armchair pundit

The other day on my bus into downtown SF, a down-and-out looking guy stepped on and asked if anyone could give him the dollar he was short on bus fare. Amazingly, five or six people stepped up to oblige, and it got me thinking about the economy. I’ve seen people ask for money on the bus before, but I’ve never seen five people leap to lend a hand.

Hard times can create a kind of brotherhood. The word compassion literally means to suffer together, and when we don’t have to work too hard to put ourselves in another man’s shoes, then maybe we’re more inclined to help each other out.

Economic growth is not something that can go on forever. The last hundred years of exponential growth and unrestrained consumption has taken a serious toll on the earth and left entire cultures wrecked in its wake. For our own survival on this planet, we need to curb our appetites, but the dilemma has been how to slow down consumption without throwing the economy into turmoil.

Well our hand has been forced, and maybe we have the answer: You can’t slow down consumption without hurting the economy. The economy is in turmoil and consumption is way down. Each exacerbating the other. But maybe nothing good comes without some hard work and sacrifice – concepts that are antithetical to American existence. We have indigestion, and maybe this is just the medicine we need.

We can look forward to tough times, that’s certain. The last eight years have left some fresh scabs, but it’s the last hundred years that did the real damage. Tougher times are still ahead, but maybe there’s an upside. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise.

As we endure this downturn and after we come out the other side, maybe we’ll do a better job of taking care of each other, and the planet we share.

Yesterday, NPR’s On The Media aired an interesting segment about Bush and language. It wasn’t another jab at his butchering of English; it was a look at his administration’s creative branding of its policies, programs and  initiatives:

Gladstone’s guest, “Republican wordsmith” Frank Luntz, doesn’t anticipate that much of Bush’s lexicon will stick, but he seems to be referring to Bush’s oratory, rather than the Administration’s knack for naming. Regretfully, I think we’ll have to live with some of these names for a while (not to mention the damage they’ve done). In no particular order…

• Operation Enduring Freedom. I think you have to establish freedom before it can endure. As I read on a bumper sticker once: “We’ll Liberate the Shit Out of You.” Remember when this one was…
• Operation Infinite Justice. Because Bush’s top adviser is… The Lord, and The Lord apparently likes Tom Clancy novels. Either way, this war introduced us to…
• Unlawful enemy combatants. Not just enemy combatants, but unlawful ones. In any case, this means that even though we’re in the middle of a “war” on terror, the people we’re fighting are not “prisoners” of said war once we capture them. They’re “detainees.” And they’re unlawful. How convenient for us. Or maybe not, since the government can decide that any one of us is an unlawful enemy combatant pretty much whenever it wants to and with no explanation whatsoever. Think about this before you chuck your shoes at the president smart guy, or you might be subjected to…
• Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Don’t worry though, it’s not torture. Sigh.
• The Axis of Evil. We have to trust him on this. He talks to The Lord, remember?
• Homeland Security. They tell us what color we are – red, orange, yellow (like Lifesavers… literally), and they keep American cities from being destroyed (except by hurricanes). We all feel much more secure with them around.
• Patriot Act. It tells us how to act patriotic.
• No Child Left Behind. And seven years later, no children are behind! Right?
• The Clear Skies Initiative. Because who’s not for clear skies? Wait, Bush? Really? But what about the name? I don’t get it.
• The Healthy Forests Initiative. Because who’s not for healthy forests? Wait, Bush? Really? But what… oh, I think I’m starting to understand.
• Compassionate Conservatism. Ahhh, this is where it all began.

For a final word on Bush’s knack for naming, I leave you with Jon Stewart.

Aspirational Time Horizon

Re-distributing the wealth? Turning the other cheek? Someone has to stop this guy…

When the folks in “real America” want to make a point of distinguishing themselves from the rest of us, they often spit words like French, European, elite, socialist and of course San Francisco and Nancy Pelosi. SNL captured this sentiment pretty well:

Now, I live in San Francisco and Nancy Pelosi is my representative, and while I think the right’s characterizations of her are simplistic, exaggerated and unfair, I was very surprised to receive a robocall from Rosanne Barr the other night urging me to dump Pelosi, especially when I realized that Barr was saying Pelosi is not liberal enough. Specifically Barr declares, Pelosi is “a collaborator with a criminal administration.”

