Bush compares liberals to torturers

Yes, the president has finally flipped. Check out this quick blog which posts Bush's speech for the Republican National Convention on Tuesday. In it, Bush claims that

“If the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what
is best for his country, you can be sure the angry Left never will.”

Yes, that's right. Bush compared the "angry Left" to the North Vietnamese.

I also like Matthew Yglesias's assessment of Bush's often-used trope of believing that liberats are "self-consciously pushing a bad-for-America agenda". When will America turn off his microphone?

Sexism

The media isn't sexist. Or at least not in the way the candidates think it is.

Gov. Sarah Palin is running on a platform of extremism packaged as "traditional" values. She has the slimmest resume of any candidate in decades, but that isn't the real concern. The biggest concern is her blatant obsession with power.

Prior to her nomination, Palin showed no interest in the pressing issues of the day, especially Iraq, saying "I haven't really focused much on the Iraq war." Instead, she pursues the eradication of medical freedom (her stances on abortion--anti-choice--and stem cell research), scientific freedom (pro-teaching creationism), and sexual freedom (anti sex ed--pro abstinence-only) with the heavy-handed approach of a dictator.

But here is the rub: she portrays herself as a "typical" hockey mom. She invites us to see her, not as the strong, commanding VP (the one that's half a breath away from the Oval Office), but the supportive, dutiful wife. Her entire candidacy is not only based on sexism (let's add a woman to steal women voters away from the other guy), but she is running on a platform of sexism. She doesn't want women to have equal pay with men. She doesn't want women to have a choice in their sexual health or to make appropriate arrangements to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And her approach to the office from day one has been is not one of equality, but of subservience. She embodies sexism.

The charges of sexism leveled against the media are truly ridiculous. The Republicans spent all of yesterday making this allegation--for the media's depiction of Palin as inexperienced. Experience level is not an issue of sexism and they can't have it both ways: you can't claim Obama is inexperienced while saying that same charge against your candidate is out of bounds. Please.

So here it is. The truth. Sexism is about putting the needs of the dominant sex above the needs of the other(s). Sarah Palin represents that same arrangement, not just the status quo, but of the eating away at your rights and libirties. In short, the most sexist person in this campaign is Sarah Palin. And that's just sick.

And don't let her aww-shucks approach fool you--it's won her a lot of support already, regardless of her political positions. She is hungry for power and the ability to tell you what to do (or not do) in your home, your bedroom, and in your community at large.

The real Republican National Convention.

While there are occasional fireworks inside the hall, the real story is what is going on outside the convention. This is where protesters are being arrested illegally by the city police in conjunction with the FBI. Take a look at one person's account here.

Several of those assaulted and arrested by the police include journalists, including Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!.

Apparently the Republican Party can't handle protests that include peace and poverty rallies, so the police beat people up.

Nice work, McCain!

When is the time?

Michigan is my home. I have lived (nearly) my whole life in the state. But coming across this article about the fate of Great Lakes water has revealed something to me: that point of no return.

Do you ever wonder what the breaking point is? That point where you may have to call the game on account of rain? Put your hands in the air and say "I've done all I can?" For the United States, the issue of water is so obvious. It's about preservation and sustaining our resources. Full stop. The problem is that other interests come in and try to have some influence. The economic conditions in the Midwest, extraction technologies, and the buying habits of consumers seem to be all vying for more important. Their argument is not just which is more important (comparing apples to oranges), but they argue as if this has to be done. Think about it a second. Instead of dealing with the issues as they are, we pretend as if we can not only ignore those issues, but we can declare them less important than one company's bottom line.

We have been watching it with ANWR for years now, where the argument is framed this way: oil prices are high, so we should drill more. There is oil here and those mean environmentalists won't let us get it. We must stop them from driving our prices up with their foolish crusade to save polar bears. Only one company would get this contract, only a few new jobs would be created, only one or two year's worth of oil is introduced into the world economy, most of which won't appear for a decade. All of this greed and central impact (we would see a whopping $0 price break from this endeavor), with the environmental degredation, habitat destruction, and migratory path decimation are the cost and the people not only receive virtually no economic benefit, we have to pay for the ecological impact.

