Why isn’t Senator Barack Obama way ahead of John McCain in the polls?  Why is this race so tight?  Bob Cesca has an idea:

Hmm. I can’t imagine why that is. It’s not like Senator Obama’s patriotism and character is being assassinated for three hours every morning on cable news — six hours if we include the spasmodic howler monkeys on FOX & Friends. I can’t imagine why the polls are so close when Joe Scarborough is helping his Republican allies to once again turn this critical national debate into another blind recitation of Lee Greenwood lyrics.

Why are the polls so close? Not only do around 25 percent of Americans watch FOX News Channel on a regular basis, but, from coast to coast, there are more than a thousand far-right talk radio stations occupied by shows that make Morning Joe sound like an Olbermann Special Comment. And 17 percent of Americans are glued to it at work and in their cars. Talkers like Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Bill Bennett and Glenn Beck broadcast on your public air around the clock. Non-stop. Unrelenting. Only interrupted by Accu-weather and traffic. Free to anyone with an AM radio.

I don’t know if you’ve dared to listen to far-right talk radio lately, but I can assure you that they’re not ignoring Senator Obama — or his family. Put it this way: if you only got your news and opinions from talk radio, you’d probably believe that Senator Obama is some kind of foreign-born baby-killing Manchurian Candidate terrorist — if not a sexist uppity black man who, if he loses in November, will incite race riots in every city.

The following is a quote lifted from Charlie Stross’s blog and is pretty much In Full.

We. Are. Not. Going. To. Die. On. Wednesday.

The maximum energy the particles generated by the LHC (7TeV) get up to is many orders of magnitude below the maximum energy of cosmic rays that hit the Earth’s upper atmosphere from space every fricking day. None of them have created black holes and gobbled up the planet, or turned us all into strange matter. Nor have they done ditto to any cosmic bodies we can see, such as planets or stars. Therefore the world isn’t going end when they switch on the LHC on Wednesday. QED.

Joking is all very well, but please, can we not be spreading the FUD and scaring people needlessly? The current climate of superstitious dread with respect to the sciences is bad enough as it is …

As everyone knows we have a presidential election coming up. The two combatants are flinging accusations at one another as to why the other guy isn’t fit to lead. According to McCain, Obama is not only another tax-and-spend Liberal but one with no real experience. McCain is claiming to be an agent of change, despite a record that really doesn’t reflect that. To be fair, he’s been on board with a few bits of legislation that took on some of the more egregious problems in our country, but by and large he’s pretty much just another tax-and-spend Conservative, but one with a lot of experience.

I quoted Charlie’s post for a specific reason. You can search the blogosphere and find many of these sorts of posts, all done in the face of a minor upswelling of panic among those who don’t know any better claiming that the LHC would cause a major event precipitating the End of the World.

My question, simply, is this: why would anyone believe this?

This bears directly on the election. We have many organizations—like FactCheck.com— that take on the rather onerous and often thankless job of vetting statements made by political candidates. Anyone can go look to see which statements are true, false, or exaggerations. There are other sites, like Project For the Old American Century, which have a tally of the abuses of the Bush Administration, with links to sources. The record is there for anyone to go look for themselves and see.

But people don’t. Well, some people do. But I suspect a lot of people rely on the ads and the occasional televised interview to develop their information about the candidates, which is a pretty useless way to do it.

I know a woman in her 40s who does not know that women in this country did not always have the right to vote. When I pointed it out that women didn’t get it till 1920, she was incredulous. She didn’t believe me. I pulled out some history books to show her. Her eyes glazed over.

Next time I spoke to her about it, she had defaulted back to believing that we were the only democracy to guarantee women’s rights from our inception.

The obstinacy of false beliefs baffles me unlike anything else. I recall some friends who supported Ronald Reagan in 1980, said laudatory things about him, but when I bring it up now they look at me as if I’d sprouted a second head. They have rewritten their own history to disclude this embarrassing bit and will not cop to it.

Charlie’s post about the idiocy of people’s fears is very political. Remember the Alar issue over apples? The panic that this substance was on all our apples and that it would kill us spread so fast that and regardless of efforts to provide the truth, there were orchards and packing plants that went out of business because of the resulting boycott of apples that would not have hurt anyone because the substance washed off easily.

People do not understand basic science. Beyond that, there is a lack of understanding of basic logic. Why? Well, for one, it has always been assumed that Common Sense was a natural attribute—and in some small way, a particularly natural attribute of Americans (!) —and needed no assistance from the educational system, when nothing could be further from the truth.

In the introduction to his study of the history of rational thought, Uncommon Knowledge, Alan Cromer states: “I believe that rational civilization, with its science, arts, and human rights, is humankind’s greatest hope for nobility. But like Jericho, it’s but an oasis in the midst of a vast desert of human confusion and irrationality.”

Nancy Reagan regularly consulted an astrologer and often took the predictions offered as grounds for forcing changes of itinerary for her husband while in office. Who knows what else might have been effected as a result?