Pelosi’s biggest mistake, in my mind, was to have stated upon assuming her position as Speaker of the House that “impeachment is off the table.” People understood her to be, in effect, giving the Bush Administration a free pass, but Pelosi was only being pragmatic. Regardless of what you think Bush and Cheney deserve (impeachment, a war crimes trial), the Democrats hold the slimmest majority in Congress, and there’s no way they have the votes to impeach. She recognized it as a hopless cause that would only make it impossible to push anything else on the Democratic legislative agenda.

Rosanne’s candidate, by the way, is Cindy Sheehan.

I’ve been off the grid for a couple weeks, backpacking with my brothers. We embarked a day or two after McCain announced his surprising (and IMHO almost surreal) choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. This, and she, dominated the headlines as we headed into the mountains, and I was hoping the shock and awe would have faded by the time we got back.

The press’s attention span is an interesting thing. It’s still all Palin all the time, and the Republicans seem to be fine with that. They can’t win on the issues, so why wouldn’t they be?

Anyway, I’ve designed a graphic for the new Republican ticket (above). Let me know if you want some stickers.

In a word: compromise.

Now, compromise is often a good thing. I’m all for bi-partisanship. I want a candidate and a president who’s truly willing to look at all sides of an issue and accept that the other party’s point of view might be the right one. I don’t want a candidate who simply panders to the left or the right, and I actually appreciate Obama’s willingness to buck many members of his own party with his recent vote on the FISA bill, as an example.

I’m all for having “no red states and no blue states, but only the United States.”

But then there’s compromise that just seems spineless in a particularly Democrat kind of way, and that’s what I feel like I witnessed this week.

Barack Obama recently took a few steps back from his stance against expanding offshore oil drilling, saying:

If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well-thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.

This is a compromise that seems transparently political. Obama’s lead over McCain has all but evaporated over the last week, and polls indicate that the candidates’ opposing views on oil drilling is a key factor. Obama’s move toward the Republican position on oil drilling, therefore, seems like a calculated attempt to neutralize McCain in this one area where he seems to have shown some strength, rather than a sincere effort to reach bi-partisan consensus. It is, “the same old politics” as Obama himself might say.

The problem with this particular compromise is that Obama has professed to agree with virtually all the experts on this issue (including spokesmen from the major oil companies) who say that expanding offshore drilling will have no effect on fuel prices until at least 2017, and little effect even then. This is the truth, and Obama knows it.

So this compromise feels political. It feels like pandering.

It takes quite a bit of courage for a candidate to stand up for the truth when it means telling people what they don’t want to hear, and Obama has made himself out to be the rare Democrat who has that kind of courage. Obama should tell people the truth. He should make a vigorous, passionate case for the truth.

The Republicans have succeeded in clouding the truth on this issue, and Obama’s response should be to clear away the clouds, to shine a bright light on the truth. Instead, he has chosen to accept the clouds.

My belief is that this kind of compromise is what has killed the Democratic Party. When you compromise on everything, then you stand for everything. And when you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.

And when you stand for nothing, then you don’t really give voters an alternative to what the other party offers.

And come election time, if you don’t offer an alternative to what the other party offers, then the people who don’t want to vote for the other party will simply stay home.

RELATED: Why the Democrats will lose in ‘08 – Part 1

Don’t ask me why, but I was looking at Sean Hannity’s website today. OK, I was looking for a video clip of his recent interview with Shelby Steele that I learned about via Digg or reddit or something. Anyway, once I was there, I found myself clicking around out of sheer amazement.

Right away, I was assaulted by an orgy of red, white and blue that makes Stephen Colbert’s set look sedate. This is the obligatory patriotic pose. When you stand in front of the American flag, you must look proudly into the distance and display the underside of your chin. It also helps to have a second shot of yourself behind you, representing that “over-reaching” quality we want from our government.

Anyway, after I absorbed the full weight of Hannity’s patriotism, I tried searching for “Shelby Steele” and came up with nothing…

I was delighted to see, however, that I can share this page of zero search results with a friend. And I can search for Shelby Steele in the Yellow Pages. Do people still use the Yellow Pages?

Undeterred, I tried searching for Obama…

Nothing. Hmm… An example of “fair and balanced” reporting? How about a search for Clinton…

OK, could be the same thing. How about a couple of searches more in line with Hannity’s views…

Wow! How about another…

So, clearly pure incompetence. Maybe it has something to do with the way every word you search for is transformed into a “Sean Hannity Keyword.”

