New lows in public discourse

It is incredibly painful to stand by and watch the current Presidential election campaign. Having spent the better part of my adult life trying to get people to think more clearly, I can only respond to what's going on now with despair. The 2008 Presidential election is a type of final exam on the intelligence of the American electorate, and I'm not sure that they are going to pass.

When, in today's Star Tribune, syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. writes that John McCain is running "a disgraceful, dishonorable campaign of distraction and diversion," he is exactly right. And let's try to put partisan politics aside at this point--this is not about "stands on the issues," it's about a manner of dealing with these issues in the form of public discourse.

Whether it's the "right" policy or not, Obama has called for tax cuts for all U.S. citizens, except those who earn more than $250,000. For McCain to say that Obama will "raise our taxes" is a bald-faced lie. To belittle Obama's resume with a running mate who's monumentally unqualified to step in as our Commander in Chief is monumental hypocrisy. To make light of someone who has been a "community organizer" flies in the face of what Republicans claim to be about: local initiative in place of big government. (Ironically, what Obama has done is a version of what Bush Senior used to call "a thousand points of light.") Supporting sex education for kids in kindergarten is not teaching them the details of the Kama Sutra; it's helping them learn that there is such a thing as "bad touch" and that they should not be sexually exploited. And for the umpteenth time, the war in Iraq is not and never was a "war against terrorism."

TAXES!--9/11!--SEX EDUCATION FOR 6-YEAR-OLDS!--TERRORISM! Just keep saying that shit, over and over, and people come to believe it. Hitler's so-called "big lie" was no bigger. This truly is a disgraceful campaign, and I can only hope that 50.01 percent of the American electorate, representing 50.01 percent of the nation's electoral votes, will be able to see through all this. If not, I hope there's a little apartment in, say, Vancouver that I can rent as I flee to a place that is more sane--which right now is just about anywhere.

"Winning" wars (yeah, right)

I think that I am going to puke if I ever again hear the claim that we are "winning" the war in Iraq. I'd like to be tactful, but people who say things like this are IDIOTS, plain and simple.

The idea of "winning" a war is so...20th century. Yes, the Japanese signed an agreement in 1945 after we bombed the crap out of them, and this agreement ended a war. We "won." But the "war on terror" is not a war against a specific nation-state; it's not a war that we can "win" or "lose," strictly speaking. There will be no armistice agreement. It's not a war that has a precise beginning and end. In short, it's not a football game. (U.S. wins on a late field goal, 17-14! Hooray!)

Jeez, let's do a little "game analysis." This "win" has cost us half a trillion dollars. It has killed several thousand U.S. service people, and probably several hundred thousand Iraqis. It has probably re-invigorated those who would seek to employ "terror," both inside and outside of Iraq. It has seen us abuse prisoners, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo, in the name of "freedom," and make us appear no better than our "enemies." And--irony of all ironies--although it's now being called a war against "terrorism," it was never intended as such and is poorly designed to deal with the "real" terrorists, who were never in Iraq in the first place! And yet some people have the gall to suggest that we are "winning."

Wins and losses: our sports metaphors can imprison our brains. They can mislead us, in deep and important ways. We simply have to get past them if we are to understand what's going on in the world.