People like easy answers and quick fixes. The present financial crisis we see engulfing Wall Street is not mysterious. It could be seen coming years ago. Loaning money to people who cannot pay it back obviously will lead to illiquidity of the lender if indulged at too great a level, and that is what has happened. To be fair, many borrowers were openly lied to, the mortgages in question misrepresented. The only thing that might have halted the bleeding would have been if the borrowers, en masse, had had the intellectual tools to see bull shit for what it is. Many did not. Many others did not possess the capacity to differentiate between Need and Want. Of course, that obfuscation is a desired quality in business—many industries make their living on the inability of people to make disciplined distinctions. They would hate it if basic economics were taught in grade school on.

But everyone is acting surprised—and panicked. We are in bail-out mode because big houses, like AIG, are about to go under, and the truth is such institutions, that have been allowed to have tentacles into many areas of the financial garden, are so intertwined with our basic economies that we see it as to our benefit to keep them afloat.

And we do not understand how we got here.

Why not? Do we not understand that all the pseudo-Libertarian talk about Free Markets is nonsense?

No, apparently not.

On the reverse side, people are being driven by panic. The Stock Market lost 500 points. Omigod, that’s a disaster!

500 points out eleven thousand. We have lost our sense of proportion. That is less than five percent of total volume. By contrast, the Crash of 1929 saw the Stock Market lose almost 40% of its value in two months.

Let me quote from the Oxford Companion to United States History:

The crash did not cause the Great Depression of the 1930s. To be sure, the losses sustained by investors and the greater diufficulty firms had in floating new issues depressed the economy. But the Federal Reserve stepped in quickly, lending freely to member banks and thereby confining the crash to the financial system. During the 1930s, congressional investigations uncovered a number of unsavory practices by the essentially private, unregulated stock exchanges. In response, Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933 and the Security and Exchange Act of 1934, inaugurating active federal regulation of the securities market.

Sound familiar? And why did we need regulation? Because stupidity combined with avarice results in collateral damage to those not involved with these matters. Officially, we had 24% unemployment during the Great Depression. It was probably, judging by how the numbers get fudged today, more like 30%. We have 6% now and we feel that we are in a major meltdown.

Granted, for those out of work or on the losing end of investments, the pain is real and not to be scoffed at, but for the rest of us, our overreactions do us little credit. Sound solutions cannot be agreed upon in an atmosphere of panic, and such an atmosphere is fomented by those who have traditionally sought to lead us by the nose for their own benefit.

The regulatory system put in place in the 30s was designed to prevent something like that from ever happening again, and it worked. Why then would we dismantle it?

Because we did. We let Reagan’s cronies undo much of the regulation that had previously protected the country as a whole. We’re paying the price now for Free Market advocates getting their wish. They have turned out to be just as irresponsible as in the 20s and 30s.

But we have been frightened by accusations that regulation somehow equates directly to Socialism, and we have been convinced that Socialism is evil. The arguments which have been used to keep us from being sane and rational about such issues are tissue paper obfuscations, easily seen through by anyone with half a brain, but we as a people buy into them every time. Either we possess profound ignorance or equally profound cupidity. Probably both.

What Reagan began, Bush has all but finished. He has mounted up a debt so high that we must look far down the road to see it reduced to manageable levels, and yet he is lauded as a Conservative by people who ought to know better by virtue of the fact that they are losing their savings and their children’s future to rising costs.

Why would they believe it? It is, simply, the same mentality that leads them to accept the Chicken Little warnings about the Large Hadron Collider without question. It is easy to go find the answers to these questions, but answers are not sought. Because it seems that as a people we are trained not to look or, worse, not to trust a rational explanation. It is easier to live in constant panic-mode and hope the next guy in office will fix it all, so we can go back to our thoughtless lives.

When I was a little kid I remember looking at the exhaust from a factory and asking my dad where all that smoke went. “It just dissipates into the atmosphere.”

“But won’t the atmosphere fill up some day?”

“No, the world is too big for that.”

I was four or five. I accepted the answer, because I trusted my dad. He was an adult, after all, and adults didn’t do stupid things like children did. Now I look on that and see that my innate curiosity and skepticism was at work even then. His answer never satisfied me, but there were other things to do, so I trusted him and let it slide.

Collectively, we tend to be that way. Occasionally we ask “What about that?” and some “adult” pats our head and tells us not to worry, everything will be fine.

I grew up expecting adults to be rational. People did stupid things in the past, but supposedly we had learned not to do those things. I was too young then to realize how stupidity clings to people.

