C'mon, Jews, do your part.

Alan Wolfe wrote the following article, which can be found at Salon.com. I am posting the article in its entirety because it deserves to be read.

The Lying Game

Like George W. Bush, McCain and Palin have to lie. Because if they told the truth about their policies, they'd lose the election.

By Alan Wolfe

Eight years after the travesty of the 2000 election, in which the media were prone to emphasize Al Gore's exaggerations while letting George W. Bush off the hook, Republican politicians finally are being called out on their dishonesty. "The biggest liar in modern political history," writes Michael Tomasky, the editor of the Guardian America, about John McCain. There are indeed so many lies associated with the Republican campaign that one can pick and choose at random. My favorites are the efforts by the McCain campaign to portray Obama as being in favor of teaching sex education to 5-year-olds and the Spanish language ad accusing him of opposing immigration reform. Your favorites might include McCain's claim that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class or his statement to the women of "The View" that Sarah Palin never requested earmarks.

McCain's propensity to lie has become what political junkies call a meme, an idea or behavior that runs, seemingly unstoppably, from one media outlet to another. Some bloggers offer daily counts of how many falsehoods McCain tells while others wonder why the Democrats do not respond in turn. Even the mainstream press has gotten into the act. One of the pleasures of the 2008 campaign -- I admit they have been few and far between -- is watching all those who once admired John McCain for his truthfulness realize the true depths of his moral depravity. When McCain is linked to Palin, moreover, as he so frequently wants to be, lying experiences something of a multiplier effect. These candidates lie so much that they have taken to lying about their own lies.

Before we get carried away with enthusiasm about all this, though, we should keep two things in mind. One is that we are so quick to label McCain a liar that we tend to forget how much, and with what horrendous consequences, George W. Bush possessed the same character flaw. The other is that Republicans lie so frequently, not because the party just happened to settle upon one serial liar after another to run for high office, but because the form of conservatism to which they all adhere demands that if they are to win they have no choice but to lie.

In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush, then something of a political unknown, claimed to be a compassionate conservative and promised the country a "humble" foreign policy. Lies both. Compassionate conservatism was a brilliant campaign slogan, an attempt by Bush to persuade independent voters that he was not a raving madman like Newt Gingrich, who had urged, in true Dickensian fashion, the building of orphanages to solve the welfare problem. Long before the public had ever heard of Rick Warren, Karl Rove understood that the evangelical base of the Republican Party wanted language more uplifting than traditional Republican red meat, and the idea that conservatives were in fact more compassionate than bureaucratic liberals provided it. In actuality, as we now know, Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, the most compassionate program ever adopted in this country, and was simply waiting for the right opportunity to do so.

Bush spoke in 2000 of a humble foreign policy for much the same reason. We now also know that the Bush-Cheney administration was intent on adopting the most aggressive American foreign stance possible, and that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, offered them the public justification for actions they had been secretly planning since taking office. We tend to forget that before Sept. 11, aggressive foreign policy moves were not all that popular. Americans wanted a peace dividend in the aftermath of communism's collapse and seemed hell-bent on turning inward to their private pursuits. In that context, offering them a humble approach while planning a militant one constituted as dramatic a lie as one can imagine.

I would never challenge the argument that John McCain's lies in 2008 are over the top. But if McCain is more serial a liar than George W. Bush, it is a matter of degree rather than kind. Bush's lies, after all, led to thousands of needless deaths, and none of John McCain's lies, at least to this point, have done that. Were he to find himself elected, McCain would no doubt lie about many things, such as whether the United States has engaged in torture or whether Iran is a genuine military threat to the United States. But the bar has been set way too high; given the mendacity of the Bush administration, I am at something of a loss to imagine that a McCain administration could lie more.

Why do Republicans lie so much? Why is McCain following the Bush script? Why, at the very moment when he wanted a "maverick" by his side, did McCain pick a congenital liar to be his running mate? Republicans engage in what I can only call "structural lies." To understand what this means consider this: Just about every significant lie uttered by Republican politicians is designed to make them seem less conservative than they really are.

The current lie du jour of the McCain campaign is that their man will aggressively take on the greed that is causing the collapse on Wall Street. Given McCain's lack of interest in the economy, wealthy campaign contributors, and ideological hostility toward government regulation, this stance is laughable. But McCain's lie unconsciously reveals an important truth, which is that when the economy goes into a tailspin, the public prefers a solution long identified with liberalism. McCain could tell the truth, which is that he is all for the free market and can barely wait until the crisis passes so the rich can go about the business of becoming ever richer. But if he does that, he will lose. McCain wants to win. Therefore he lies.

It is not just the economy that features this structural dynamic. If you were just tuning into the election now -- no doubt there are many Americans who have not quite tuned in yet -- you would think that the Republican Party loves workers, hopes to redistribute income to the lower middle class, embraces immigrants, favors environmental protection, and hates war. Some of the Republican lies, to be sure have nothing to do with policy, such as false estimates of the size of the crowds attending Republican rallies or Sarah Palin's announcement that she had sold the Alaska governor's plane on eBay, but of those that do, the overwhelming majority are designed to make the Republican ticket more humane and moderate than it actually is. Only on foreign policy, where McCain shows no interest in hiding his hawkish instincts, can the ticket claim to be taking an honest position even if the face of public skepticism.

Conservatism is an honorable political philosophy whose most eloquent spokesmen, such as John Adams and Edmund Burke, proclaimed the truth as they saw it. This is a tradition that continues among all those contemporary conservatives who have been appalled at the direction the McCain camp has taken and have been willing to say so publicly. In contrast, the conservative populism that has swallowed up the contemporary Republican Party lies because conservative populism is itself a lie. It claims to be guided by faith when it is run by corruption. It speaks of diversity but remains overwhelmingly white. It uses women to push an agenda that would expose women to harm. It speaks of reform tomorrow to slash the reforms of today. It seeks popular support to enact policies that, if revealed for what they were, would be wildly unpopular.

