more specific, but then I might have started a line of thought in her mind that had the potential to go way too far.

It isn't that I didn't want to tell her the specific truth, but that I don't know if I'm allowed to. Yes, that probably doesn't make sense, and given the situation, I can't do much better to explain it. Suffice it to say, I have someone in whom my interest is extremely high (and I believe the sentiment is mutual), but we both have reasons to not go too fast. But lately, especially last night as I was thinking of my mother's question, along with the recent nuptials reported over at Ales Rarus, I started to wonder if the plans I've been following are as inflexible as I've made them out to be -- might there be some room for variation from the preconceived notions I've hatched for the next couple years of my life?

After all, I'm not a kid anymore, and I do have these thoughts at other times, even when I'm not so under the weather as I've been recently.

That's all the personal revelation I'm allowing for now. And look, not a drop of politics...

I know people who seem to think the world is going down the drain -- and quickly, too. I wonder why these are some of the same people who don't believe they can do anything about the conditions that upset them. Meanwhile, I share some of the dismal view I hear from these folks, but I also still feel like something can be done about it, if only one person at a time.

For a while now, I've been intent on trying to do little things to make a positive difference in the world. I don't want to rule the world, or even lead the movement to change it; I just want to always be a part of something positive, especially because of the negativity that seems so prevalent.

Some of my online correspondents have questioned what I'm prescribing as a solution when I rail against things like the slow, ineffective twin-engine Spruce Goose that has become our political system. The answer is I'm not prescribing anything grandiose enough to single-handedly fix any of our broken down system. I actually just want people to think, and I have said that before. But sometimes I may sound like I'm trying to effect a grander scheme than that, when the truth is, I don't think there is a grander scheme.

I remember being challenged to think for myself, by things I've read, by personal conversations, etc. Many such challenges have become critical turning points in my life, where I don't change to suit someone else's beliefs, but rather, I change to suit a more consistent application of what I already believe. In political discussions, whether in the media or in real life, I hear too many people who are just repeating the same sound-bites they hear and read in the news.

And from people who don't care to participate in discussions of politics, I often hear that they don't feel like they know enough to comment. This may be true at times, but often I find in talking to these same people that they know more than they think they do. What they think of as their own ignorance is simply an ignorance of the more established opinions that dominate political discourse. Well I say those established opinions are usually over-rated. I gain more useful ideas about political theory by listening to people who feel like they don't belong in the discussion at all.

We have a system that's fairly happy to see half of all would-be voters stay home on election day (or election month in some places), which isn't to say all current non-participants would vote third party, but that keeping the voting pool relatively small and stagnant makes outcomes more predictable. And even with those that might go major party in the voting booth, there are countless others who might just as well bring a third party into the mainstream of American politics -- and trust me, if you're part of the two-party machine, that's not a good result, even if it is democratically ideal.

Which is one reason why I favor movements that draw more citizens into the process, even if they don't agree with me on policy. That seems to be the grandest solution to a troubled democracy.

(And having said that, if I do write more tomorrow, it won't be about politics.)

When I first gathered my information on the Sinclair plans to broadcast their special news event, I noticed their website claimed much misinformation had been spread by "ill-informed sources." At that point in time, their website indicated that they would be airing the documentary as part of a special news event. Perhaps the confusion for some of us lay in that announcement. If they did in fact intend to "air the documentary", which usually means the entire documentary (all 42 minutes of it, which I have seen), then everything I wrote yesterday stands.

But I see they've revised their website information slightly. The first paragraph of their disclaimer now reads:

"We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources."

Now, I still can't tell, even from this revised statement, whether or not the documentary will be screened in its intended form, or whether they are trying to indicate that they intend to excerpt it as part of a broader discussion. I hope the latter is true, but the wording is still so foggy that I don't feel completely assured.

The suggestion that the program hasn't yet been videotaped and the exact format of the event isn't yet finalized might be a genuine statement, or it might just be a way of trying to lull protests to a minimum. It may simply reflect their reaction to all the bad press and email reaction they've received, or it could be the threat of stockholder suits against the company. Who knows? And I won't be in the fortunate few who get to see the broadcast, as Sinclair owns no stations in the metro-Philadelphia area, so I guess I'll never get to see for myself.

Congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Dung... er, Williams, as they embark on what is hopefully a long and joyous life together.

"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy. I warned him about casualties."
-Pat Robertson to CNN's Paula Zahn

I notice most references to the above-linked interview are in the spirit of pointing out how yet another Bush supporter has spoken out against the issue that Bush often touts as part of his crowning achievement. You know, usually people who disagree with Bush will point to statements like the one above, or the ones made by several departed Bush appointees and a few Republican lawmakers, and use it as a way of detracting from the President's agenda. But that's not the thing that stands out to me.

This isn't so much political as it is theological. Assuming President Bush and Reverend Robertson are following the same God, how could they both have received such divergent messages regarding Iraq? How could one be painting such a rosy portrait while the other insists it was doomed to disaster from the start?

"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proven wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right..."
-George Orwell

I was just reminded of this quote while watching Al Gore give a speech at Georgetown University on C-Span (this was right after watching the President speak to a crowd of supporters in nearby Marlton, NJ). Then I thought of Kerry's "Orwellian" comment during the second debate. Then I wondered if this Orwellian theme might not be part of the Democratic talking points -- which isn't to say there's nothing to it.

I have often wondered if the President and all of his faithful servants really believe everything they say, about domestic policy, about the economy, about Iraq. Or do they really know that it's mostly just political strategy? I'm really not sure sometimes, and that may be the most disturbing thing of all when I try to evaluate the President.

Then I thought of the Sinclair political correspondent who has just spoken out against his company's decision to preempt programming for a commercial-free showing of Stolen Honor. It's probably worthy of mention that Stolen Honor is an anti-Kerry movie with much the same kind of creative editing as Michael Moore applied to Fahrenheit 9/11. I've heard many Bush supporters voice strong support for the Sinclair decision to air this "news" programming, often making the familiar "what's good for goose is good for the gander" argument. This is what we've come to; we decry Michael Moore for twisting the truth and trying to sway the electorate, and then when Republican sympathizers pull the same exact trick, the (sadly) predictable response from Bush supporters is "they did it first."

Okay, so that's politics. I despairingly acknowledge as much, but it may also be worth noting that Fahrenheit 9/11 was not released in the final days before a Presidential election, and further, it wasn't subsidized the way Sinclair is subsidizing the broadcast of Stolen Honor. It isn't as if you can accidentally turn on your local channel and find yourself watching a free presentation of Michael Moore's biased little masterpiece. People who saw Fahrenheit 9/11 actually had to fork over some money to see it; countless unsuspecting couch potatoes will tune in next week expecting their normal prime time fare, only to find themselves watching this "news"-- not quite analogous, is it? After all, even Michael Moore had the decency to admit his movie was serving a slanted political purpose, and he had no stockholders to defraud, either.

Even if these two instances were more similar, I thought Bush supporters weren't the type to bask in moral relativism. Guess I was wrong about that one too. But in the end, I suppose we believe what we want to believe, even when we know it's not true.

I don't watch CNN's Cross-Fire anymore, probably for the same reasons Jon Stewart was taking them to task last week. If you're interested, you can watch the streaming video of his appearance with Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. Thanks to Sharon at Watermark for cluing me in to this one...

"The Politician" by Jan Crest

-kind of fits my sentiments lately.

(Part 1 was way back in February)

I ran across this Opinion piece at Philly.com. It was written by David Crawford, the president of a consulting firm and adjunct professor at the Wharton Business School. He has a much more educated perspective than I do on our first MBA President's performance as National CEO. (As a brief warning to the "subscriptophobes" in the audience, Philly.com is one of the growing ranks of free subscription sites.)

Want to try out Florida's new electronic ballot for the Presidential election this year? Click here

My brother-in-law asked what legal research had to do with females from my past, and I suppose I should have put that in context, as I always get annoyed when bloggers (and radio personalities alike) make liberal use of inside jokes and obscure references.

Since I probably already use too many obscure references, I should explain that the legal research to which I have referred is school-related. At times I find it more than a little frustrating, especially the times when I am specifically required to do offline research. Sorry to get anyone's hopes up, but I haven't had the need to apply intense legal research to my own personal life -- yet.

