Yup, yup.
Okay. It's all about those pesky sub-prime mortgages--what were the Wall Street barons thinking? We need more regulation! We need to fix the greed on Wall Street! We need better oversight!
How's that again?
Well, of course, mortgage-backed securities were a pretty safe bet until the housing market started going down instead of up. As long as home prices kept escalating, banks could sell foreclosed properties for more than the amounts they'd loaned for their purchase, so except for a few legal fees, a little paperwork, and a few man-hours from the county Sheriff, defaults were a managable and relatively painless cost of doing business.
But let's recap.
First of all, incomes have been flat (except for the swaggering gambling-class) for about 8 years. Unemployment has been rising, and most of the job loss has been in the sectors where incomes hovered around the $50,000 mark. That's approximately what a full-time union auto worker made, give or take. The jobs that have been "created" (what a lovely image--I picture Hermione Grainger waving her wand) in the past decade have mostly paid less than that--even folks with an education can't reliably find employment here, because big companies aren't just exporting manufacturing jobs any more--it's the white-collar stuff, too.
Unfortunately, until pretty recently, housing prices continued to rise. So let's see...a persistently shrinking portion of the population-at-large (and whatever gains the rich may have made, ours is still an economy that depends on scale) was losing its ability to afford homes, but still the prices continued to rise.
Which part of "supply and demand" didn't the money-grubbers understand? Sure, there were people making a killing buying and selling money to each other, and those folks were able (and probably still are able, for the most part) to afford the mortgages on homes median-priced around $300k and rising. But the supply of housing (particularly the supply of expensive housing) continued to expand, as the demand for that level of real estate was shrinking.
Economists have been shouting for years that more and more of the wealth in this country is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. There simply aren't enough John-and-Cindy McCains (how many houses do they own?) to pick up the slack by buying multiple residences in order to prop up the prices. At some point, it comes down to numbers-of-bodies...and most families only need one house. Even if the richest 1% bought a string of houses spaced 50 miles apart, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, eventually we were going to have to face the reality that there were more homes on the market than there were people who could afford to buy them.
What happens when supply is up and demand is down? (We're not talking college-sophomore Econ 101 here, folks--this is 3rd-grade stuff). Duh. The price goes down. You lower the price, or your property sits there, vacant, costing you money every day it doesn't sell. After a while you can't wait for a "qualified buyer" any more--you have to unload that stone around your neck, or you're going to drown. So you'll take whatever you can get. If things get bad enough, you'll sell at a loss, just to unload the albatross.
The idea that Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) could bridge the gap between earning power and housing prices might have looked good on paper, but those instruments are based on the idea that when a young family buys a home, its earning power will eventually grow, enabling the payment of higher interest rates further down the pike. But employment/income growth didn't happen--real incomes shrank or remained stagnant--and the people who were speculating on all this bad paper were the same insensitive idiots who were busy gleefully shipping American jobs overseas, where they could get a better labor price (thus reducing their own costs, and shoring up their own bottom lines).
The money people flourished for a while, having their cake and eating it too. But housing prices could not continue to rise, unless the available customer base kept pace with the supply of housing. Yet another "duh"--real incomes shrinking (except for a very few), housing supply expanding...it's not exactly rocket science, is it?
When John McCain talks about regulating "greed," his focus on Wall Street real estate speculation is pitifully narrow. Wall Street can't expect returns when its largest market has next to no income to spend, as a direct result of corporate stockholders' own refusal to pay living wages to living humans. Americans, in order to participate in a vibrant economy, need (duh) a job, and it has to pay enough to facilitate (duh) the purchase of a home. Furthermore, (duh) loaning people money they're not going to be able to pay back because (duh) you shipped their jobs overseas and (duh) forced them to seek lower-paying jobs just to pay the bills, is eventually going to result (duh) in a massive foreclosure crisis, which (duh) is going to blow up in your face if (duh) housing prices go down because the supply is greater than the demand.
McCain, in his now-famous back-pedal on the statement "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," said he misspoke--oh, I see--it's the American worker who's the fundamental in the equation!!