Like so many of John McCain's critics, I find myself astonished at the sheer brazenness of the lies he tells. But this is not because McCain is more dishonorable than Bush. It is because the conditions under which a truthful Republican could be elected in 2008 are much more difficult than they were in 2000. Through sheer incompetence and cronyism, George W. Bush showed Americans just how dangerous conservatism can be. Because he did, those conservatives who would succeed him face even more difficult obstacles placed in their path to power. In the past, they might have gotten away with lying occasionally. This will no longer do. Expect, therefore, as the country turns to the debates ahead, that John McCain, when addressing issues of foreign policy around which he has been remarkably honest, will begin to lie in that area as well.

Here is a similar article from TIME.

How do McCain/Palin supporters sincerely and honestly defend against the lies and ineptitude of their candidates? I do not intend to be mean—I truly want to know.

I was at Liberty University when John McCain gave that commencement address. Once I saw how buddy-buddy he was with Falwell, I knew I probably wouldn't like him very much.

"It's not a pleasant part of our history," David Smith, a spokesman for the school district, told KMBC-TV. "But kids these days need opportunities to learn about it, understand it, not in a sanitized 21st-century way, because that's how we move forward in society."

Mommies and Daddies, you cannot force your morals, your standards, your beliefs on everyone else.

The third presidential election since I turned eighteen, and it's both the most fun and scariest yet. In 2000 I enjoyed the hopeful atmosphere, but was then disenfranchised. 2004 was very boring and even more depressing than 2000. This year, however, has given us a show like no other. We are seeing the true nature of politics: the falsehood of the spectacle, those who suck it up, and the misfortune of the people who actually think and care and despair over the laughable state of affairs. I've had wine tonight, so I might rhyme more than usual.

You may have deduced from the title of this post that I intend to throw some mud around. You are right. But I really should begin by saying that I am only aiming at the small percentage of extremist Republicans who actually fit the description below. I try not to make sweeping, generalizing statements unless for hyperbolic effect (which this is not). So, if you find yourself offended, just remember that I am being very specific—only one in dozens of Republicans fit this bill. Unfortunately, the man and woman at the head of their party do qualify. Those people make me mad. Let's get started!

Sarah Palin: fun to look at, cute accent, but a self-absorbed, fascist liar. She has talked about banning books that do not promote her beliefs. Palin said that she thinks humans have not had a hand in climate change. She worshiped for two decades in a pentecostal church that preaches that Alaska should and will be a refuge during the Rapture™. (Here is a clip of her speaking at that church. Here and here are compilations of news reports on Palin and her "faith" and life in general. Parts of the videos are very biased, so just pay attention to the reported facts). She wants the actions of the nation to be "righteous," and believes God has a plan for her specifically to be a leader in America. The Iraq War, according to her, is part of "God's plan." America can only succeed if Jesus is in the hearts of Americans. She asked her church to pray that the pipeline be built because God must have a hand in the success of business. Drill, drill, drill. You've probably also heard about all the pork and earmarks during her very short reign in Alaska, and "Troopergate," and other bullshit.

Now, it doesn't matter to me that she speaks in tongues, or drinks potions, or whatever. Everyone can worship as they please, thank God. I become concerned if she were to allow her religion and her god to dictate her policy. She has not done this yet, but her radical religious beliefs and public displays of those beliefs are scary.

After watching Palin's big, conservative-pleasing speech, I found my head empty save for a bit of anger and anxiety. She gave no true plans to correct the problems of America. She did, however, prove to me that she is a master of claptrap. And lying. Sarah Palin lied about the bridge and her support of it. Would you like to see very long lists of other things she lied about, with citations and links to prove them? OK: Factchecking Palin, Palin v. Reality, and Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention. All politicians lie, but I think McCain and Palin are testing new heights.

Palin was chosen to make McCain more accessible, to turn the election from a matter of "what" to a question of "who." Who do you like better: the white news team or the black community organizers? So, it doesn't matter about her inexperience and many other flaws—she fits a mold compatible with the lowest common denominator American conservative. Unfortunately, a lot of people vote for the person they like, not what they can do. McCain and Palin have talked little about the war or the past eight years of desolation caused by their party. Did you listen to their big speeches at the Republican National Convention? I don't think I heard the word "Bush," and very, very little was mentioned of the war in Iraq. They have since spoken about the need to win the war, but in smaller, more private settings where the atmosphere is far more conservative. They wanted to steer clear of these issues on the national stage and instead emphasize a vague, undefined notion of "change" in "Washington." The unvetted Sarah Palin may be a much more cunning choice than we thought a few days ago when it was announced. She is a distraction from the things that really matter. As today's polls have shown, the bump after the RNC is significant and may not so easily shrink back down. Many Republicans like the pretty creationist mommy. After the past two elections, I don't think I trust American voters to save our government.

Do not vote for someone because he or she is like you. That's how we got Bush. Do we really want a president or vice president who is similar to the average American? God, no. We need someone more capable and intelligent.

We need to think about the last eight years. My generation may as well be called Generation Wait, for we have been waiting and waiting and waiting for our voices to be heard and our country to shake its debilitating fever. It is long overdue. We were robbed in 2000. We are tired of stupidity. If you were happy with what went on during the past eight years, go ahead and vote for McCain and Palin.

Vote for McCain/Palin if you:

• like trickle-down economics, which do not work
  
• favor the union of church and state
  
• want the Goddamn Bush War to continue
  
• believe in giving up freedoms when afraid
  
• think the economy is fundamentally sound, and trust fiscal conservatives
  
• either disbelieve in or are indifferent to global warming
  
• wish Bush could run again
  
• do not support the arts
  
• agree that killing someone is an appropriate punishment to be carried out by our government
  
• laugh at the idea of financially aiding victims of the cycles of poverty, which in turn aids the general welfare of the nation and humanity
  
• are not a Christian, nor a supporter of democracy
  

I will explain the last two in a moment.