From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

Main Entry: 2
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): frol·icked; frol·ick·ing
Date: 1593
1 : to amuse oneself : make merry
2 : to play and run about happily

This is from a certain someone who reads this site, but whose role in my life currently defies definition. She told me last week that she used the word "frolic" in a conversation with two other people, and they both looked at her like she was speaking another language. Apparently, neither person had ever heard of the word before, and one of them was a college graduate whom she had previously thought of as being smarter than her.

She remarked to me that she didn't feel comfortable with the idea that she was "one of the smarter people" at work. Of course, I already knew she was one of the smarter ones, but she's somehow trained herself to think otherwise. She argues with me about it, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one. After all, she's smart enough to know how to use the word "frolic" correctly in a sentence, and apparently that's not something everyone can do.

She does complain that I haven't been writing anything interesting lately, but that's because she doesn't really find politics too captivating a subject.

But even writing about politics is better than legal research, at least to me...

I know this one's already been mentioned, but it warrants repeating. Michael Badnarik and David Cobb, Presidential candidates of the Libertarian and Green parties, respectively, were arrested on Friday night, prior to the start of the first debate. You can read more detailed information on both the Badnarik and Cobb websites.

Badnarik's site offers up the interesting point that the Commission on Presidential Debates isn't non-partisan, but rather bi-partisan, in that it unfairly bolsters the dominance of the two-party system and circumvents, if not violates, campaign finance law. Cobb's site also offers criticism of the CPD "infomercials," contending that if the process allowed for every candidate on enough ballots to have a chance at winning, there would still only be six participants in the debates.

Badnarik's communications director Stephen Gordon added, "We'd have preferred to see John Kerry and George Bush stand up like men to debate the issues facing America."

Sounds like a good idea, but I don't think the Republicans and Democrats are in any hurry to give up their stranglehold on U.S. democracy.

Thanks to the Ales Rarus post-debate analysis, I no longer feel the need to vent about the lack of substance in last night's event. There was substance, but interestingly, Funky seems to have covered most of the points I would have gone after. If you want to see what I might have said about it, you can get an idea by reading his post.

The only thing I would add, which he touches on, is that the continued inability of George W. Bush to name any sort of mistake he's made is profoundly maddening to me. This is a classic job interview query, and he's a business school grad; someone should have taught him how to answer it by now...

In other, less relevant news, I was delighted to see a pair of comments from Norma in two of my recent posts. Delighted is the word I use because I like that some who seems to disagree with me has been thoughtful enough to post a comment. I actually appreciate that.

I fear her perception of me is that I'm an unabashed liberal. Other people have approached me that way, and it may or may not be true (see? I'm even waffling). What I voice on this weblog is my opinion, as I have previously stated, but I could jot down enough criticism of either of our two giant political parties to wallpaper a small house. Norma is correct if she gathers that I'm not a Bush supporter, but she may have jumped from that small bit of truth to the conclusion that since I am not a Bush supporter, I must be a Kerry supporter. This would be a fine example of how our political pop culture incorrectly indoctrinates many people; this idea that you have to be one or the other (with us, or against us?).

I think the pervasive nature of this outlook in American politics is symptomatic of what I've been railing against more than anything -- but I have discussed that in several previous posts, and I have very little to add to that for now (and unlike the candidates, I'm not afraid to tell you that).

I am not conservative, though I hold some distinctly conservative views, and I am not liberal, though I hold some of those views also. If you take me for a Democrat because it sometimes appears I prefer criticizing Republicans in the posts where I do write about politics, just wait until the Democrats are in control (if that ever happens again) -- then you might mistake me for a Republican.

I am a political independent. I am registered as such, I vote as such, and I firmly believe this country would be a better place if more people shared that perspective. Which isn't to say I want people to think like me, but that I want people to think for themselves.

There, now I can give the soapbox a few hours of rest before something else pops into my head.

P.S. - I forgot to mention that I'm really enjoying reading from the links on UnRight Christian Blogs, which is apparently how some recent visitors are finding me, like Norma.

"There's a small boat made of china;
it's going nowhere on the mantle piece."
-Crowded House

Every time I hope for better in these political situations. I keep thinking this time people will embrace civility, see the value in treating each other with dignity, acknowledge our commonality -- rather than find minor fault lines into which sizeable wedges can be driven.