Forgive me if I use words like Stupidity and Moron. I am 53, almost 54, and I have lost all willingness to cut people slack anymore. When I walk into a convention hall filled with dealers in books and movies and jewelry and the fake ephemera of fantasyland (I’m talking about a science fiction convention now) and I see someone purporting to take pictures of your “Aura” (as in Kirlian Aura) with a device that supposedly “spikes” the aura by electricity shunted through one’s body while seated in a chair resembling a bad device from a Frankenstein movie, I get annoyed. When I see people lining up to buy said photos, people who really, I think, ought to know better, I get angry. The charlatan makes a living, the public is gulled, and the one who points out the bull shit is reviled by all.

We have no patience, it seems, for reasoned discourse, for examination of issues, for anything that would prompt us to take responsibility for our own ignorance. I speak collectively now, for I do in fact know many people who do not see the world this way, but it seems they are always and everywhere too few.

If the LHC had been built in this country, I fear that some court injunction would have been placed to prevent it from being turned on by some group convinced that it would result in a hole right through the Earth. We are saved from such silliness because the device is in Europe, where the courts, at least, seem less willing to entertain the hysterias of ignorant people.

So it comes down to which set of lies we will believe. We always end up hoping for the best. So far, the only thing that has buffered us from any truly cataclysmic harm is the sheer size and wealth of this country. But unless we start doing a little rational thinking and start seeing things for what they are, that will not last long.

I beg your pardon for expressing such pessimism.

According to John McCain, Sara Palin “knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.”

Here’s Tom Tomorrow’s response:

Really? Sarah Palin knows more about energy than, say, anyone in the Department of Energy, thousands of Ph.Ds in academia, or the CEOs of dozens of oil and gas companies?

I agree with Tomorrow, based on the depressing literature from the oil industry itself.

Considering my somewhat informed understanding America’s energy woes combined with Palin’s simplistic claims that we can lick the energy problem without a serious focus on conservation, I’d have to ring up McCain’s claim regarding Palin’s status as “energy expert” as yet another lie.

I received an email today implying that Palin was the latest incarnation of Teddy Roosevelt. Sure, they both were tapped for VP when young, had been governor a short time, and both liked to shoot. But TR had been a military commander in a shooting war and later Assistant Secretary of the Navy. He had been a world traveler in an age when that wasn’t so easy, he had written several books by then, and the state of which he was governor (New York) had counties back then with bigger and more diverse populations than does the state of Alaska now.

Roosevelt the elder was also a staunch conservationist, a big business buster, and a social liberal.

But while I was doing some casual research, I found this conservative post about Palin’s boost to GOP fund raising and her promise for right-thinking Christians. Wanna see pix of the teen wannabe VP in hot pants? Just scroll down in that post.

Keefe, The Denver Post

John Cole, The Scranton Times-Tribune

Published at DI with full Permission by Cagle Cartoons

The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal action group whose purpose appears to be to promote an American Theocracy, has instituted The Pulpit Initiative. In brief, it calls for ministers, priests and pastors to openly stump for particular candidates on September 28, 2008 (”Pulpit Freedom Sunday”) and beyond. No more pussyfooting around those silly IRS rules or the First Amendment. Push for “right thinking” candidates from every pulpit.

Naturally, the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have responded with Project Fair Play to try to bring awareness of this action to the people, and the clergy, of what the repercussions of this movement might be.

But then we have this apparently left-field selection for GOP-VP, pert and perky fundamentalist Sarah Palin. Does it seem to you as if she were tailor made for the Pulpit Initiative? What other qualification does she have?

As part of this initiative, fundamentalist groups are challenging the IRS’ right to restrict the direct political action of not-for-profits. They claim that tax-free organizations should not be restricted from direct political action. Basically, they want representation without taxation, claiming it as an inalienable right. My guess is that they are hoping to take it to the Supreme Court, before Obama gets to pick a judge.

Keep up with the latest news on it here.

Chris Matthews is now driving the point home:  Sarah Palin is a pathological liar.   She fully supported the bridge to nowhere, but here she is, seven times, claiming she didn’t support it.

BTW, Sarah Palin claims to be quite religious. See her performance at her church here.  She believes in the Bible as a literal account–historical and religious truth.   She need to go sit in a quiet corner and think of this part of the Bible: the Commandment that prohibits lies like the one she’s currently repeating for personal gain:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

I see that the media is actually showing some courage about this blatant lie.  They should because this is either evil or pathological.  Whatever, Palin is demonstrating that she is not fit for office.

After they grill Palin into premature withdrawal from this campaign (on this lie and Palin’s many other honesty and character issues), they should then move on to ask a few dozen pointed questions to McCain himself. This list includes some petty questions to even the playing field (considering the flag pin bullshit questions repeatedly fired at Obama).  But this list also includes dozens of legitimate questions that go to McCain’s highly questionable character and judgment.   Especially the judgment he is exercising when he continues to allow his partner to stand up and repeatedly lie to the American Public while he stands there with his silly grin.

McCain is in charge of this freak show he is putting on. Bring it on, Media.  Please (in fact, here’s a convert).  Show the people who McCain really is.  We’ve got a country at stake.

