Futures, Declarations, Promises, Trust, and Betraying Teh Gay

Barack Obama in New Hampshire (Jan 4, 2008). Click for LARGE size.
photo Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images.

What I Trust Obama For
(and why he gets NOTHING from me)

I don't remember if I contributed to Obama or not during the General election; I don't think I did but I may have, after the primary races were settled. Mostly my contributions went to key House and Senate races where I felt my money would have more of an impact.

I never kidded myself about Obama; it was always clear to me, and I always said to my readers at Group News Blog, even though it pissed off a solid 60-70% of them, that at best, Obama was a middle-of-the-road politician, that his campaign rhetoric was just that, slogans and feel-good imagery designed a) to get him elected (7.2% & 192 electoral points), and b) to let everyone place their own meaning on simple non-commitments without actually committing him or his future administration to any real positions. Further I said, the commitments he does make he will not interpret as actual promises but as declarations, as futures he intends to bring forth, but never as specific promises.

Obama doesn't make promises; that is not the way in which he speaks. The "Presidential Voice" is always that of Declarations, never that of Promises or even that of Assessments and Assertions (which as a former College Professor Obama is familiar with...except that when he went there, as he did a few times on the campaign trail -- *coughLevittown--Bittergatecough*, it got/gets him into trouble.)

Therefore Obama speaks in Futures, in Declarations. Any promises he makes must always be understood, be listened to inside the possible futures Obama is bringing forth in this moment, and like all futures, Obama knows that Futures are Probabilities, not certainties. Some Futures may be more probable than others. Some Futures may be strongly more likely, almost dead-certain. But in a moment, everything can change due to an unexpected event from a change in the market to an assassination to war or peace breaking out to a natural disaster. There are moments when certain Futures are possible and other moments when those Futures are not...and these moments are not under the control of anyone. Life comes at us as it comes. We can prepare; we can be in the moment ready to act. But Life, she just happens.

Obama -- and any student of history -- knows this in their gut. Thus Obama is ready, always, to dance from one set of possible futures to another set of possible futures, and is never truly committed to any one specific set. Instead he is looking in every moment to bring forth, to produce what he considers the best, the most open (in his world, what he considers "best" and open"), the best possible set of futures which fit HIS standards, given the circumstances and politics, the resources and the economics, the weather and the world situation and all that jazz, of THIS moment. Ten days, ten hours, ten months from now, Obama will be working to produce a different -- yet clearly related -- set of futures, which is related not just by the way the world and the political, economic, and all that jazz circumstances have changed, but also which is clearly related by Obama's commitment to his own standards,e.g.: none of his possible futures will allow television advertising of cigarettes, some will have public option health insurance and some will not, and likely only in very few of them will Obama ever do more than give lip service to civil rights for gay marriage or anything Teh Gay.

Why? Because Obama doesn't give a flying fuck for Gay Rights. Regardless of the words which come out of his mouth, the futures he declares, the soaring words he speaks, he and his administration and the DNC have made ZERO ACTIONS consistent with these futures. Thus, bullshit. Bullshit across the board.

Here's the good thing. This bullshit means we can trust Obama in this domain. No longer any need to get crazy about it. Seriously.

I trust Rush about gay rights as well. I trust that Rush will absolutely, given the opportunity, fuck me, fuck my daughters and son, fuck my mother, fuck my friends, and fuck everything I and my family and colleagues stand for in the domain of rights for people who are GLBT. Rush is absolutely trustworthy in that he WILL fuck all of us over given any opportunity in this domain. Even more, Rush will go out of his way to CREATE opportunities to fuck us when it comes to gay civil rights. He's a scorpion; he stings. It is who he is; it is what he does. I am not upset about this; it does not freak me out. I don't waste any time being crazy wondering where Rush stands or damming the Gods that Rush is this way. Water is wet, rocks are hard, Rush fucks teh Gay, and this is how it is. *shrugs* I trust completely that Rush is out to fuck me and act accordingly without it getting in the way.

After Maine, after this week's Fall 2009 election, I now know how to trust Obama with respect to Gay Rights. I have for myself -- and others will have to do this (or at least can do this) for themselves -- clearly separated the Declarations of possible Futures Obama keeps making (his speaking), from the Actions (his doing) that he and the entities he is accountable keep making.