At this point I think I should point out that by writing these things about a few Republicans who offend me, I am not avoiding similar problems with or complains about Democrats (such as Joe Biden's stupid comment about FDR, Obama not being specific enough about his plans, etc.). I'm popping open my vents to release the steam brought up by the continued craziness of Republican leaders. I could write a diatribe about similar extremist Democrats, but they have yet to offend me as much as the Republicans in question. I don't think Obama is as big a liar or control freak as McCain or Palin. I wish we had different candidates.

McCain said this one time:

I want our troops home too, but I want our troops to return home with honor and in victory. We cannot react to past mistakes by embracing calls to begin troop withdrawals or to revive our previous failed strategy of a partial troop pullback that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will seriously weaken American security.

Presidential candidates argue for the course of cutting our losses and withdrawing in the vain hope it will improve American security. I cannot join them in such wishful and dangerous thinking. I believe that their approach would make the world a more dangerous place and weaken American security. For many years I warned about the erosion of security in Iraq and called for a different strategy that would give us the best chance to succeed. Because our troops were spread too thin, I urged a larger ground force in Iraq to implement a new counterinsurgency campaign like the one now underway in Iraq. Today, we have new commanders in Iraq, and they are following a new course we should have been following from the beginning, which makes the most effective use of our strength and doesn't strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding in places where our previous tactics failed. Although the outcome remains uncertain, General Petraeus deserves adequate time to salvage from the wreckage of our past mistakes a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people. Premature troop withdrawals or redeployment would not advance peace. It would strengthen al Qaeda and boost recruitment in their ranks, empower Iran and other hostile powers, unleash a full-scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers aid of their favored factions. The consequences would threaten us for years, and I am certain would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult conflict. Our defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us. I believe that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

We us our us we we our we ususus. Scary for us. This was the sort of thinking that was used to dupe America into the war in the first place. Remember Colin Powell pointing to pictures of trucks and "bunkers"? "Here is why we are scared." Every decision must be made with the United States of America as first priority. Country First, as John McCain says. In actuality, the world will not become a better home for us until we realize that we must put humanity first, not country. Sure, McCain sometimes says the whole purpose of the war was to "liberate" some brown people, and I'm sure there are millions of Republicans who supported the war for that noble idea, but isn't that what Bush said five years ago? Americans aren't happy about how that project has progressed. A lot of Americans now believe there were other reasons for moving into Iraq and spending billions. Who knows? What we do know is that Red Meat Republicans put God's Country first, forever, no matter what. Why? Because this is America, the best slice of planet Earth! What else is there to consider?

Incidentally, McCain would also like to create a new Amendment that would make it illegal to burn an American flag. Confused much about democracy, John?

When will "we" and "us" mean humanity and not America?

The type of Republicans in question apparently live on a diet of red meat. They indulge in fear, cling to their crutches, and promote the alpha male syndrome as model American philosophy. It seems they cannot separate their very personal beliefs from their policy, which goes against the very fundamental beliefs of Christian dogma and the core principles of democracy. If both a Christian and patriot, I would not vote for McCain or Palin, as they advocate deviant ideals. In contrast with both democracy and Christianity, Red Meat Republicans strive for closer links between church and state. Forcing Biblical morals into laws goes directly against democracy, and isn't a basic principle of Christianity choice? It is obvious many have donned a false fashion of Christianity, and seek converts to their lifestyle in any way possible, regardless of what the Bible may say on the subject. Those are the people who weep with passion for the display of the Ten Commandments but do not fight for or even praise the Beatitudes.

One day Jesus said:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

            —Gospel of St. Matthew 5: 3-10

Baron d'Holbach said that perhaps the Beatitudes were popular among Christians when they were a small and struggling sect, but were abandoned once the group rose to power. Kurt Vonnegut said, “Can you imagine ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ on the wall in the Oval Office?”

The people in the GOP we see running for president and vice president, and those most zealous at the RNC are the brand of politicos who might be found saying, with thumbs pointed toward their chests, "I look after one person: this guy." They seem to not care about the weak and poor. They seem to value their money more than humanity. If they didn't, they would be more willing to use taxes to support other humans who truly cannot escape poverty in all its forms and all its cycles. Is socialism more evil than fascism in their eyes? Sinclair Lewis said, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Observing the ardent conservatives pulls me into a paradox: I hate what they stand for but am so damned happy they are able to stand for it. They are right that America is wonderful, because we can believe and promote anything we want. Fortunately for the myriad disputing factions, we have things like the Constitution. Praise Allah.

The Republican National Convention was nauseating much like a trip to Auschwitz in the spring of 1945 must have been. It was jarring, insulting to the human spirit, and uncanny in every negative way the word might be used. It will one day serve as a vestige to an antiquated lifestyle and exploitative, greedy political blueprint. Religion for Red Meat Republicans is a hobby or, worse, a tool. For example, they need God to guide the war and suck up oil in Alaska and around our shores. Conversely, they don't say much about God when a hurricane kills children and smashes thousands of houses. That's why they dislike people such as Pat Robertson—he doesn't know how to best use God as a sort of Swiss Army knife. Red Meat Republicans know what's best for you, even if you don't, and want to make sure you have no choice in the matter: it will be in the rules of our society.

McCain and Palin and their people want to make your moral decisions for you. What does that imply? They think you are stupid. Or evil. Or both. It doesn't matter if you're conservative and agree with the decisions Red Meat Republicans might make: to do that is illegal and goes directly against the principles and documents on which this republic was founded.

These are the sorts of people who want to pass House Resolution 888, the purpose of which is described as

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

Now, that doesn't sound too bad, right? Well, the resolution is full of lies. Here's a video, too, which agrees with my beliefs on this topic.

In August of 1789, James Madison, who wrote the glorious first amendment, expressed during a debate about the wording of the amendment that he "apprehended the meaning of the words [of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the first amendment] to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." (James Madison, “Writings”, p 467) Jefferson felt the same way, and was an ardent supporter of that separation:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Thank the Lord for these genius Deists. Despite what conservative Christians argue today, the founding fathers were not hardcore Christians creating a Christian nation. In fact, Madison said this:

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

And this:

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against. Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance...religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, p. 124]

Jefferson sometimes looks like a Deist, and is sometimes seen leaning toward Unitarianism. Either way.