Some comments to my Wednesday post about the lack of substance in the debates got me thinking a little, and I think I realized something; something that should have me shrugging at the whole scene and maybe walking away from it altogether.

My esteemed brother-in-law made a point in a comment about how there are merits to the two-party system, in that they both gravitate toward the general area of the middle. I figure he's right about that, but the best part of moderation is lost on American politicians -- the idea that we should take the best ideas, regardless of who might be credited for them, is sometimes more unlikely than the thought of Ralph Nader winning even one state in the upcoming election.
I also figure most of us who are least content with the quality of political candidates and parties in the U.S. aren't necessarily radical leftists or rightists. It's probably more a case of people who don't see society's problems as questions that can all be answered by any single political viewpoint -- at least not the ones that dominate the discourse. That's where I find my disenchantment. It's not that there aren't good ideas in the existing parties, only that very few of those good ideas are in any one place politically.

But there are so many folks who see things in black and white terms. I'm not just referring to issues and problems in the public debate, but also to solutions. We've been conditioned, for the most part, to see certain answers to political questions as left or right, conservative or liberal, even right or wrong. While these labels sometimes fit, solutions are too often disqualified by whole segments of society simply because of a blanket association with one political view or another.

For instance, pro-life means conservative in most people's internal thesaurus, and anti-capital punishment usually translates as liberal (if not ultra-liberal). Given that popular perception, what to make of people who are pro-life, even to the point of being against the death penalty? This is just one version of no man's land that many people find themselves in when it comes to evaluating major political candidates. (The last haven of this for me was the dearly departed Bob Casey, Sr., former Governor of Pennsylvania -- and the way he was ostracized for being out of step with his party on abortion did not bode well for a Democratic return to many key sanctity of life issues.)

So where do those of us without pre-fabricated political views fit? I suspect that if all of us who really felt left out in this way were to band together, there would be some kind of chance, not necessarily to create a new party, but at least to significantly sway one of the existing major parties. But, even with numbers, such movements are hard to start, even harder to lead, unless you have a large bankroll to supplement your ideals.

As I wrote earlier in this post, some of these disparaging thoughts might have been enough to elicit the surrender of my idealism, but I am more stubborn than even George W. Bush when it comes to certain ideas, and so, my hope isn't exhausted yet.

At first, the idea of raging against this machine often seemed like swatting flies. But maybe it's more apt to say the machine is doing the swatting and we're the flies? Even so, you know how persistent those flies can be...

"The Prisoner of Zenda" by Richard Wilbur

Now back to what I really enjoy, poking fun at conservatives...

By now, it is no doubt a well-publicized fact that the Vice-President mis-stated a certain web address last night when he touted "FactCheck.com" in response to a point by Senator Edwards in the debate. He not only misrepresented the spirit of what FactCheck.org had reported, but he also gave the wrong web address. To see what FactCheck.org had to say about his statement, click here.

On the other hand, if you want to see the web site he unwittingly suggested people visit, click this link for FactCheck.com .

There's a slight difference, right?

Well, I watched the late great debate re-broadcast on C-Span again. As far as the ability of the speakers to sound like they were intelligent, this was better than the first Presidential event, which isn't saying very much.

Moderator Gwen Ifill was off a bit more than Jim Lehrer was last week. She actually lost track of whose turn it was to speak near the end of the debate, with John Edwards trying, almost in vain, to set her straight. She discovered about fifteen seconds into his extra turn that she should have gone to the Vice-President instead -- but who could blame her? Aside from the more polished tone of the debaters (when compared to last Thursday), there was enough inaccuracy being spun by both sides to make your head spin.

But at least we saw some subtle (and some not-so-subtle) jabs from each of the candidates.

As I was watching, and then sitting afterwards thinking about it, it really became obvious to me how desperately these past two debates needed at least one third party candidate to shake things up, maybe shout at the two major candidates, "Why are you guys so afraid to answer the questions?" It certainly didn't seem as if the moderator was going to do anything to keep them on-point.

