New York Times

It's too bad all the really critical journalism is relegated to the print media and, sadly, "The Daily Show". If you haven't read this yet, read it now:

NYT: Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

Vendettas, hiding e-mail conversations in private accounts, cronyism, demanding resignations as a test of loyalty ... hmm, sounds an awful lot like someone else we know.

Gloria Steinem op-ed

I know, I know ... the people who are willing to listen to someone like Gloria Steinem are not the voters we need to worry about. But her op-ed - "Palin: wrong woman, wrong message" - is rather interesting.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

I find her words hopeful, but worry that it's just the desperation of a drowning man clinging to a forlorn hope.

How low can they go?

I don't think I can say anything that hasn't already beaten to death on Twitter and in the rest of the blogosphere, but I'd like to highlight something:

Until tonight, no candidate has used graphic images from 9/11 for partisan benefit.

Yes, the fearmongers - especially Giuliani - love to trot out 9/11 as often as they take a breath. But not until tonight was anyone so crass as to use such a vivid portrayal of the awful events of that morning.

That's a new low for American politics - co-opting mass murder to get elected.

BlahBlahBlah ... are you getting enough ketchup?

I tried to listen to Gov. Palin's speech. I really did. But when she started trotting out all the tired old right wing rhetoric, all I could hear was:

Blah blah blah death tax blah blah big government blah blah I think you're not getting enough ketchup, Jim blah blah forfeit blah blah ya know, ketchup has natural mellowing agents blah blah.

Her sing-song, nasal delivery reminds me so much of Sue Scott's performances in the Prairie Home Companion "Ketchup Advisory Board" skits that I had a hard time actually hearing what she said. On the other hand, looking at the transcript of her speech the Republicans posted I can see there's nothing in her speech we haven't heard time and time again from all those right wing "Washington insiders" she derides.

Meet Sumi!

Sumi has decided we are worthy of gracing our household with her presence. She's about 2 years old, loves chasing toy mice and batting at fingers, and has already claimed the foot of our bed as her territory. Her name means "disappear" in Portuguese. She earned that name from her former people because she's so good at hiding (as we've already discovered).

Umm, like, what's my job again?

In an interview last month on MSNBC, Gov. Palin said:

As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?

What? We covered that in, what, the fourth grade? I guess I should have expected ignorance from her given her politics. But damn, that's a new low.

This is the person the Republicans want a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

What are they thinking?

Sen. McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is baffling. Is he really so clueless as to think that Gov. Palin can just step in and take over for Sen. Clinton in the eyes of the voters who supported her during the primary election?

I find it highly condescending that the Republicans thing she can presumptuously claim the votes of Clinton's followers just because she doesn't have a Y chromosome. Palin's politics and philosophy are 180 degrees opposed to Clinton's. She's a right-wing fundamentalist with a pretty face - a perfect "trophy wife" to stand next to McCain and parrot whatever her wingnut handlers give her. It's an insult to the intelligence of Clinton supporters like me to think they're interchangeable.

I'd like to think the voters are smart enough to see the difference, but I've also been told "We're supposed to vote against X, aren't we? The TV told us so." So who is going to turn out in November? The voters who are intelligent enough to look beyond the superficial or the voters who do what the TV tells them to do?

Why should I vote for Obama?

I'm pissed. Senator Obama's vote today in favor of the FISA bill has completely erased whatever goodwill I might have had for him.

OK, all you Obama fans out there, here's your chance. Tell me why I should vote for the man who just voted in favor of further eviscerating the 4th Amendment and my civil rights.

Don't bring the boogeymen of the Republicans and McCain into it. I'm not looking for reasons to vote against him or his party. I already have plenty of them. I'm looking for reasons to vote for a candidate.

Wrong wrong wrong!

I was disappointed when I heard about the Supreme Court's decision yesterday overturning Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. Not surprised - after all the Court is home to Antonin Scalia - just disappointed. On the other hand, I was surprised to hear they chose to rule against capital punishment for rapists. While I am all for coming down extremely hard on perpetrators of sex crimes, I do not think killing people for their crimes is appropriate punishment. I wouldn't have believed the Roberts Court would have delivered a decision limiting the use of capital punishment.

In all, a mixed day in the news yesterday. This morning, however, I was outraged to hear the latest statement from Barak Obama regarding these two decisions.

Those of you who know me probably know that I'm pretty far left on the political spectrum. I have never voted for a Republican in my life. Unless the Republicans go through a complete reversal of direction, I have no intention of doing so in the future. I feel it is a completely morally bankrupt party that is leading our nation toward a totalitarian police state. Which is why I found Obama's statements today so disturbing.

Senator Obama's statement that he agreed with the Court's decision to overturn the handgun ban was disturbing enough. I could forgive him for it even if I disagree. But when he proceeded to say that he opposed the Court's decision regarding capital punishment, I was shocked and appalled. Did I just hear Obama agree with Scalia? Did he just place himself to the right of the most conservative Court in decades?

To top if off, he expresses support for FISA. Oh, don't worry Senator, I wasn't using those civil rights anyway. After all, I'm a loyal law-abiding citizen who has nothing to hide. So please feel free to tap my phone and read my mail.

No no no! Just when I thought we were going to finally reverse 8 years of the race to the Right, the Left's candidate goes and does this?

America's Democratic Collapse

Wow. This is an amazing speech made by author Chris Hedges last month: America's Democratic Collapse

Most of what he has to say I've seen elsewhere, but Mr. Hedges does a great job of piecing it all together in a cohesive whole that is both powerful and frightening. Considered separately, things like no-bid contracts, warrantless wiretaps, and the shift in measurement of inflation and unemployment. When put into context as a cohesive whole, however, a horrifying picture of growing totalitarianism starts to emerge.

Intuitively - I'm the intuitive thinker in the household, A is the logical one - I've felt that A and I are standing astride a widening chasm between "have" and "have not" for quite some time. We have been very very fortunate to keep a strong enough toehold on the "have" side when so many of our friends in the past few years lose theirs and have started to fall in. Mr. Hedges' speech confirms to me that widening chasm really does exist, and that it is likely a result of intentional action by an extremely small and powerful group of people.

There is this little voice in the back of my brain chiding me, however. Is the fact that Mr. Hedges' words match what I'm already thinking what makes it seem so "right"? Is he telling me, in a way, what I want to hear? Or is the fact that his points resonate so strongly because they are true? I'd like to think I'm intelligent enough to know the difference and that it is the latter. But even if it is the former, would it change anything we need to do to fix what's wrong? Probably not. We still need to repeal the so-called Patriot Act. We still need to stop fighting an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. We still need to reverse the flow of power away from the average working citizen toward the corporate elite.

Ugh. That's a daunting list. It's going to take more than turning out to vote to, in the oft-quoted words of Gandhi, be the change you want to see in the world. Where to begin?