A leader's religious beliefs shouldn't matter, unless, again, he or she is so careless as to let it guide his or her leadership. Have we forgotten what makes a great leader, a great president or vice president?

There is a group on Facebook that advocates Sarah Palin as a wonderful leader. The description for the group:

Wow, Sarah Palin has bigger balls than the entire Democratic Party combined. There would be no question whether or not i would vote for her, for president or vice-president. This women is by far the most qualified politician i have ever seen in my life

I of course thought it was a joke and laughed. Then I looked around and, no, it is real. People really feel that way about a person they just met. And after a few witty, rousing speeches, they are willing to vote her into the highest office in our country. Does that scare you as much as it does me?

Why would the Republican party support Sarah Palin, who does not have enough experience of any kind to run a nation? Why would they believe McCain to be a "maverick"? Why would they chant and cheer at Rudy Giuliani's divisive, insulting RNC speech, which was devoid of true substance. For example, he led the room of Republicans in a giggle-fit over the term "community organizer." Then he mocked Obama for voting "present" 130 times because, as Rudy said, with hands raised and clawed, "It was too tough!" Hoo-ha!

In A Man Without A Country Vonnegut wrote:

But I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened, though, is that it has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d'etat imaginable.

George W. Bush has gathered around him upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka Christians, and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or PPs, the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences.

To say somebody is a PP is to make a perfectly respectable medical diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete's foot. The classic medical text on PPs is The Mask of Sanity by Dr. Hervey Cleckley, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia, and published in 1941. Read it!

Some people are born deaf, some are born blind or whatever, and this book is about congenitally defective human beings of a sort that is making this whole country and many other parts of the planet go completely haywire nowadays. These were people born without consciences, and suddenly they are taking charge of everything.

PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose!

And what syndrome better describes so many executives at Enron and WorldCom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may say to or about them? And they are waging a war that is making billionaires out of millionaires, and trillionaires out of billionaires, and they own television, and they bankroll George Bush, and not because he's against gay marriage.

So many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick.

They might have felt that taking our country into an endless war was simply something decisive to do. What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. They are going to do something every fuckin' day and they are not afraid. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they cannot care what happens next. Simply can't. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody's telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! Fuck habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In These Times, and kiss my ass!

So when I say that the answer to my questions above is that Red Meat Republicans are delusional, I do not mean to be insulting. It is the only answer that makes sense.

Again, I ask, is there a reset button? Everyone in Wyoming, quick! Jump up and down!

Already I have several problems with Sarah Palin, namely her stance on gay marriage, abortion, all that jazz. But now I learn that she considered banning books in a library because she disagreed with their content. From "Mayor Palin: A Rough Record," a Time magazine article:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

And there's more.

From a New York Times article:

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.

In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.”

Ms. Emmons was not the only employee to leave. During her campaign, Ms. Palin appealed to voters who felt that city employees under [former Wasilla mayor] Mr. Stein, who was not from Wasilla and had earned a degree in public administration at the University of Oregon, had been unresponsive and rigid regarding a new comprehensive development plan. In turn, some city employees expressed support for Mr. Stein in a campaign advertisement.

Once in office, Ms. Palin asked many of Mr. Stein’s backers to resign — something virtually unheard of in Wasilla in past elections. The public works director, city planner, museum director and others were forced out. The police chief, Irl Stambaugh, was later fired outright.

Just how does one speak rhetorically about banning books? And how many heart attacks did the librarians suffer? My God, I'm sort of scared of this woman now. Will these sorts of people never disappear?

However, the big question is: does this kill the naughty librarian fantasy that won the hearts of millions of dudes on the Internet?

Senior McCain campaign officials said McCain knew of the daughter's pregnancy when he selected Palin last week as his vice presidential running mate, deciding that it did not disqualify the 44-year-old governor in any way.

If that's even true. Whatever the case, I pity the girl because of the white-hot spotlight that is about to blind her.

I'm tired of people focusing on the wrong things. A great president was nearly kicked out of office for getting some blow jobs and lying about it. Good Lord.

My friend, what the hell is wrong with you? As much as I can't stand your position on issues and your face and voice and word choice and your voice and that voice of yours, I almost feel bad for you right now. Sarah Palin? Really? Sure, she's anti-abortion and thinks gay marriage is icky, but you've got your health to consider. I don't think conservatives want to risk this. John, you could die at any moment. They don't want a woman president. They won't even let them talk in church. And I think as an appeal to undecided, center-swinging voters, this is poor at best.

Then again, look who we're talking about.

Good luck at the debates.

Brian

When explaining how to make the best of a not so great situation:

Me: We only get 1000 copies a semester. So that's why we print the homework and quizzes two per sheet, sort of small.
Her: So you can double that resource.
Me (very seriously): Yeah, or even quadruple if we do it front and back.

Moment of silence, then laughing and coughing.

But seriously.

This is not a Christian nation. It's a democratic nation. Anyone can do anything they like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of another.

So I say, thank God for the assholes—we know we are free!

Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Westley: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

Orwell was a big critic of English writers. He thought too many authors use vague language that renders prose abstract and impotent whereas it could be concrete and meaningful. In "Politics and the English Language," he listed six rules for writers to reverse such habits:

• Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
  
• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
  
• If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
  
• Never use the passive voice where you can use the active.
  
• Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
  
• Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Excellent rules to follow. Incidentally, I take this opportunity to recommend Nineteen Eighty-Four, which I read for the third time last year. If you haven't read it, please do. There's also a decent movie, a free online edition of the text, a comic, and an NBC radio adaptation from 1949 that's available for download. There are rumors of a new film to be released in 2009 or later, with Tim Robbins as director. He began directing the play at the Actors' Gang in 2006.