Which idiots did he think would actually believe that cockamamie nonsense? The unemployed auto workers, or the unemployed computer programmers? It's bad enough that his statement is an obvious, transparent lie. His estimation of the "fundamentals" (which, first of all, is just a stump line he's repeated so many times it pops out of him without a conscious thought) hasn't changed. No, the thing that's changed is that he's running for president of the United States instead of an Arizona Senate seat. It's suddenly dawned on him that he has to appeal not just to the sunbelt set, which, though strapped, isn't hurting all that badly, but to the entire country--much of which is composed of people he'd rather not have to converse with at all--poor people, displaced workers, people in places where the economy didn't just tank yesterday, but has been in decline for years. A lot of those folks would normally not think twice about supporting the Republican Party in principle, but in practice can't afford to wait around for the trickle-down from on high. For these folks, something has to give, and soon.
What' really pathetic about McCain's latest statement (American workers are the "fundamentals") isn't that it's obvious that he's lying--it's that the people he thinks he's pandering to are more than likely to lay down their little 8x12 American-flags-on-a-stick, and stare blankly at him, like Mr. Garrison's class on "South Park."
Much the same as the false adulation paid our "heroic men and women in uniform" by the same Republicans who sent them into Iraq on false pretenses, and got them mired in the muck with no end in sight (and the risk of a horrible death lurking around every corner), the concept of giving the American workforce a pat on the head, as if it were composed of sub-literate 5-year-olds, while at the same time lying in bed with the same people whose actions have thrown millions of them out of work, is an insult of epic proportions. When they were working, maybe that little pep talk might have inspired...but it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference to an unemployed American worker that you tell her she's "the greatest," when she's scared half to death that the meal she just fed her kids may be the last she'll be able to afford this month.
If the American worker is "the fundamental," then that worker deserves to be paid. If you can find cheaper labor elsewhere, and you buy it, and you're okay with that, then the American worker isn't a fundamental-anything. To you, the American worker is a nuisance, a thorn in your side, a "whiner," an irrelevancy whose only function is to vote (Republican, naturally) so that you can continue to bathe in gravy.
American workers have been lied to, repeatedly, for decades, by the Republican Party and its corporate sponsors. That the American worker manages to muster even an ounce of patriotism, even the slightest desire to "pull together for the team," is nothing short of a miracle at this point. Yet the Republican Party has the inconceivable gall to continue to ask these "salt of the Earth folks," with their "homey, small-town values," to bend over, again and again.
And the American worker, incredibly, remains optimistic, in the face of overwheming evidence that her leaders don't give a flying f*** about her, or the needs of her family. They just want her vote, so that they can continue the plunder.
Which part of "duh" don't they understand?
Friday, September 19, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Phewww...McCain, aka Spitzer?? (watch out for hookers!)
...things are getting weird around here...
I know practically nothing about the financial markets. They're very (intentionally, I think) complicated, purposely opaque to those of us without the time or the patience to learn the jargon, navigate the maze of Rube Goldberg "financial instruments" and embrace the double-and-triple-negative hedge bets designed so that those with the wherewithal are able to win when everybody else is losing.
Greed, on the other hand, is pretty easy to understand, particularly among those on Wall Street who manage other people's money, and can therefore rationalize avaricious behaviors as benefitting those whose money is in their custody. When you make a big pile of fast money, you're "tending your flock"--the messianic complex can set in, and you can feel the applause (just off camera, to the left) as you shepherd that next big deal toward completion. It's easy to imagine a Wall Street "doer," patting himself on the back for the $3 billion he's just earned as a "fundit," and making a mental note to himself: "this is really risky...can't forget things could go south...gotta sleep with one eye open...don't worry, I'll come back to my senses tomorrow...we'll straighten all this out...just...one...[puff]...more...trade...[pant]...YES!! Another billion and a half!!"
Greed, I can understand--procrastination ("we'll do the dilligence tomorrow, I promise...") I can understand.
What I don't understand is the following statement: "It is unbridled corruption and greed that caused the crisis on Wall Street. We've got to FIX it!" --John McCain.