But they both sounded so smooth and well-spoken that if you de-focused your hearing a little bit, you almost thought they might be making sense. Of course, the Vice-President tarried down the same path as the President had last week, insistent that Iraq was going well, even amid admissions from those in his own party to the contrary. And Senator Edwards continued to talk about plans, as if he'd actually offered one that was substantively different from the administration's.

The real problem, as usual, is that we only had two choices in the debate last night, and they were both so stilted in establishment politics that nobody dared venture off the beaten path to seriously discuss what have become known as "kitchen table issues" -- that is, issues that affect those of us not in the the same economic or social stratosphere as any of the four men being featured in the nationally-televised debate process. The only attention paid to those matters last night was more in the vein of skimming newspaper headlines, as opposed to reading the actual stories.

Rumsfeld backs off al Qaeda assertions

Bremer: U.S. "paid a big price" for having too few troops in Iraq

These two headlines caught my eye last night, not because I'm bent on slamming the Bush administration, but because, for a long time, I had faith in what they were doing. And while I did, and in many ways, still do believe in the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, I now see more clearly why so much criticism has been leveled at the President and his inner circle of advisers. Unlike, the ruling party, I don't believe all criticism should be dismissed as sour grapes, even if it is born of such sentiment. We have opposition in a democracy for good reason, and it's never wise to forget that.

The types of confession being made in the news stories linked above were met with cries of "heresy" not too long ago. Perhaps from some ideological corners they still would be, at least when spoken by some of the Bush critics who spoke them long before Rumsfeld and Bremer ever did.
This is the tone that has always disturbed me in political discourse; too many of us follow our leaders as if we were sheep. (I refer not as much to elected leaders as to party leaders.) Our current President has gone back on too many sweeping proclamations to be afforded the kind of automatic credibility he seems to crave. That so many people have refused to acknowledge this is a uniquely disturbing phenomenon to me.

I supported the concept of this war that was first presented to all of us, even though I have disagreed with many strategic and tactical moves that have since been made. I am not inconsistent simply because I refuse to surrender my political will to whatever viewpoint the President and his staff happen to embrace this week. And do you know what? It doesn't make John Kerry inconsistent either.

Of course, John Kerry already was a bit inconsistent, but the secret that doesn't seem to have slipped out yet is that the President is also fairly inconsistent himself. And the kind of political worship that surrounds each of these men and their supporting party machines is probably what disturbs me the most. These men are not in and of themselves principles to be cherished, and neither are their party platforms.

TTLB had a post (that I found courtesy of Ales Rarus) about the notion that our current political system could be considered in violation of a sort of anti-trust provision, though sadly, no such provisions seem to extend to political parties, as insidiously inefficient as they often are at representing the will of the people (what this country is supposed to be about).

But alas, when will free market principles extend to where they are most sorely needed?

"Number of HealthSouth executives charged with conspiracy, fraud, money laundering, or lying since March 2003 : 20
[U.S. Attorney's Office (Birmingham, Ala.) ]

"Number who have pled guilty : 17
[U.S. Attorney's Office (Birmingham, Ala.) ]

"Number of these now in prison : 0"

-Harper's Index, September, 2004

I came across this series of statistics while desperately hoping to find an online excerpt from the current month's issue. The specific piece I was searching for was an excerpt from a Wal-Mart management resource guide entitled "Labor Relations and You at the Wal-Mart Distribution Center" -- a publication that apparently verbalizes Wal-Mart's institutional hostility towards both labor unions and their own employees. I couldn't find it, but I did stumble upon the above-quoted Harper's Index items. Still, if you're into reading, you can pick up the October issue and find the piece I'm talking about on page 23.

If you've never read Harper's, you can sample past index items by following the link below the quoted text leading into this post. I often find the various statistical offerings thought-provoking, if not humorous.

Okay, so this story actually happened on Friday, but I didn't see too much mention of it in my regular blog circles -- so here I go.

First point, I already figured Fox News was biased -- it really only takes about ten minutes planted in front of their jovially slanted morning show Fox and Friends to come up with that nugget of truth. But what I didn't figure was that they were this dedicated to slamming John Kerry.