At Salon.com, Sarah Posner writes about the religious beliefs of Sarah Palin.  It’s everything most of us would have expected.  Here are a few exerpts:

With regard to creation, the Assemblies of God’s official position is that “even though the Bible is not primarily a book of science, it is as trustworthy in the area of science as when it speaks to any other subject” and its “account of creation is intended to be taken as factual and historical.” Homosexuality is a sin because “it is disobedient to Scriptural teachings,” “contrary to God’s created order for the family and human relationships,” and “comes under divine judgment.”

[They] believe worship of the land, the sea, the oceans, and other attributes of the earth is an abomination to God the Creator.”

Belief in the rapture and end-times is part of the official position of the Assemblies of God.

Consider, also, Amy Goodman’s interview of Frederick Clarkson, an independent journalist who has covered politics and religion:

Let’s begin with you, Fred Clarkson. What are you most concerned about in Governor Palin’s views?

FREDERICK CLARKSON: Well, I’m most concerned with the point that you raised earlier, and that is her well-documented belief that she’s living in the “end times,” we’re all living in the “end times,” and that her interpretation of the Book of Revelation may be driving her public policy and particularly her foreign and military policy views.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what is meant by “end times.”

FREDERICK CLARKSON: Well, that means that if you take the Bible, and you begin with Genesis and Creation and the Book of Revelation, which describes God’s plan for the end of the world, we’re at the end of the book, and that it ends in a bloody conflagration before God’s people are saved. And she and people who think like her believe them, themselves, to be the people who are going to be saved, and the rest of us are not looking so good.

AMY GOODMAN: And these comments about the war being a task of God, the Alaska pipeline, you know, praying for the companies and the people.

FREDERICK CLARKSON: Yes, certainly, the idea that the war in Iraq could be a task of God could be interpreted in that way. But I think, more specifically, it’s a conflation of one’s particular political or public policy views with that of the will of God that makes for a very unstable kind of political thinking.

AMY GOODMAN: In what way?

FREDERICK CLARKSON: Well, I mean, that whatever idea may be popping into your head, that you might be inspired to invade a nation, could be the will of God. That’s where it gets very dicey. And sometimes you can find what you’re looking for in metaphor, such as what most of what the Book of Revelation really is.

For the past few years, moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt has successfully injected a huge does of psychology into the study of morality. Along the way, he has gone a long way toward bridging the “is” with the “ought,” a chasm that many philosophers have insisted to be unbridgeable.  Haidt explores these moral-psychological issues in highly readable form in his 2006 book, The Happiness Hypothesis:  Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. Here’s a photo of my personal well-worn copy of Haidt’s book:

Based on his experiments, Haidt has been extraordinarily successful in describing the moral differences distinguishing conservatives and liberals.  Which group is more moral?  That isn’t the right question, according to Haidt.  Both of these groups sincerely strive to be “moral.”  Conservatives and liberals differ in the way they characterize morality because they base their differing moral senses on different measures. Based on Haidt’s research, there are the five separate measures (I think of them as tectonic plates) that underlie all moral systems.  Conservative morality substantially draws on all five of these five measures:

- harm/care
- fairness/reciprocity
- ingroup/loyalty
- authority/respect, and
- purity/sanctity

For liberals, however, the moral domain consists primarily (or only) of the first two of these five measures (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity).  For liberals, the other three measures (I’ll call them “conservative measures”) tend to fly under the liberal radar.  In fact, many liberals scoff at claims that the conservative measures (ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity) have anything at all to do with morality.  To avoid a potential misunderstanding, remember that many conservatives also find the first two measures on the list to be important. Conservatives don’t limit their senses of morality to these first two measures, however.  Many conservatives thus feel strongly about issues regarding fairness and they feel compelled to help the poor and unfortunate members of society.  These impulses aren’t the full story for conservatives, though, and these first two measures are often overruled by the three “conservative measures.” For more detail on the five measures, see this previous DI post on Haidt.

Liberals thus downplay the three “conservative measures” and argue that when a government treats its citizens well and fairly, the government has fully done its job.  For liberals, the three conservative moral-measures are, at most, matters of personal prerogative.  For liberals, it’s certainly not the government’s job to tell us “My country, right or wrong.”  For liberals, it’s absurd for the government to expect us to respect authority figures we find severely lacking.  For liberals, government should focus on equal rights, not the personal disgust felt by many heterosexuals, when considering the issue of gay marriage.

Here’s the problem:  the three conservative moral measures often work for conservatives.   Why do they work for conservatives?  It’s not clear.  It’s a trillion dollar question.  If you can figure it out, let us know.

Conservative measures don’t compel all of us, of course, but they seem like life and death considerations to many conservatives.  The bottom line is that the three “conservative moral measures can be incredibly powerful influences on many people.  The conservative measures underlie the emotions that are triggered when conservatives see waving flags and threats of “terror.”  Use of certain types of triggers (such as “orange alerts” invocations of “God”) allow Machiavellian political operatives to play conservatives like puppets.  The documentary “War Made Easy” demonstrates the unrelenting (and potentially destructive) power of these “conservative” moral measures.