Fix it? Fix what? Fix GREED? I see...Mr. McCain proposes to ask people who spend their entire existence addicted to big deals and endless obscene profits to...what...check themselves into Betty Ford voluntarily? Suddenly decide that there's "something more important than making money?" Is he going to appeal to their "patriotism?" The same people who can't ship American jobs overseas fast enough to satisfy the stockholders? Is he going to appeal to their "better angels?" These people whose patron saint is Gordon Gecko? These people he's lain in bed with for decades, the hands that feed his campaign, his drinking buddies, his Sedona neighbors?
This is the same McCain, who, when asked whether or not he supported government action to help average citizens facing foreclosure, said, "the government shouldn't be in the business of bailing out people who've made irresponsible financial decisions." The implication here is that sub-prime mortgage customers should have "known better." Translation: If you're poor, or of merely modest means, you should recognize your station in life, and stop all this silly dreaming that you can actually afford a roof over your head that isn't owned by someone else.
But as long as you're rich, you've already succeeded in passing the "responsible/respectable" smell test, in the Republican view. You're not a deadbeat dad...your secretary mails out all your child support checks, right on time. Your 3 alimomy accounts are all up to date. Your credit cards have astronomical limits, and you pay your bills as soon as they come due. There are no mortgage companies hounding you, all your utilties are paid up, life is good--you're a "responsible citizen." Once your team of accountants has squeezed every possible cent in deductions and tax shelter opportunities (and your team of lobbyists has squeezed every available loophole and tax cut out of your polo buddies in Washington) you pay your tax bill every quarter. Wherever your "family values" or "moral compass" come into question, you write another check to cover your vices and put yourself back in good standing with the Robertsons and Falwells (who can't make it for polo on Sunday, 'cause they've gotta work...).
And since you are a citizen of such high moral character, what's a couple of hundred billion, really? If you screw up and blow half the US GDP on a bad business deal, your buds at the Fed will bail you out, no problem.
Yes, McCain's backpedaling about the "economic fundamentals" being "the American Worker" makes perfect sense. When the chips are down, the Wall Street "saints" can always rely on the rank-and-file millions to take another hit for "the team."
We're all on the same team, right? This is "America." What's good for Wall Street is good for Main Street, isn't it? It's those commies, those Democrats, that we have to worry about, not good, solid "American workers." When our boys on Wall Street are in trouble, it's up to the rest of us to suck it up, back their play...they've spent their lives selflessly committed to our "economic expansion," so now it's the least we can do, as taxpayers, to make sure they don't lose their second summer homes just because they made a little "arithmetic error."
"Fix" greed and corruption? Yup, yup-McCain's your man, all right--the maverick reformer, the Lone Ranger to the rescue. All you displaced manufacturing workers, computer programmers, design engineers...y'know, you salt-of-the-Earth Americans that so proudly we hail? Yup, the same folks to whom Mr. McCain has so humbly offered his services as vigilante-in-chief--he's got your back--don't worry--help is on the way, just as soon as we've taken care of the truly needy, those thanklessly toiling Wall Street pinstripes whose "Captain Economy" leotards were stained by the incompetent boobs at the cleaners this past week...
"It's just a little cash-flow problem. Things have been a little tight this month. We PROMISE we'll bring our accounts up to date...we're on the phone with Uncle Sam right now, and he's promised to cover us. Give us a break, will 'ya?"
But I digress...master McCain stands ready to "fix it!" So watch out, you dastardly minions of "greed and corruption!"
And you good, honest "average Americans," (you beautiful rubes, you Values-voters, you loyal Republican faithful...) Please, have faith, trust in the Lairds--just a few more months/years living out of garbage cans and paying off creditors on...well...Wall Street, and you'll be led out of misery, to the promised land.
Fear not!
The Dark Knight feels your pain. Justice will be done, but first he has to throw a little cocktail party out at Wayne Manor...