Vonnegut gives the best advice with brilliant brevity. He always has. For instance, when speaking of the arts in A Man Without a Country:

They are a very human way of making life more bearable. Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possibly can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something.

That is something I constantly repeat to myself or else I would stop writing very soon after starting.

The children, now dead, had turned into obese hard-boiled eggs. He lifted one of the smallest but couldn't support it with all his strength. The former child hit the tiles with a vile splash. No matter how gently he touched any egg, each cracked and spilled its milky innards.

That's a dream one of my characters has. After reading Vonnegut's suggestions, I have to reread my writings and ask myself: Is this really the way I write? Is it clear? Is it necessary? Another literary genius I know once told me that sometimes the very thing that needs to be cut is the thing you most want to remain.

Who knew that writing books could be so complicated?

C'mon, Jews, do your part.

Alan Wolfe wrote the following article, which can be found at Salon.com. I am posting the article in its entirety because it deserves to be read.

The Lying Game

Like George W. Bush, McCain and Palin have to lie. Because if they told the truth about their policies, they'd lose the election.

By Alan Wolfe

Eight years after the travesty of the 2000 election, in which the media were prone to emphasize Al Gore's exaggerations while letting George W. Bush off the hook, Republican politicians finally are being called out on their dishonesty. "The biggest liar in modern political history," writes Michael Tomasky, the editor of the Guardian America, about John McCain. There are indeed so many lies associated with the Republican campaign that one can pick and choose at random. My favorites are the efforts by the McCain campaign to portray Obama as being in favor of teaching sex education to 5-year-olds and the Spanish language ad accusing him of opposing immigration reform. Your favorites might include McCain's claim that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class or his statement to the women of "The View" that Sarah Palin never requested earmarks.

McCain's propensity to lie has become what political junkies call a meme, an idea or behavior that runs, seemingly unstoppably, from one media outlet to another. Some bloggers offer daily counts of how many falsehoods McCain tells while others wonder why the Democrats do not respond in turn. Even the mainstream press has gotten into the act. One of the pleasures of the 2008 campaign -- I admit they have been few and far between -- is watching all those who once admired John McCain for his truthfulness realize the true depths of his moral depravity. When McCain is linked to Palin, moreover, as he so frequently wants to be, lying experiences something of a multiplier effect. These candidates lie so much that they have taken to lying about their own lies.

Before we get carried away with enthusiasm about all this, though, we should keep two things in mind. One is that we are so quick to label McCain a liar that we tend to forget how much, and with what horrendous consequences, George W. Bush possessed the same character flaw. The other is that Republicans lie so frequently, not because the party just happened to settle upon one serial liar after another to run for high office, but because the form of conservatism to which they all adhere demands that if they are to win they have no choice but to lie.

In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush, then something of a political unknown, claimed to be a compassionate conservative and promised the country a "humble" foreign policy. Lies both. Compassionate conservatism was a brilliant campaign slogan, an attempt by Bush to persuade independent voters that he was not a raving madman like Newt Gingrich, who had urged, in true Dickensian fashion, the building of orphanages to solve the welfare problem. Long before the public had ever heard of Rick Warren, Karl Rove understood that the evangelical base of the Republican Party wanted language more uplifting than traditional Republican red meat, and the idea that conservatives were in fact more compassionate than bureaucratic liberals provided it. In actuality, as we now know, Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, the most compassionate program ever adopted in this country, and was simply waiting for the right opportunity to do so.

Bush spoke in 2000 of a humble foreign policy for much the same reason. We now also know that the Bush-Cheney administration was intent on adopting the most aggressive American foreign stance possible, and that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, offered them the public justification for actions they had been secretly planning since taking office. We tend to forget that before Sept. 11, aggressive foreign policy moves were not all that popular. Americans wanted a peace dividend in the aftermath of communism's collapse and seemed hell-bent on turning inward to their private pursuits. In that context, offering them a humble approach while planning a militant one constituted as dramatic a lie as one can imagine.

I would never challenge the argument that John McCain's lies in 2008 are over the top. But if McCain is more serial a liar than George W. Bush, it is a matter of degree rather than kind. Bush's lies, after all, led to thousands of needless deaths, and none of John McCain's lies, at least to this point, have done that. Were he to find himself elected, McCain would no doubt lie about many things, such as whether the United States has engaged in torture or whether Iran is a genuine military threat to the United States. But the bar has been set way too high; given the mendacity of the Bush administration, I am at something of a loss to imagine that a McCain administration could lie more.

Why do Republicans lie so much? Why is McCain following the Bush script? Why, at the very moment when he wanted a "maverick" by his side, did McCain pick a congenital liar to be his running mate? Republicans engage in what I can only call "structural lies." To understand what this means consider this: Just about every significant lie uttered by Republican politicians is designed to make them seem less conservative than they really are.

The current lie du jour of the McCain campaign is that their man will aggressively take on the greed that is causing the collapse on Wall Street. Given McCain's lack of interest in the economy, wealthy campaign contributors, and ideological hostility toward government regulation, this stance is laughable. But McCain's lie unconsciously reveals an important truth, which is that when the economy goes into a tailspin, the public prefers a solution long identified with liberalism. McCain could tell the truth, which is that he is all for the free market and can barely wait until the crisis passes so the rich can go about the business of becoming ever richer. But if he does that, he will lose. McCain wants to win. Therefore he lies.

It is not just the economy that features this structural dynamic. If you were just tuning into the election now -- no doubt there are many Americans who have not quite tuned in yet -- you would think that the Republican Party loves workers, hopes to redistribute income to the lower middle class, embraces immigrants, favors environmental protection, and hates war. Some of the Republican lies, to be sure have nothing to do with policy, such as false estimates of the size of the crowds attending Republican rallies or Sarah Palin's announcement that she had sold the Alaska governor's plane on eBay, but of those that do, the overwhelming majority are designed to make the Republican ticket more humane and moderate than it actually is. Only on foreign policy, where McCain shows no interest in hiding his hawkish instincts, can the ticket claim to be taking an honest position even if the face of public skepticism.