In his September 9, 2008 article at Edge.org, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, Haidt hits the bulls-eye when he explains why Democrats are so often seem so confounded in the face of Republican moralizing.  In his article at Edge, Haidt has persuasively explained how it is that so many conservatives embrace God-fearing flag-waving, even when those preachy flag-wavers are unabashed liars. Consider what Haidt proposes as the “first rule of politics”:

This is the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.

In short, morality bubbles up from below for most people.  Morality is a gut-level phenomenon.  Morality does not originate in the form of top-down intellectual activity, contrary to what philosophers have often suggested. Haidt’s writings thus line up well with those of Antonio Damasio, who demonstrated through experiments involving people with damage to the pre-frontal cortex that there is no such thing as rationality in the absence of the guiding influence of emotions.

If Democrats are going to prevail, then, they can’t simply explain things to the People, they can’t simply stand up to reason with the People.  Instead, Democrats need to tap into the right emotions with their political positions.  They need to set aside serious time to better understand those conservative moral tectonic plates.  Only if they take this bottom-up approach will good things follow.

As Haidt makes clear, preaching about a “fair” society and a society that “cares” are not enough.  These two moral measures, in the absence of the other three, make for a thin, non-compelling moral soup for most conservatives.  Conservatives don’t want soup, they want a thick stew!

Conservatives don’t believe that the job is done when government makes sure that citizens have fair doses of resources and then sends them out to have a good life with no strings attached.  For conservatives, this seems like a big amoral (or immoral) party-time or, as Haidt, puts it, a shopping spree.

How does Haidt, a “moral psychologist” define morality?:

Morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.

Notice how Haidt’s definition focuses on the function of a moral system rather than any particular repertoire of activities (e.g., “Don’t have gay sex!) or any particular way of intellectualizing conduct (“For the sake of justice, let’s enact a new program to fairly distribute resources to the poor.”).  Notice, too, how both conservative morality and progressive forms of morality easily fit into Haidt’s definition.

In what way do conservative politicians excel?   They know that “morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.” For conservatives, morality is far more than a voluntary social contract. (more…)

I’ve written previously about that penchant of many conservatives to base their moral sense on visceral disgust.  As psychologist Jonathan Haidt has demonstrated, this connection is much more readily made by conservatives than by progressives (also, see here).

It is in that context that I must confess that I felt that connection deeply today when I saw John McCain’s latest ad, which makes the shockingly unfair accusation that Barack Obama’s support of a program to protect young children from sexual predators was an attempt to give inappropriate and explicit sex education to kindergarteners.

Here’s the wording of McCain’s ad:

Script For “Education” (TV :30)
ANNCR: Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education”.
That he’s “elusive” on accountability.
A “staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly”.
Obama’s one accomplishment?
Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners.
Learning about sex before learning to read?
Barack Obama.
Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.

Truly, this ad is disgustingly immoral.  Is a man who endorses this ad fit to be hired as anything at all?

Perhaps some readers thought I was over the top when I compiled a long list of questions the media needs to ask McCain. With this latest ad, however, it is clear that John McCain is a vicious and morally reprehensible person.  He has proven himself a fitting partner for Sarah Palin, who has made a blatant lie about the bridge to nowhere the centerpiece of her own persona.  Has American politics ever been lower?  No, really.  Has it ever been lower?   This ad is a blatant attempt to scoop lots of ignoramuses into the Republican column in November.

McClatchy has come out calling McCain’s attack what it is:  “Out of bounds!  McCain Misstates Obama Sex-ed Record.”  Let’s see if other media outlets have the courage and integrity to follow suit tomorrow.

Since Palin’s from Alaska, I thought it appropriate to post this link from an Anchorage newspaper. This ought to get plenty of circulation in the next couple of months. Even if, as the article indicates, Palin’s questions regarding the censorship of library materials was “rhetorical” it nevertheless is informative that the question would even occur to her.

Compare the toned-down “rhetoric” of Palin’s approach to the more forthright and visceral approach of another grand lady of the Right, Phyllis Schafly, here prescribing a cure for campus mass murder.

So far, Palin’s main success at censorship seems to have been imposed on her future son-in-law, Levi Johnson, whose MySpace page was rendered “Private” after the convention. Among other things the young man asserted there was his disdain for marriage and his love of profanity. In all likelihood, he wasn’t about to marry Bristol, who apparently has benefited from the Abstinence Only education the Republicans have been pushing and, if Mrs. Palin is anything to go by, will continue to push in a McCain presidency.