I know practically nothing about the financial markets. They're very (intentionally, I think) complicated, purposely opaque to those of us without the time or the patience to learn the jargon, navigate the maze of Rube Goldberg "financial instruments" and embrace the double-and-triple-negative hedge bets designed so that those with the wherewithal are able to win when everybody else is losing.
Greed, on the other hand, is pretty easy to understand, particularly among those on Wall Street who manage other people's money, and can therefore rationalize avaricious behaviors as benefitting those whose money is in their custody. When you make a big pile of fast money, you're "tending your flock"--the messianic complex can set in, and you can feel the applause (just off camera, to the left) as you shepherd that next big deal toward completion. It's easy to imagine a Wall Street "doer," patting himself on the back for the $3 billion he's just earned as a "fundit," and making a mental note to himself: "this is really risky...can't forget things could go south...gotta sleep with one eye open...don't worry, I'll come back to my senses tomorrow...we'll straighten all this out...just...one...[puff]...more...trade...[pant]...YES!! Another billion and a half!!"
Greed, I can understand--procrastination ("we'll do the dilligence tomorrow, I promise...") I can understand.
What I don't understand is the following statement: "It is unbridled corruption and greed that caused the crisis on Wall Street. We've got to FIX it!" --John McCain.
Fix it? Fix what? Fix GREED? I see...Mr. McCain proposes to ask people who spend their entire existence addicted to big deals and endless obscene profits to...what...check themselves into Betty Ford voluntarily? Suddenly decide that there's "something more important than making money?" Is he going to appeal to their "patriotism?" The same people who can't ship American jobs overseas fast enough to satisfy the stockholders? Is he going to appeal to their "better angels?" These people whose patron saint is Gordon Gecko? These people he's lain in bed with for decades, the hands that feed his campaign, his drinking buddies, his Sedona neighbors?
This is the same McCain, who, when asked whether or not he supported government action to help average citizens facing foreclosure, said, "the government shouldn't be in the business of bailing out people who've made irresponsible financial decisions." The implication here is that sub-prime mortgage customers should have "known better." Translation: If you're poor, or of merely modest means, you should recognize your station in life, and stop all this silly dreaming that you can actually afford a roof over your head that isn't owned by someone else.
But as long as you're rich, you've already succeeded in passing the "responsible/respectable" smell test, in the Republican view. You're not a deadbeat dad...your secretary mails out all your child support checks, right on time. Your 3 alimomy accounts are all up to date. Your credit cards have astronomical limits, and you pay your bills as soon as they come due. There are no mortgage companies hounding you, all your utilties are paid up, life is good--you're a "responsible citizen." Once your team of accountants has squeezed every possible cent in deductions and tax shelter opportunities (and your team of lobbyists has squeezed every available loophole and tax cut out of your polo buddies in Washington) you pay your tax bill every quarter. Wherever your "family values" or "moral compass" come into question, you write another check to cover your vices and put yourself back in good standing with the Robertsons and Falwells (who can't make it for polo on Sunday, 'cause they've gotta work...).
And since you are a citizen of such high moral character, what's a couple of hundred billion, really? If you screw up and blow half the US GDP on a bad business deal, your buds at the Fed will bail you out, no problem.
Yes, McCain's backpedaling about the "economic fundamentals" being "the American Worker" makes perfect sense. When the chips are down, the Wall Street "saints" can always rely on the rank-and-file millions to take another hit for "the team."
We're all on the same team, right? This is "America." What's good for Wall Street is good for Main Street, isn't it? It's those commies, those Democrats, that we have to worry about, not good, solid "American workers." When our boys on Wall Street are in trouble, it's up to the rest of us to suck it up, back their play...they've spent their lives selflessly committed to our "economic expansion," so now it's the least we can do, as taxpayers, to make sure they don't lose their second summer homes just because they made a little "arithmetic error."
"Fix" greed and corruption? Yup, yup-McCain's your man, all right--the maverick reformer, the Lone Ranger to the rescue. All you displaced manufacturing workers, computer programmers, design engineers...y'know, you salt-of-the-Earth Americans that so proudly we hail? Yup, the same folks to whom Mr. McCain has so humbly offered his services as vigilante-in-chief--he's got your back--don't worry--help is on the way, just as soon as we've taken care of the truly needy, those thanklessly toiling Wall Street pinstripes whose "Captain Economy" leotards were stained by the incompetent boobs at the cleaners this past week...