I want to keep clicking! By far the best thing I found on Sean Hannity’s website was this…

This has to be a joke. It needs to be a joke. But there’s no way Hannity is that funny, so I can only conclude that it’s real. I’m completely hooked at this point, especially when I see…

I love this. Watch out ladies, he’s “ready for it.” He’s actually armed and ready for it, if you look at the picture. Don’t take your eyes off your drink if you’re around this guy, because he’s bound to slip you a rohypnol.  I can’t stop myself from clicking into his profile…

Who would have guessed motor racing and wrestling? I mean, the guy has a high school education. But wait, there’s more…

Wait, twenty-seven? Didn’t your personal information say you were 31?

This dude can’t be real. I’m almost sure he’s fake… but he is the “featured” profile, which either says something about Hannity’s audience (if he’s real) or his ability to run a website (if he’s fake).

I wish I had time to see more, and say more, but it’s midnight, and I’m procrastinating. I have a couple more hours of work left before I can go to bed, so I’ll just leave it here.

It’s not often I agree with Bill Kristol (like… never), but I can’t argue with his op-ed piece in today’s New York Times. Obama gave a commencement address at Wesleyan University, pinch hitting for the ailing Senator Ted Kennedy. He spoke about the importance of public service and self-sacrifice for the greater good, but as Kristol points out:

…there’s one obvious path of service Obama doesn’t recommend — or even mention: military service. He does mention war twice: “At a time of war, we need you to work for peace.” And, we face “big challenges like war and recession.” But there’s nothing about serving your country in uniform.

Whether you agree with a given war or not, dying for one’s country is the ultimate public service and example of self-sacrifice. It’s a shame that Obama didn’t mention it – so close on the heels of Memorial Day. It’s a shame, but it hardly warrants a whole op-ed piece.

Still, maybe Obama should acknowledge the omission. Politicians spend a lot of time pointing out how wrong their opponents are, but it’s amazing what a small capitulation can do.

H.L. Mencken knew this. He used to get a lot of angry letters, and he would often write back. Instead of arguing or digging in or meticulously refuting each point, he would simply say, “maybe you’re right.”

…and not just because my recent investment in oil futures depends on the price continuing to rise.

The sudden upsurge in the price of gas has been the top news story for the past few weeks, and there doesn’t seem to be any relief in sight. Oil is a finite resource, and as China, India and other developing nations have… well… developed, the worldwide demand for oil has shot up. As Americans turn to the government – and the three people campaigning to be the next president – for a solution, it seems amazing that no one saw this coming.

Of course the US leads the rest of the planet by a long shot when it comes to oil consumption, thanks to a combination of massive suburban sprawl, the popularity of gas-guzzling SUVs and a system of government subsidies that keeps our gasoline cheap compared to the rest of the world.

Progressives have lobbied the government for years to raise the mandatory average fuel-efficiency requirements of American cars, and the government’s response over the last eight of those years – especially from that bunch of oilmen in the executive branch – has been predictably dismissive.

The normal Republican philosophy regarding such things is to let the market take care of it. Keep the government out of it, they say. In an ideal world, I totally agree. The government is bloated and slow and bad at getting things done. In reality though, the problem with the Republican hands-off philosophy is that Republicans are totally disingenuous about it.

If the real price of gasoline was actually reflected at the pump, then people would stop using gasoline simply because they couldn’t afford it. People would stop buying gas-guzzling behemoths in favor of smaller cars. People who work in cities would stop moving into houses way out the suburbs, and people who already live in the suburbs would start carpooling or taking public transportation (if it’s even an option). That’s the market at work. We know the market would do its thing because it’s exactly what happened in the past when gas prices shot up for any length of time.

And it’s happening again. Even the modest rise we’ve seen over the past year or so – and it has been modest for Americans, no matter what it feels like – has sent a surge of riders to mass transit, according to this recent article in the New York Times. The difference this time is that given what’s happening with China, India and much of the rest of the developing world, oil prices aren’t likely to level off again… ever.

The bottom line here is that the Republican philosophy works. We just need the courage – yes, courage – to let the market actually do its thing.

Of course there’s another part of me – the part that loves to travel – that’s afraid to see what all this will do to air fares.