My point here is very simple. The title of the post is for those remaining Hillary diehards who may still be considering a vote for McCain out of protest over Obama’s winning the Democratic nomination. Ask yourselves if, just to have a woman in the White House, you would vote for Phyllis Schlafly. Because that’s about what a vote for McCain would amount to, especially now. McCain is 72, cancer-prone. Even if he doesn’t die in office, there may be times when he is incapacitated, which would leave the estimable Mrs. Palin in charge.

Her comment about the difference between pit bulls and hockey moms is telling. I know, I know, it was humor. Wasn’t it? I know a lot of women who like being compared to a dog. It was the lipstick punchline that held the main clue, which is to say that Mrs. Palin, in default mode, thinks of women about the same way Phyllis Schlafly does. Those who find themselves in special situations where they can have careers is fine, for those women, but a concerted effort to alter the social landscape to accept the idea that women are more than a facade with a family is unacceptable.

Palin has already egregiously misrepresented her record. This won’t matter to her base, which lives and dies on the proper spin, but each and every instance ought to be held to the same scrutiny Obama has been and is about to receive.

Representative Keith Ellison is one of my heroes.   Before a big crowd in Minneapolis in June, 2008, Ellison delivered a passionate speech on the importance of having a media that truly informs the People.   I agree whole-heartedly with his statement that the People will do the right things, but only as long as they are informed.

Shamefully, we live in a world where the media is not motivated to inform the People on meaningful issues.  In fact, many media outlets are currently set up to distract us from important issues by amusing us with unimportant things.  It has gotten so bad that I think we would be much better off if we simply shut down many local newspapers and television “news” shows.   At least, then, we would know that we are uninformed.   With these newspapers still pumping out lots of paper under the banner of “news,” many people erroneously believe that they are informed, when they are actually being misinformed or (as I already mentioned) distracted.  Because they regularly watched “news,” many people incorrectly believed that they were sufficiently informed to act responsibly as citizens.

Keith Ellison, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 2006 to represent the people of Minnesota, is such a breath of fresh air.  Ellison knows the media reform movement and he feels it in his heart.  I saw him give this talk–I was one of the many people attending the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform.  It was such a joy to hear someone who is both informed and passionate about improving his world.

Oh, and yes.  Keith Ellison is a Muslim, the first Muslim ever elected to the U.S. Congress.

For videos of many of the fine speakers at the Conference, see this link. There were so many terrific talks, including those of two of my other heroes, FCC Commissioners Adelstein and Copps.  And don’t forget to check out Dan Rather’s talk about the corruption of the corporate media and it’s favorite technique, that thing he “euphemistically” refers to as “stonewalling.”   Consider watching Tim Wu, Amy Goodman and, of course, Bill Moyers.  It’s like you are getting a free front-row seat to the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform.

Sarah Palin is betting that no one will notice that she is telling huge lies, including the lie that she was opposed to the bridge to nowhere.   Here’s video evidence that she has lied:

Update:  Keith Olbermann asked Barack Obama was asked how Obama would be countering these untruths.  Obama, who was hesitant to use the word “lie,” addressed Olbermann’s concern.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic, and will vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States. Not only will I vote for Senator Obama, I will do so gladly and with a clear conscience.  The reasons are many.  This lengthy post enumerate many of those reasons, providing ample links in support.

I accept the Roman Catholic teachings on the sanctity of human life and, to the degree the views of Senator Obama and the Democratic Party platform depart from Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, I disagree with Senator Obama and the Democratic Party on their positions. I will work inside the party to change the positions of Senator Obama and the Democratic Party, and I will pray for change. I see my vote for Senator Obama as informed by my conscience to support a candidate not totally acceptable to Catholics but, who nonetheless poses a far lesser evil to the dignity and sanctity of life than a vote for Senator John McCain.

In my own life, I strive always to have compassion for those who disagree with me and seek to make a world where all children are recognized for the contribution they are to their families and the world, even before they are born. I will yet find a world where choice will mean whether one raises their child with the support necessary to allow the entire family to succeed, or a child will be placed for adoption by a family capable of the same love and compassion for that child that the parent or parents who placed the child for adoption showed.

The Republican Party, despite its claims to the contrary, does not promote the sanctity of life and cynically continues to attempt to manipulate voters of faith with false promises for votes, workers and cash while pursuing a radical neoconservative and corporatist agenda wholly inconsistent with a culture of life and Catholic values.

I live in Missouri, the Show Me State, and the GOP has controlled both chambers of the Legislature and has held the Governor’s office for four years. During the past four years, Democratic legislators efforts to pass an outright ban on abortions have been stalled in a GOP run House committee or ruled “not germane” by the current GOP Nominee for Missouri Attorney General, Michael Gibbons.

Regarding Roe v. Wade, John McCain once said: “I’d love to see the point where [Roe v. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be replaced because abortion is no longer necessary. But, certainly in the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations.”  John McCain has also once said that if his own daughter were to have an unwanted pregnancy that he believed the decision on how to handle it would be made in the family. John McCain has not introduced any proposed constitutional amendments to ban abortions.