"It's just a little cash-flow problem. Things have been a little tight this month. We PROMISE we'll bring our accounts up to date...we're on the phone with Uncle Sam right now, and he's promised to cover us. Give us a break, will 'ya?"
But I digress...master McCain stands ready to "fix it!" So watch out, you dastardly minions of "greed and corruption!"
And you good, honest "average Americans," (you beautiful rubes, you Values-voters, you loyal Republican faithful...) Please, have faith, trust in the Lairds--just a few more months/years living out of garbage cans and paying off creditors on...well...Wall Street, and you'll be led out of misery, to the promised land.
Fear not!
The Dark Knight feels your pain. Justice will be done, but first he has to throw a little cocktail party out at Wayne Manor...
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Palin by comparison
Okay, I've been called out--slapped down by Krauthammer, for being an "intellectually condescending" "establishment snob," expressing my disdain for "the mother of five who presumes to play on [my] stage." ("Charlie Gibson's Gaffe," The Washington Post, 9/13/08)
Well...not exactly. I started this blog about 10 minutes ago, so I'm assuming it will take at least a week before I could reasonably be called a member of the "East Coast Media Elite." Maybe two. I don't live on the east coast, I never attended an Ivy League school, and the dot-com boom came and went without making me an instant millionaire. Nope, I'm just a low-brow observer from a fly-over state, putting in my $0.02.
But let's leave that aside...and by the way, it might be best, as well, to leave aside the fact Charles Krauthammer has rarely written a column that DIDN'T condescend to those of us beneath his storied intellectual level. Krauthammer wasn't really talking to me (I'm not important, as far as he's concerned) and his point was aimed in a completely different direction, but it struck an unexpected chord with me.
There's been an incredible amount of ink (from both sides of the "aisle") spent bemoaning "lack of experience"--essentially attacking candidates' resumes (or lack of same). It's a valid argument, as far as it goes--we as Americans aren't particularly interested in having the nation's CEO role inhabited by a mailroom clerk, or a fry cook (my apologies to mailroom clerks and fry cooks--they're fine people, but probably underqualified to run a country...or ARE they?--consider the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave).
But the idealistic egalitarian in me was actually moved by the last 11 words of Krauthammer's column--"the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage." The side of me that is Horatio-Alger-inspired had to ask, "okay...shouldn't ANY person be considered "good enough" for political office, as long as the majority votes for her/him? Isn't that what America is all about?"
I should back-track here--I suspect I'm a Democrat. That's an unconfirmed rumor, owing to the frequency with which Democratic candidates and officeholders continue to disappoint me.
What I AM pretty sure about is that I'm not a Republican--as Frank Zappa once said, "The Republican Party isn't a Party--it's a species." Despite the fact that, as I grow older, I find myself migrating toward certain conservative attitudes (mostly having to do with caution, respect for history and precedent, and the idea that creating more government bureaucracy isn't an automatic "yes") I have grown increasingly resentful of the fact that conservatism (of a fiscal and procedural nature) has been hijacked, as a position, by a party (Republicans) whom I find to be cold-hearted, greedy, hypocritical, and in many instances criminal (and that's without even bringing "intelligent design" into it).
I was interested that the point Krauthammer MADE (even though I don't think it's what he meant) is that we're all arguing about experience, credentials, and a certain level of required "gravitas" in our candidates--and that's what is monopolizing the conversation now, as if the entire election hinged not on the different agendas of the parties and their candidates, but rather on whether or not a pre-set set of experience-check-boxes is filled to our satisfaction. We're comparing resumes, length of service, etc. instead of the obvious differences in intent between the two (count 'em...that's all the choice we get) parties.