Fox News' website had been carrying a story by Carl Cameron about a post-debate campaign stop in Florida that contained a couple fabricated Kerry quotes. The story was later amended (after lefty blogger Josh Marshall inquired about it), and then pulled from the site altogether -- Fox News passed it off as a misjudgment of Carl's sense of humor. It sounded a little contrived to me, but then we're all familiar with Dan Rather's misunderstood sense of humor, aren't we? Click here to read the original version of the story.

Then, as if that weren't enough for Fox, they then proceeded to mistake Communists for Kerry for a serious pro-Kerry group -- a mistake I now also see that they've conveniently edited out by adding in a paragraph or so about Billionaires for Bush and pretending to know all along that both groups were being facetious. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate an archived version of the Fox story in this case, but it did, at one point, exist. (The current version is even buried somewhere on this page.)

"There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I've known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican Administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one."
-Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone

I know people who work in management positions at my company who express pretty much the same sentiment. Some of them complain about being "encouraged" to contribute to the corporate PAC. That's when I'm glad I'm not in management.

Though I do find it curious that amid ever-tightening regulations on the way Union finances are managed (purportedly to ensure members' dues money isn't spent for political purposes without their express consent), a company could get away with coercing political contributions from its management employees. Hmmm...

I heard the debate on radio before watching it on the late C-Span broadcast after I got home.

All the outlets are asking who won the debate, and while many are boldly proclaiming for one candidate or the other, I'd rather take a cue from the debaters and give my own non-answer. Most people in the early returns seemed to think it was Kerry, and I suppose in a cosmetic sense, that's probably accurate. But in reality? I don't know if a winner can be picked. Neither podium last night was inhabited by anyone resembling a straight-talking candidate, but I suppose that's par for the course.

While I wasn't especially impressed with either candidate last night, I was surprised to see and hear the President sounding very distracted. He could often be heard repeating an arsenal of two or three different phrases, and several times when those phrases weren't directly related to the questions being discussed. He was the only one to venture into flashing warning light territory (referring to the visual timer warnings being used last night).

Kerry, on the other hand, did seem to like talking about "plans" whether it be the one he has, or the one the President does not have. While I do tend to question the course of events in Iraq over the past year (especially following the "end of major hostilities"), I don't think the debate format lent itself to explanations of complex foreign policy, and that may be my biggest problem with the debate. But if Kerry was just looking to mimic the President's over-use of catch-phrases, well, he did a pretty good job of it.

Then there's the debate format itself, which no one will ever confuse for anything that transpired between Lincoln and Douglas. It's a given that any time you constrict explanations of complex issues to time periods no longer than two minutes (at the longest), well, you shouldn't complain if the candidates start over-using the talking points. I sincerely thought Jim Lehrer should have been able to do something to keep the discussion more on topic.

And the questions -- who thought of these questions? There were some decent ones, but why even bother asking the President of the United States if he believes electing the other guy will result in more terror attacks? Can you blame him for dancing around that one? Perhaps the question could have been framed by asking what he thought of his Vice-President making a statement to that effect.

Both these guys just had it too easy.

The only demonstrable difference between the two candidates in my observation (and apparently I wasn't alone in this one) was the almost surreal stupor that seemed to be plaguing the President through half the debate. I seriously started wondering if he was on some kind of industrial-strength allergy medication -- actually, I sincerely hope he was, because some of the other scenarios that come to mind have far more disturbing ramifications. And then I thought maybe he just didn't have enough rest for his big night -- either way, his demeanor didn't play too heavily into my opinion, other than I thought it was a bit off.

But I guess I'll corral this all by saying I don't think people expecting heavy-duty policy discussion were hanging their hopes too heavily on last night's event -- or any of the coming Presidential debates either. And that's the real dilemma; we shouldn't really expect anything too deep or meaningful out of this contrived process, which is one of the real curses of U.S. politics.

Maybe if I was dyed in the wool of one major party or another, I could have made one of those typically snap judgments for one candidate or the other. As I heard people's opinions for about 20 minutes on the radio last night, I settled into a firm belief that most people who believe the debate was won by a landslide were already supporting the candidate they proclaimed to have won. Which makes the perception meaningless.

Being an independent, I think I'd be in the pool of voters they'd be looking to sway. And by that yardstick, they both failed miserably.

"My Life" by Joe Wenderoth