When the Republicans controlled the US House of Representatives, there was not a single vote on any constitutional amendment supported by the Republican majority to outlaw abortion.

When the Republicans controlled the US Senate, there was not a single vote on any constitutional amendment supported by the Republican majority to outlaw abortion.

While George W. Bush has been a “pro-life Republican” he has not sent over to the House or Senate for their consideration any proposed constitutional amendment to ban abortions.

While the former GOP majorities in the House and Senate were not the ¾ necessary to send an amendment to the states, we did see GOP support for and a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages (that amendment failed to get ¾ of the votes for passage, to allow it to go to the states just before an election). If the GOP truly supported a culture of life and a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions and wanted to capitalize on a vote just before an election, why didn’t they attempt to vote to outlaw abortion?   I’m sure Karl Rove counted the votes and knew he didn’t even have a GOP majority support for any constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions, much less ¾ of either the US House or Senate.

The Catholic Church opposes the use of embryonic stem cells for research. Senator John McCain   twice voted to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, contrary to Church teaching.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says torture is “a grave sin which violates the Fifth Commandment.” Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, called torture “intrinsically evil.”  (See Paragraphs 2269; 2297-8).  The prevention of torture had been an issue of great concern to Senator John McCain in the past. But, early in 2008, Senator McCain voted against legislation which extended to the CIA a ban on torture as defined in the Army Field Manual. Senator McCain’s vote against the bill and his support of a veto by President Bush when it narrowly passed will allow the CIA to use stress positions, hypothermia, threats to the detainee and his family, severe sleep deprivation and severe sensory deprivation. Senator McCain had said about sleep deprivation that it’s not a joke and referred to a fellow POW and supporter Orson G. Swindle as having suffered from it.  The US House failed to override Bush’s veto because the Republicans voted with the President. Because of the GOP and Mr. McCain’s support for torture, it is now a part of US policy.

Pope John Paul II had said that the US going to war against Iraq was “…a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.”

While still a cardinal, Pope Benedict said:

”The Holy Father’s judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ’just war.’”

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) said the invasion of Iraq did not “meet the strict conditions of Catholic teaching for the use of military force.” Roman Catholic teaching is that while a government may have the power to impose the death penalty, it should refrain from doing so on moral grounds and the possibility of salvation for the person who committed the crime. (See Number 56, Paragraph 2). (more…)

I didn’t realize that Jesus had said these things (click on the image for a larger version):

Empathy, anyone?

I’m aware that I’m posting repeatedly to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.   I will continue to do so as long as they make the obvious points that the corporate media is choking on.

Along these same lines, consider Frank Rich’s article in the NYT, where Rich documents McCains sellout.   He also takes a major swipe at McCain’s lack of considered judgment:

“The McCain campaign’s claims of a “full vetting process” for Palin were as much a lie as the biographical details they’ve invented for her.”

“His speed-dating of Palin reaffirmed a more dangerous personality tic that has dogged his entire career. His decision-making process is impetuous and, in its Bush-like preference for gut instinct over facts, potentially reckless.”

Stephen Colbert had a few parting words about the Republican Convention:

It’s amazing to see the horrifically slanted local coverage of Sarah Palin by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch .  The only daily newspaper in St. Louis has now unveiled Palin as a party savior, refusing to engage with the ongoing torrent of information revealing Sarah Palin to be an inexperienced, dishonest and vindictive politician.

For those people who get their news by reading the headlines and scanning the main articles of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Republican bait and switch has so far been an incredible success. Check out the front page headlines for the past few days:

The problem isn’t just that the Post-Dispatch uncritically reprints the press releases of the RNC.  It’s that the Post-Dispatch is refusing to synthesize easily available information–derogatory information being produced by the bucketload by the blogosphere; the internet is literally exploding with red flags about Palin. For instance, Palin was for federal funding of the bridge to nowhere, yet she stood up and lied about it last night, before a national audience (see here; and here; and check out this photo). It was a clear lie, and responsible reporters should report this dishonesty.

There is a lot of good reporting out there.  Local reporting, however, local newscasts and local newspapers, have a long history of failing to be aggressive seekers of truth.  For instance, most local newspapers are entirely devoid of investigative reporting.  Same thing for local television newscasts.

Unfortunately, huge numbers of citizens (studies show it to be about 70 - 80% of people) turn primarily to local news sources, and consider themselves to be fully informed once they read local news and watch the local television news.  This is a terrible situation.  People are lead to believe that they are well informed when they are not.  Newspapers should be providing citizens with the information that will enable them to be responsible voters.  When they fail to do that, the “Democracy” becomes a sham. The Post Dispatch has a long history of failing to report the dangers of the new Republican Party.

When people are deprived of knowing the natural consequences of their actions, they will often act destructively.  With this recent barrage of one-sided “news,” the Post-Dispatch is guilty of journalistic malpractice.  Is anybody at the Post-Dispatch listening??