Conservatism is an honorable political philosophy whose most eloquent spokesmen, such as John Adams and Edmund Burke, proclaimed the truth as they saw it. This is a tradition that continues among all those contemporary conservatives who have been appalled at the direction the McCain camp has taken and have been willing to say so publicly. In contrast, the conservative populism that has swallowed up the contemporary Republican Party lies because conservative populism is itself a lie. It claims to be guided by faith when it is run by corruption. It speaks of diversity but remains overwhelmingly white. It uses women to push an agenda that would expose women to harm. It speaks of reform tomorrow to slash the reforms of today. It seeks popular support to enact policies that, if revealed for what they were, would be wildly unpopular.

Like so many of John McCain's critics, I find myself astonished at the sheer brazenness of the lies he tells. But this is not because McCain is more dishonorable than Bush. It is because the conditions under which a truthful Republican could be elected in 2008 are much more difficult than they were in 2000. Through sheer incompetence and cronyism, George W. Bush showed Americans just how dangerous conservatism can be. Because he did, those conservatives who would succeed him face even more difficult obstacles placed in their path to power. In the past, they might have gotten away with lying occasionally. This will no longer do. Expect, therefore, as the country turns to the debates ahead, that John McCain, when addressing issues of foreign policy around which he has been remarkably honest, will begin to lie in that area as well.

Here is a similar article from TIME.

How do McCain/Palin supporters sincerely and honestly defend against the lies and ineptitude of their candidates? I do not intend to be mean—I truly want to know.

I was at Liberty University when John McCain gave that commencement address. Once I saw how buddy-buddy he was with Falwell, I knew I probably wouldn't like him very much.

"It's not a pleasant part of our history," David Smith, a spokesman for the school district, told KMBC-TV. "But kids these days need opportunities to learn about it, understand it, not in a sanitized 21st-century way, because that's how we move forward in society."

Mommies and Daddies, you cannot force your morals, your standards, your beliefs on everyone else.

The third presidential election since I turned eighteen, and it's both the most fun and scariest yet. In 2000 I enjoyed the hopeful atmosphere, but was then disenfranchised. 2004 was very boring and even more depressing than 2000. This year, however, has given us a show like no other. We are seeing the true nature of politics: the falsehood of the spectacle, those who suck it up, and the misfortune of the people who actually think and care and despair over the laughable state of affairs. I've had wine tonight, so I might rhyme more than usual.

You may have deduced from the title of this post that I intend to throw some mud around. You are right. But I really should begin by saying that I am only aiming at the small percentage of extremist Republicans who actually fit the description below. I try not to make sweeping, generalizing statements unless for hyperbolic effect (which this is not). So, if you find yourself offended, just remember that I am being very specific—only one in dozens of Republicans fit this bill. Unfortunately, the man and woman at the head of their party do qualify. Those people make me mad. Let's get started!

Sarah Palin: fun to look at, cute accent, but a self-absorbed, fascist liar. She has talked about banning books that do not promote her beliefs. Palin said that she thinks humans have not had a hand in climate change. She worshiped for two decades in a pentecostal church that preaches that Alaska should and will be a refuge during the Rapture™. (Here is a clip of her speaking at that church. Here and here are compilations of news reports on Palin and her "faith" and life in general. Parts of the videos are very biased, so just pay attention to the reported facts). She wants the actions of the nation to be "righteous," and believes God has a plan for her specifically to be a leader in America. The Iraq War, according to her, is part of "God's plan." America can only succeed if Jesus is in the hearts of Americans. She asked her church to pray that the pipeline be built because God must have a hand in the success of business. Drill, drill, drill. You've probably also heard about all the pork and earmarks during her very short reign in Alaska, and "Troopergate," and other bullshit.

Now, it doesn't matter to me that she speaks in tongues, or drinks potions, or whatever. Everyone can worship as they please, thank God. I become concerned if she were to allow her religion and her god to dictate her policy. She has not done this yet, but her radical religious beliefs and public displays of those beliefs are scary.

After watching Palin's big, conservative-pleasing speech, I found my head empty save for a bit of anger and anxiety. She gave no true plans to correct the problems of America. She did, however, prove to me that she is a master of claptrap. And lying. Sarah Palin lied about the bridge and her support of it. Would you like to see very long lists of other things she lied about, with citations and links to prove them? OK: Factchecking Palin, Palin v. Reality, and Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention. All politicians lie, but I think McCain and Palin are testing new heights.

Palin was chosen to make McCain more accessible, to turn the election from a matter of "what" to a question of "who." Who do you like better: the white news team or the black community organizers? So, it doesn't matter about her inexperience and many other flaws—she fits a mold compatible with the lowest common denominator American conservative. Unfortunately, a lot of people vote for the person they like, not what they can do. McCain and Palin have talked little about the war or the past eight years of desolation caused by their party. Did you listen to their big speeches at the Republican National Convention? I don't think I heard the word "Bush," and very, very little was mentioned of the war in Iraq. They have since spoken about the need to win the war, but in smaller, more private settings where the atmosphere is far more conservative. They wanted to steer clear of these issues on the national stage and instead emphasize a vague, undefined notion of "change" in "Washington." The unvetted Sarah Palin may be a much more cunning choice than we thought a few days ago when it was announced. She is a distraction from the things that really matter. As today's polls have shown, the bump after the RNC is significant and may not so easily shrink back down. Many Republicans like the pretty creationist mommy. After the past two elections, I don't think I trust American voters to save our government.

Do not vote for someone because he or she is like you. That's how we got Bush. Do we really want a president or vice president who is similar to the average American? God, no. We need someone more capable and intelligent.

We need to think about the last eight years. My generation may as well be called Generation Wait, for we have been waiting and waiting and waiting for our voices to be heard and our country to shake its debilitating fever. It is long overdue. We were robbed in 2000. We are tired of stupidity. If you were happy with what went on during the past eight years, go ahead and vote for McCain and Palin.