Great Lakes water is the same. Nestle, Pepsi, or Coke wanting to empty the lakes the way they are stripping aquafirs throughout the world is not only an unsustainable impact, but it is not about Midwesterners and Canadians being mean--its about standing up to what is important. Its about preserving 20% of the world's fresh water as we suck up the rest. There is a very real possibility that in the next few years one of the above companies will be able to raid the Great Lakes as if they had the right to do so. Unless we change are view--they will.

And when that day happens? Well, I've always wanted to spend time in northern Europe.

Damned if you do and if you don't

Sen. Barack Obama was in a tight spot about his choice of runningmate. The McCain camp was prepared to attack him for picking a liberal or a moderate, an old guy or a young one, a woman or a man, another minority or the white guy. They had all of these in their back pocket and were just waiting for the chance to use them.

To be fair, the public short list (not confirmed by the campaign, so it was all speculation) was three white guys and one white woman. Two of the men were moderates, whose only real appeal was that they were from supposed "swing" states. The woman (Kathleen Sebelius) was the popular governor of Kansas, and the other guy was Sen. Joe Biden.

In reality, the pickings for a VP were slim: Senators John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were out from the start, but for different reasons. Edwards is now too "tainted" by scandal and Clinton typifies the need for change. Regardless of any perceived need to broker a deal, Clinton would compromise Obama's ticket completely. But we've already covered that.

This is the real reason that pickings are slim: there aren't many high-profile Democrats that could help float the ticket. To suggest that Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine have any national reputation is absurd. Neither is a particular darling of the Democratic Party, nor is either particularly appealing to the base. The suggestion that either would work is more of Obama throwing a bone to the establishment than anything else in picking a party loyalist and moderate. Ms. Sebelius, on the other hand, was a truly intriguing pick. She was the second female to become governor of Kansas and provided a stunning upset of a Republican incumbent. She would have served as a truly historic VP choice and her positions would be popular with the base and moderates alike. But perhaps the ticket shouldn't be too historic...

So that really only left Biden. The most capable, recognizable, healthy, appealing option. He represents an Obama-style Democrat in being able to make some compromises for a greater victory, and is as politically mainstream as they come.

So here is the real issue: Biden doesn't "complete" Obama. The media is all over this "shrewd" move by Obama in picking a "balancing force" to the ticket and "shoring up a weakness". They look at it as Obama acknowledging a shortcoming or that he is tired of being beaten up about foreign policy: despite the fact that both Bush and McCain have actually adopted Obama's policy. Biden is another voice.

But the worst charge, which betrays the media's lack of understanding, is that Biden is the "ultimate insider", the current description du jour. Discussing the need for change in Washington as if Washington has always been bad not only misunderstands the argument, but seems to ignore the subtext: the post-Reagan years, and specifically, the Clinton Democrats and Bush Republicans, are the true problem. Biden not only pre-dates Bush and the Clintons, but Reagan as well. When "conventional thinking" is bandied about in this discussion, it isn't everybody in Washington, it is pro-corporate agenda, deregulation, and perpetual tax-cutting that represent the 90's and 00's that is truly at issue. It is the offspring of "trickle down" that need to be kicked out of control. In this way, Biden is more appealing that Clinton, but he is still "tainted", if you will. In this way, Biden represents, not an equal or superior, but an inferior--someone that has made mistakes and has had a lot of time to make those mistakes.

Is Biden the best bick? Of these options, maybe. But he was the only real option. In a world where the media's favorite thing is to find the bright, new, shiny toy and then tear it to pieces, scraping and clawing away, smashing it with a hammer in hopes of opening it up, and then staring at its coveted guts in hopes of gleaning some insight, Obama's pick was going to cause too much criticism. Now let's see if McCain's choice gets a fraction of that criticism.

Check out the 'Blowback'!

As of this morning, my letter to the editors of the Los Angeles Times was printed on their website, in the "Blowback" section. Take a look at it here.

The gist of it is this: it seems as if the LA Times was attempting to shoehorn the issues of the Anglican Communion into the "Culture War", a one-sided crusade on the part of the Bill O'Reillys of the world to change the way we think. In truth, the church is nowhere near this stuff and the theological and missional discussions of the church shouldn't be relegated to the smut-driven Right-Wing trash-talkers.


Perhaps you should just read the letter yourself!

Bishops return!

The bishops have returned from Lambeth. The Record, the newspaper for the Diocese of Michigan, conducted an interview with the three bishops of the lower peninsula of Michigan, found here.

I am very hopeful for where the church is in the midst of our economic adversity.