I found this at Daily Kos:

I do have one minor issue with the video.  It shows McCain using a Blackberry, which is WAY too high tech for a guy who doesn’t know how to use a computer.

Andrew Sullivan concludes that the choice of Palin should focus us sharply on McCain’s poor judgment:

To my mind, this pick is not about Palin’s unreadiness to be president. It’s about McCain’s unreadiness to be president. This act of judgment - a blend of ignorance, gut, cynicism, and pure egotism - makes him seem like a worse potential presdent than even George W. Bush. This is McCain’s first real executive decision. And it is unbelievably shallow, incompetent and reckless.

[DemocracyNow press release]

ST. PAUL, MN—Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time. Police violently manhandled Goodman, yanking her arm, as they arrested her. Video of her arrest can be seen here.

Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfully detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman’s crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.

Democracy Now! is calling on all journalists and concerned citizens to call the office of Mayor Chris Coleman and the Ramsey County Jail and demand the immediate release of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar.  These calls can be directed to: Chris Rider from Mayor Coleman’s office at 651-266-8535 and the Ramsey County Jail at 651-266-9350 (press extension 0).

Democracy Now! stands by Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and condemns this action by Twin Cities law enforcement as a clear violation of the freedom of the press and the First Amendment rights of these journalists.

During the demonstration in which they were arrested law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and excessive force. Several dozen others were also arrested during this action.

There is a feeding frenzy regarding Sarah Palin out there.  It’s intense and disorienting.  It’s also disquieting.

Palin seems like a pleasant woman who would make a nice neighbor.   But since when are people qualified to be Vice-President just because they are “nice”?

Tonight I started seeing many comments that extol Palin for having a baby (”Trig”) even though she allegedly had amniocentesis, which indicated that Trig had Down’s Syndrome.  It struck me as odd that someone would have amnio when she was planning to have the baby no matter what.  In fact, this puzzling point is but one of many strange stories adding up to an intriguing claim that Trig was not actually the child of Sarah Palin, but her grandchild, and that Sarah pretended (but not very well) to be pregnant to cover up for her Daughter Bristol, who was absent from high school for more than five months allegedly because she had mononucleosis.   This story is burning up the Internet at Daily Kos. If you venture over there, you’ll need to weigh the evidence presented for yourself, and you can (if you’d like) add your comment to the 1,500 comments already added–a phenomenal amount of comments, given that the post went up only today.

As disputed as the story about Palin’s pregnancy is, there much more to concern cautious voters.  Palin is demonstrably anti-science (disputing the human cause of global warming) and her church has tangible connections to dangerous right wing extremists. As P.Z. Myers writes, “The anti-intellectualism is overt. They’re actually proud of their contempt for learning.”

Here’s another concern.  Palin has the appearance of a small town mayor, not someone sophisticated.  She doesn’t show depth of thought or detailed knowledge of the world around her.  Her comfort zone is simple and local.  I would very much like to see Palin given as much time as she can fill, to tell us everything she knows about the culture, geography and politics of any country other than the United States.  I suspect that she would be out of things to say in 30 minutes.   Links are springing up by the dozens on Palin’s strange statements and behavior (Andrew Sullivan has a quickly growing collection).  Palin’s story appears to be a facade that is being intensely worked over. She was actually FOR building the Bridge to No where, though she now claims to have opposed the project.

There is much more to be concerned about Palin.  I suspect that it’s going to get intensely bad for her within a week.  Her story just doesn’t add up.

What most concerns me most, however, is John McCain’s poor judgment.  Aren’t there any job qualifications for the office of Vice President?  All responsible businesses require special knowledge and experience for demanding jobs.  Why wouldn’t McCain demand someone with the requisite knowledge and experience?  Palin is a laughable choice for Vice President.  Should we start allowing life guards to work as architects?  Should we allow window washers to teach medical school?  Add this to the list of questions the Press should ask McCain.

I suspect that McCain’s choice of Palin is possible in McCain’s mind because John McCain subscribes to the Grover Norquist school of “starve the beast” when it comes to government.   He thinks we’re all better off without government.  We’re better off on our own, and the country will somehow run itself.   That’s the way it is with many free market fanatics. Therefore, it doesn’t matter who serves as President or Vice President.

Our country can’t run itself, of course.  What McCain is revealing by choosing a running mate without meaningful qualifications is that he is actually a nihilist.   Or maybe he’s trying to cleverly hand the election to Obama.  Or maybe he is pandering to the religious right.  Or maybe he is intellectually incoherent.

Lawrence Lessig tells it simply and straight: the past eight years have been horrible for Internet users in the  U.S.   Broadband access in the U.S. has dropped from #5 at the beginning of Bush’s term to #22 now.  In many countries, you will pay half of what Americans pay for ten times the speed.

John McCain, who has had a leadership position on the U.S. Committee on Science, Technology and Commerce has nothing to sa