Vote for McCain/Palin if you:

• like trickle-down economics, which do not work
  
• favor the union of church and state
  
• want the Goddamn Bush War to continue
  
• believe in giving up freedoms when afraid
  
• think the economy is fundamentally sound, and trust fiscal conservatives
  
• either disbelieve in or are indifferent to global warming
  
• wish Bush could run again
  
• do not support the arts
  
• agree that killing someone is an appropriate punishment to be carried out by our government
  
• laugh at the idea of financially aiding victims of the cycles of poverty, which in turn aids the general welfare of the nation and humanity
  
• are not a Christian, nor a supporter of democracy
  

I will explain the last two in a moment.

At this point I think I should point out that by writing these things about a few Republicans who offend me, I am not avoiding similar problems with or complains about Democrats (such as Joe Biden's stupid comment about FDR, Obama not being specific enough about his plans, etc.). I'm popping open my vents to release the steam brought up by the continued craziness of Republican leaders. I could write a diatribe about similar extremist Democrats, but they have yet to offend me as much as the Republicans in question. I don't think Obama is as big a liar or control freak as McCain or Palin. I wish we had different candidates.

McCain said this one time:

I want our troops home too, but I want our troops to return home with honor and in victory. We cannot react to past mistakes by embracing calls to begin troop withdrawals or to revive our previous failed strategy of a partial troop pullback that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will seriously weaken American security.

Presidential candidates argue for the course of cutting our losses and withdrawing in the vain hope it will improve American security. I cannot join them in such wishful and dangerous thinking. I believe that their approach would make the world a more dangerous place and weaken American security. For many years I warned about the erosion of security in Iraq and called for a different strategy that would give us the best chance to succeed. Because our troops were spread too thin, I urged a larger ground force in Iraq to implement a new counterinsurgency campaign like the one now underway in Iraq. Today, we have new commanders in Iraq, and they are following a new course we should have been following from the beginning, which makes the most effective use of our strength and doesn't strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding in places where our previous tactics failed. Although the outcome remains uncertain, General Petraeus deserves adequate time to salvage from the wreckage of our past mistakes a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people. Premature troop withdrawals or redeployment would not advance peace. It would strengthen al Qaeda and boost recruitment in their ranks, empower Iran and other hostile powers, unleash a full-scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers aid of their favored factions. The consequences would threaten us for years, and I am certain would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult conflict. Our defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us. I believe that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

We us our us we we our we ususus. Scary for us. This was the sort of thinking that was used to dupe America into the war in the first place. Remember Colin Powell pointing to pictures of trucks and "bunkers"? "Here is why we are scared." Every decision must be made with the United States of America as first priority. Country First, as John McCain says. In actuality, the world will not become a better home for us until we realize that we must put humanity first, not country. Sure, McCain sometimes says the whole purpose of the war was to "liberate" some brown people, and I'm sure there are millions of Republicans who supported the war for that noble idea, but isn't that what Bush said five years ago? Americans aren't happy about how that project has progressed. A lot of Americans now believe there were other reasons for moving into Iraq and spending billions. Who knows? What we do know is that Red Meat Republicans put God's Country first, forever, no matter what. Why? Because this is America, the best slice of planet Earth! What else is there to consider?

Incidentally, McCain would also like to create a new Amendment that would make it illegal to burn an American flag. Confused much about democracy, John?

When will "we" and "us" mean humanity and not America?

The type of Republicans in question apparently live on a diet of red meat. They indulge in fear, cling to their crutches, and promote the alpha male syndrome as model American philosophy. It seems they cannot separate their very personal beliefs from their policy, which goes against the very fundamental beliefs of Christian dogma and the core principles of democracy. If both a Christian and patriot, I would not vote for McCain or Palin, as they advocate deviant ideals. In contrast with both democracy and Christianity, Red Meat Republicans strive for closer links between church and state. Forcing Biblical morals into laws goes directly against democracy, and isn't a basic principle of Christianity choice? It is obvious many have donned a false fashion of Christianity, and seek converts to their lifestyle in any way possible, regardless of what the Bible may say on the subject. Those are the people who weep with passion for the display of the Ten Commandments but do not fight for or even praise the Beatitudes.

One day Jesus said:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

            —Gospel of St. Matthew 5: 3-10

Baron d'Holbach said that perhaps the Beatitudes were popular among Christians when they were a small and struggling sect, but were abandoned once the group rose to power. Kurt Vonnegut said, “Can you imagine ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ on the wall in the Oval Office?”

The people in the GOP we see running for president and vice president, and those most zealous at the RNC are the brand of politicos who might be found saying, with thumbs pointed toward their chests, "I look after one person: this guy." They seem to not care about the weak and poor. They seem to value their money more than humanity. If they didn't, they would be more willing to use taxes to support other humans who truly cannot escape poverty in all its forms and all its cycles. Is socialism more evil than fascism in their eyes? Sinclair Lewis said, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Observing the ardent conservatives pulls me into a paradox: I hate what they stand for but am so damned happy they are able to stand for it. They are right that America is wonderful, because we can believe and promote anything we want. Fortunately for the myriad disputing factions, we have things like the Constitution. Praise Allah.

The Republican National Convention was nauseating much like a trip to Auschwitz in the spring of 1945 must have been. It was jarring, insulting to the human spirit, and uncanny in every negative way the word might be used. It will one day serve as a vestige to an antiquated lifestyle and exploitative, greedy political blueprint. Religion for Red Meat Republicans is a hobby or, worse, a tool. For example, they need God to guide the war and suck up oil in Alaska and around our shores. Conversely, they don't say much about God when a hurricane kills children and smashes thousands of houses. That's why they dislike people such as Pat Robertson—he doesn't know how to best use God as a sort of Swiss Army knife. Red Meat Republicans know what's best for you, even if you don't, and want to make sure you have no choice in the matter: it will be in the rules of our society.