The thought that Krauthammer's column sparked in me was that all this talk of "how old," "how long," "how many foreign heads of state have you met," blah blah blah...is essentially functioning as a distraction, one that nearly descends to the level of fluff. What it made me realize is that whether or not Sarah Palin has or hasn't had enough experience isn't the most important thing to me (though it's not chopped liver, by any means). What's important to me is that I abhor so much of what she stands for, and that I'm terrified by the similarities to our current president, particularly her statement that "you have to be wired in such a way of being so committed to the mission," that "you don't blink."
Barack Obama's experience level is less-than comprehensive (though, on a national level, clearly superior to Palin's) but he doesn't frighten me...Sarah Palin frightens me, in the same way that beer-soaked WWF-watching "We're number one" hair-trigger hawks frighten me. America is a great country, but it's not the ONLY country on Earth, and to pretend that America's self-serving interests around the globe are all-consuming, and that citizens of others are "lesser mortals" is a recipe for a catastrophe of (pardon my pun) biblical proportions.
Let's forget for a moment that Ms. Palin is unblinkingly committed to the proposition that American women don't have the right to control their own (her own?!?) bodies. Let's forget Troopergate II, or the BYO rape-kit scandal. Let's forget her "do as I say, not as I do" approach regarding her pregnant teen daughter (and all those OTHER sinners out there, in the flyover states, she'd presume to save from pre-marital sex with prayer in schools, and "faith-based initiatives").
Nope, let's just imagine what "not blinking" has wrought already, and the seriousness of the consequences that might ensue if, after replacing the recently incapacitated Mr. McCain in the commander-in-chief chair, some "lesser mortal" from another country had the incomprehensible audacity to look sideways at the Mighty U.S. of A.
You think we spend a lot on defense now? You ain't seen nuthin' yet.
Do I think Sarah Palin has enough experience to lead the country? No.
But that doesn't worry me nearly as much as her lack of sense, of wisdom, of intelligence.
The woman frightens me. Her resume doesn't frighten me. SHE frightens me.
The campaigns seem intent on focusing the debate on non-ideological qualifications. This is understandable, since each party's BASE is pretty much a given, and the focus of the sales pitch is now the undecided, independent voter (who is sick of hearing about abortion, God/Guns/Gays, & the stuck-CD "nine-eleven" mantra).
The experience arguments, however, are inconclusive, and unlikely to produce any resolution. The danger is that we could be yapping about that all the way until November.
So if we put aside the experience talk, I guess you're left with a choice (since McCain effectively took himself out of the game when he chose Palin as the new face of the Republican Party) between "folksy" wisdom, and wisdom borne of study, intellectual curiosity, and hard work training a mind instead of a gun-hand.
We've had "folksy."
Like what you've seen? We can get you more...just press "R" in November.
Well...not exactly. I started this blog about 10 minutes ago, so I'm assuming it will take at least a week before I could reasonably be called a member of the "East Coast Media Elite." Maybe two. I don't live on the east coast, I never attended an Ivy League school, and the dot-com boom came and went without making me an instant millionaire. Nope, I'm just a low-brow observer from a fly-over state, putting in my $0.02.
But let's leave that aside...and by the way, it might be best, as well, to leave aside the fact Charles Krauthammer has rarely written a column that DIDN'T condescend to those of us beneath his storied intellectual level. Krauthammer wasn't really talking to me (I'm not important, as far as he's concerned) and his point was aimed in a completely different direction, but it struck an unexpected chord with me.
There's been an incredible amount of ink (from both sides of the "aisle") spent bemoaning "lack of experience"--essentially attacking candidates' resumes (or lack of same). It's a valid argument, as far as it goes--we as Americans aren't particularly interested in having the nation's CEO role inhabited by a mailroom clerk, or a fry cook (my apologies to mailroom clerks and fry cooks--they're fine people, but probably underqualified to run a country...or ARE they?--consider the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave).
But the idealistic egalitarian in me was actually moved by the last 11 words of Krauthammer's column--"the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage." The side of me that is Horatio-Alger-inspired had to ask, "okay...shouldn't ANY person be considered "good enough" for political office, as long as the majority votes for her/him? Isn't that what America is all about?"
