Coffeehouse fodder [a]

Huh? Subprime meltdown? I thought that was months ago, way beyond my attention/memory.

I guess we can add this to the fixtures of our daily lives like restaurants without trans fat, $4 gas, and tv shows that run from January to May. Or maybe it's worse. Like snowballing or something. Months ago there was a crisis for companies I'd never heard of like Countrywide and Bear Stearns. Now household names like AIG, Merrill Lynch, and perhaps WaMu are going under. I guess this thing is picking up steam rather than hanging in a limbo of slow decay like airlines.

That's rather too bad.

But it's kind of cool for the presidential debates that start next Friday. If the political climate is concern for our jobs, savings, loans, and investments, we're going to hear a lot less fear mongering. That's nice.

Indeed, this financial thing has already brought the Dr. Jekyll out of Johnny Mac. There it is, mid-interview he goes from partisan mouthpiece back to pre-2008 maverick. Near as I can tell, this was a rare opportunity for him to speak without a prompter and perhaps reason took over. He illustrated eloquently, if inadvertently, a fundamental incongruity of his platform:

1. The taxpayer shouldn't have to shoulder this bailout (platform; low taxes).
2. This crisis is the fault of a few CEOs doing unethical things (uh oh, you're suggesting it could have been avoided).
3. We need to get some smart people together to make sure this doesn't happen again (yipes, that's regulation, welcome to the vast grey area between the left and right).

The last debate was a bunch of flag waving and hunch-scowling. The two topics were war and character.

But now, thanks to a small and elite group of morally vacant executives, we suddenly care about the economy. It seems bank statements and gas pumps are far less abstract to the voting masses than budget deficit figures. Better we realize it now than when our tax revenue disappears into interest and the government contracting sector bubble bursts.

A blessing in disguise. Thank you golden parachutists!

So looking forward I wonder if the first debate will feature Candidate McCain, the man that pulls all the usual political tricks of ad hominem, feigning offense, and criticizing unpartisan and legitimate idea because they are not his own. Or will we see Senator McCain, the legislator that is a conservative before he is a Republican, hip to the SNL/Jon Stewart generation, and dares to speak ill of his own party members.

With any luck, substance will abound next Friday night. Because even if the candidates agree that regulation is the way to prevent unbridled, bottom-line greed, the implementation is tricky. Apparently regulatory agencies have to balance oversight and critical evaluation on the clock with sex and blow off the clock.

Huh? [a]

You find some weird stuff when you read the papers.

Support our troops [a]

It used to be that whenever you wanted to win an argument in political discourse, you just had to bring up Nazi Germany. It was the perfect catch-all; compare something to Naziism and it was instantly bad, even if you got the analogy and/or history wrong. So long reductio ad hitlerum, since 2003 the motivation for everything you see and read and hear is based on what is most supportive of our troops.

Sure, it's been an annoyance since day one. If you wanted to be patriotic and non-partisan, you just needed a 'Support Our Troops' emblem. It showed you didn't want Americans to die, but were too busy or stupid to deal with the issues that put them in harm's way.

Almost four years later, after the bumper stickers have faded and the slogans have become a kneejerk response to any discussion of politics at home and abroad, the ineffect of 'supporting our troops' has become lucid. The recent congressional discussions of a devastating and nonbinding resolution to reject the deployment of 20,000 more soldiers has shown that:

• Bringing our boys home will support the troops by removing them from the battlefield.
  
• Sending reinforcements will support the troops by increasing security in Iraq.

Wow, awesome, anything we do short of dumping our petroleum reserves into the Hudson Bay is in support of our troops. That's reassuring. I understand that 'Support Our Troops' is so hot right now, but maybe we'll one day realize that the maxim is:

1. Stale
2. Without argumentative consequence

But it's nice to know our soldiers have been logically separated from the intent to go to war. I recall a few decades ago the kids who were impressed into service were jeered and spat on for their unwilling participation in an unpopular war. But in this unpopular war, they're recognized as mere agents of a greater will. As it should be, people far above them call the shots.

We support our tools (ignore the negative connotation). Tools used by an administration for - whatever goal our involvement in Iraq currently is. And tools used by politicians and car bumpers to distinguish themselves as patriots.

Paid for by the USMC [h]

MNF, Bengals-Colts. Army commercial.

[The dude and his family are talking about how they were uneasy about his enlisting]
Mother: But he's gained lots of confidence.
Father: And now he can outrun me.
[Smiles and laughter]

Paraphrased, same context. I think the armed forces just ceded their case to John Kerry. Well, not really, politicians just know that you don't know what a converse fallacy is.

Don't vote for the incumbent [a]

1. Our astronomical incumbency rate makes us look like idiots. For as much as you've complained about the government, you sure aren't voting like you want change.

2. They count on your complacence. No more, "see ya next year, Orrin."

3. All politicians deceive. Two things are required to be a leader on the state level and above. Money. Compromised integrity. Those are the oft-mentioned rules of the game. So you get to choose between the liar and the liar who's lied in public office.

4. The fraternal ruling class will dilute. The college of professional politicians will blur - just a little bit - into a government of the people.

5. Lobby groups and corporate puppeteers won't know who to buy. And with single-term bureaucrats, their money won't go quite so far.

6. Anyone can do it. The mechanics of the State are at the hands of trained professionals. The people you vote for just decide which professionals to listen to. Case in point: California's uneducated governor has been controversial at worst. His well-qualified predecessor was recalled.

7. More candidates and less corporate influence means a more diverse choice of leaders and policies. Our State is inbred. Ideas and people are recycled ad nauseum (hence, complacence).

Dubya has made me a conservative [a]

In fact, I think he's far too liberal. Okay here's the touch of grey; conservative ideology is as such:
-Strong states rights/passive federal government
-Sanctified civil liberties
-Conservative moral values

This dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who believed Congress should only make laws necessary to uphold the Constitution. His perennial antagonist, Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong central government - a 'liberal' view of the passage of the Constitution describing Congressional duties. Of course, this is all eighth grade course material, but somehow not common knowledge.

I'll stay away from the issue of moral values. It's messy, the rest is clean-cut.

With regard to the first two criteria, Bush has been extremely Hamiltonian. FDR had the New Deal, Bush has the war, the Patriot Act, the DHS, NSA wiretapping, or stem cell research bans. The federal government has grown in manpower, economic need, and legal authority. States have lost power. The American people have relinquished their privacy rights to obtain a sense of security. I do not present this as good nor bad, but a simple fact you can see every time you take a trip to the airport.

However you feel about any social issue, just keep in mind the incongruity of being a Republican/conservative and Democrat/liberal. If you're concerned that research science is threatening morality and human decency, consider yourself liberal. If you believe in the ACLU's zealous fight for personal freedoms, you can start telling everyone you're a conservative. If you hear someone using those words as synonyms, go upside their head.