McCain and Palin and their people want to make your moral decisions for you. What does that imply? They think you are stupid. Or evil. Or both. It doesn't matter if you're conservative and agree with the decisions Red Meat Republicans might make: to do that is illegal and goes directly against the principles and documents on which this republic was founded.

These are the sorts of people who want to pass House Resolution 888, the purpose of which is described as

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

Now, that doesn't sound too bad, right? Well, the resolution is full of lies. Here's a video, too, which agrees with my beliefs on this topic.

In August of 1789, James Madison, who wrote the glorious first amendment, expressed during a debate about the wording of the amendment that he "apprehended the meaning of the words [of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the first amendment] to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." (James Madison, “Writings”, p 467) Jefferson felt the same way, and was an ardent supporter of that separation:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Thank the Lord for these genius Deists. Despite what conservative Christians argue today, the founding fathers were not hardcore Christians creating a Christian nation. In fact, Madison said this:

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

And this:

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against. Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance...religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, p. 124]

Jefferson sometimes looks like a Deist, and is sometimes seen leaning toward Unitarianism. Either way.

A leader's religious beliefs shouldn't matter, unless, again, he or she is so careless as to let it guide his or her leadership. Have we forgotten what makes a great leader, a great president or vice president?

There is a group on Facebook that advocates Sarah Palin as a wonderful leader. The description for the group:

Wow, Sarah Palin has bigger balls than the entire Democratic Party combined. There would be no question whether or not i would vote for her, for president or vice-president. This women is by far the most qualified politician i have ever seen in my life

I of course thought it was a joke and laughed. Then I looked around and, no, it is real. People really feel that way about a person they just met. And after a few witty, rousing speeches, they are willing to vote her into the highest office in our country. Does that scare you as much as it does me?

Why would the Republican party support Sarah Palin, who does not have enough experience of any kind to run a nation? Why would they believe McCain to be a "maverick"? Why would they chant and cheer at Rudy Giuliani's divisive, insulting RNC speech, which was devoid of true substance. For example, he led the room of Republicans in a giggle-fit over the term "community organizer." Then he mocked Obama for voting "present" 130 times because, as Rudy said, with hands raised and clawed, "It was too tough!" Hoo-ha!

In A Man Without A Country Vonnegut wrote:

But I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened, though, is that it has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d'etat imaginable.

George W. Bush has gathered around him upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka Christians, and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or PPs, the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences.

To say somebody is a PP is to make a perfectly respectable medical diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete's foot. The classic medical text on PPs is The Mask of Sanity by Dr. Hervey Cleckley, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia, and published in 1941. Read it!

Some people are born deaf, some are born blind or whatever, and this book is about congenitally defective human beings of a sort that is making this whole country and many other parts of the planet go completely haywire nowadays. These were people born without consciences, and suddenly they are taking charge of everything.

PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose!

And what syndrome better describes so many executives at Enron and WorldCom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may say to or about them? And they are waging a war that is making billionaires out of millionaires, and trillionaires out of billionaires, and they own television, and they bankroll George Bush, and not because he's against gay marriage.

So many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick.

They might have felt that taking our country into an endless war was simply something decisive to do. What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. They are going to do something every fuckin' day and they are not afraid. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they cannot care what happens next. Simply can't. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody's telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! Fuck habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In These Times, and kiss my ass!

So when I say that the answer to my questions above is that Red Meat Republicans are delusional, I do not mean to be insulting. It is the only answer that makes sense.

Again, I ask, is there a reset button? Everyone in Wyoming, quick! Jump up and down!

Already I have several problems with Sarah Palin, namely her stance on gay marriage, abortion, all that jazz. But now I learn that she considered banning books in a library because she disagreed with their content. From "Mayor Palin: A Rough Record," a Time magazine article:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

And there's more.

From a New York Times article:

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.

In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.”

Ms. Emmons was not the only employee to leave. During her campaign, Ms. Palin appealed to voters who felt that city employees under [former Wasilla mayor] Mr. Stein, who was not from Wasilla and had earned a degree in public administration at the University of Oregon, had been unresponsive and rigid regarding a new comprehensive development plan. In turn, some city employees expressed support for Mr. Stein in a campaign advertisement.

Once in office, Ms. Palin asked many of Mr. Stein’s backers to resign — something virtually unheard of in Wasilla in past elections. The public works director, city planner, museum director and others were forced out. The police chief, Irl Stambaugh, was later fired outright.

Just how does one speak rhetorically about banning books? And how many heart attacks did the librarians suffer? My God, I'm sort of scared of this woman now. Will these sorts of people never disappear?

However, the big question is: does this kill the naughty librarian fantasy that won the hearts of millions of dudes on the Internet?

Senior McCain campaign officials said McCain knew of the daughter's pregnancy when he selected Palin last week as his vice presidential running mate, deciding that it did not disqualify the 44-year-old governor in any way.

If that's even true. Whatever the case, I pity the girl because of the white-hot spotlight that is about to blind her.

I'm tired of people focusing on the wrong things. A great president was nearly kicked out of office for getting some blow jobs and lying about it. Good Lord.

My friend, what the hell is wrong with you? As much as I can't stand your position on issues and your face and voice and word choice and your voice and that voice of yours, I almost feel bad for you right now. Sarah Palin? Really? Sure, she's anti-abortion and thinks gay marriage is icky, but you've got your health to consider. I don't think conservatives want to risk this. John, you could die at any moment. They don't want a woman president. They won't even let them talk in church. And I think as an appeal to undecided, center-swinging voters, this is poor at best.

Then again, look who we're talking about.

Good luck at the debates.

Brian

When explaining how to make the best of a not so great situation:

Me: We only get 1000 copies a semester. So that's why we print the homework and quizzes two per sheet, sort of small.
Her: So you can double that resource.
Me (very seriously): Yeah, or even quadruple if we do it front and back.

Moment of silence, then laughing and coughing.

But seriously.

This is not a Christian nation. It's a democratic nation. Anyone can do anything they like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of another.

So I say, thank God for the assholes—we know we are free!

Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Westley: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.