I should back-track here--I suspect I'm a Democrat. That's an unconfirmed rumor, owing to the frequency with which Democratic candidates and officeholders continue to disappoint me.
What I AM pretty sure about is that I'm not a Republican--as Frank Zappa once said, "The Republican Party isn't a Party--it's a species." Despite the fact that, as I grow older, I find myself migrating toward certain conservative attitudes (mostly having to do with caution, respect for history and precedent, and the idea that creating more government bureaucracy isn't an automatic "yes") I have grown increasingly resentful of the fact that conservatism (of a fiscal and procedural nature) has been hijacked, as a position, by a party (Republicans) whom I find to be cold-hearted, greedy, hypocritical, and in many instances criminal (and that's without even bringing "intelligent design" into it).
I was interested that the point Krauthammer MADE (even though I don't think it's what he meant) is that we're all arguing about experience, credentials, and a certain level of required "gravitas" in our candidates--and that's what is monopolizing the conversation now, as if the entire election hinged not on the different agendas of the parties and their candidates, but rather on whether or not a pre-set set of experience-check-boxes is filled to our satisfaction. We're comparing resumes, length of service, etc. instead of the obvious differences in intent between the two (count 'em...that's all the choice we get) parties.
The thought that Krauthammer's column sparked in me was that all this talk of "how old," "how long," "how many foreign heads of state have you met," blah blah blah...is essentially functioning as a distraction, one that nearly descends to the level of fluff. What it made me realize is that whether or not Sarah Palin has or hasn't had enough experience isn't the most important thing to me (though it's not chopped liver, by any means). What's important to me is that I abhor so much of what she stands for, and that I'm terrified by the similarities to our current president, particularly her statement that "you have to be wired in such a way of being so committed to the mission," that "you don't blink."
Barack Obama's experience level is less-than comprehensive (though, on a national level, clearly superior to Palin's) but he doesn't frighten me...Sarah Palin frightens me, in the same way that beer-soaked WWF-watching "We're number one" hair-trigger hawks frighten me. America is a great country, but it's not the ONLY country on Earth, and to pretend that America's self-serving interests around the globe are all-consuming, and that citizens of others are "lesser mortals" is a recipe for a catastrophe of (pardon my pun) biblical proportions.
Let's forget for a moment that Ms. Palin is unblinkingly committed to the proposition that American women don't have the right to control their own (her own?!?) bodies. Let's forget Troopergate II, or the BYO rape-kit scandal. Let's forget her "do as I say, not as I do" approach regarding her pregnant teen daughter (and all those OTHER sinners out there, in the flyover states, she'd presume to save from pre-marital sex with prayer in schools, and "faith-based initiatives").
Nope, let's just imagine what "not blinking" has wrought already, and the seriousness of the consequences that might ensue if, after replacing the recently incapacitated Mr. McCain in the commander-in-chief chair, some "lesser mortal" from another country had the incomprehensible audacity to look sideways at the Mighty U.S. of A.
You think we spend a lot on defense now? You ain't seen nuthin' yet.
Do I think Sarah Palin has enough experience to lead the country? No.
But that doesn't worry me nearly as much as her lack of sense, of wisdom, of intelligence.
The woman frightens me. Her resume doesn't frighten me. SHE frightens me.
The campaigns seem intent on focusing the debate on non-ideological qualifications. This is understandable, since each party's BASE is pretty much a given, and the focus of the sales pitch is now the undecided, independent voter (who is sick of hearing about abortion, God/Guns/Gays, & the stuck-CD "nine-eleven" mantra).
The experience arguments, however, are inconclusive, and unlikely to produce any resolution. The danger is that we could be yapping about that all the way until November.
So if we put aside the experience talk, I guess you're left with a choice (since McCain effectively took himself out of the game when he chose Palin as the new face of the Republican Party) between "folksy" wisdom, and wisdom borne of study, intellectual curiosity, and hard work training a mind instead of a gun-hand.
We've had "folksy."
Like what you've seen? We can get you more...just press "R" in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)