Obama -- just like Rush -- I say, is absolutely trustworthy. Obama is a) trustworthy not to screw us, that is, he won't fuck us over. This first part is fairly weak. He'd give this one up and actually screw us over if need be. So best not to rely on this one too strongly. None the less, at least for now, Obama is trustworthy to not actively screw us. More importantly, Obama is also b) trustworthy to do nothing. This is for what he can be primarily counted on. No matter what Obama says, no matter what promises Obama makes or futures he invents, proclaims, or declares beautifully, Obama's actions over time lead me to be certain what Obama is trustworthy to do and all Obama is trustworthy and count-on-able to do in the domain of GLBT civil rights is nothing. We can count on Obama and groups under his control, when it comes to gay civil rights, to do jack-shit. Obama is trustworthy for that. You and I do not need to suffer or worry about what the President and DNC will do; we now have sufficient history that we can trust them...they will do—nothing. Period. Full stop.

Seriously, it is good to know this. Truly. It means we don't need to suffer trying in vain to get them to do something. It means we don't get upset afterward due to unfilled expectation having thought the folks who claimed we could count on would do something (and then they did it poorly, not at all, or screwed it up so badly one might suspect they sold us out intentionally) or should have done something.

See, it is truly silly to be upset at someone for not doing something or expecting someone to do something, when the grounded interpretation/assessment about them is, they are trustworthy for doing nothing. *laughs* So they did nothing... well Duh... Nothing is PRECISELY what they were trusted to do. I would never be upset at Rush for doing nothing. (Or at a cow for shitting in its stall. Cows shit. Have you ever seen a big pile of cow shit? [Click on photo at link to enlarge. *grins*] People make enormous sums of money dealing with cow shit. But first (to make the big bucks) you have to accept that cow shit is natural for the cow and part of life for the rancher.) Obama (in the domain of civil rights for gay people) is trustworthy to do—nothing. Rush... Hell, I'd be happy if that fuck did nothing. Because what Rush is trustworthy for is to fuck us over.

Upsets come when from unfulfilled expectations, thwarted intentions, and undelivered communications. In this case we primarily have unfulfilled expectations (the expectation that Obama would do what he promised/declared), which when done would handle the intent (which is thwarted and now, continues to be.) But the intent is a secondary thing. Communications are being delivered just fine, but positively and negatively. The upset here comes from the unfulfilled expectation.

That there is an expectation at all is because we -- you, me, everyone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, has a family member, a friend or loved person, colleague, or is in any way committed to the success of the GLBT community -- have been expecting the Obama team to deliver. We have believed they were trustworthy in the declarations and promises they made. Now we know better.

Knowing Obama, the administration and the DNC are trustworthy to do nothing, means that if I expect anything to be done, I know it's going to be other entities -- perhaps even my daughters and I -- who get the job done, as just happened in Washington State where my daughter and her pals worked their asses off campaigning. And won! Go Kyle, go her buddies. Good fracking job!!! Most of all, I know NOT to give a fracking penny, dime or dollar to Obama or the DNC. Because I do not EVER fund people who don't have my back. Not funding people who fail to support my goals is simple common sense.

I stopped funding NOW when they backed that slimeball Joe L. for reelect in CN, those gunkies, as well as writing off the DNC who sucked his ass while he crapped all over them. (And look how well it paid off; he's about to take a big steaming dump on all of us with the Health Care bill. Well done, Democratic Leadership. Good work.)

Now I know also to not fund Obama, even if he is the leader of my Party, as well as still to keep not funding the DNC. Again, why? Because they don't have our backs; they look at me and mine as vending machines. Screw them and their corporate donors whose teats they suck. What is now clear is Obama, the administration and the DNC would rather dance with corporate donors and try to get religious conservatives to vote for them (who won't, ever) than keep their word given in battle to the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Believing we have nowhere else to go, they are trustworthy to write off GLBT people, their familes, and the people who support them. Writing us off is up to them.

This is what is up to us...

I am not going to waste my energy or emotions getting angry or mad. To do so would be to damage who I am. I'm stronger and wiser than to waste myself getting angry with Obama and the fools he has advising him how to sell out his soul. Instead of getting angry, I'm simply walking away from Obama, the administration, the DNC, and everyone associated with them. I am going to donate my money, my time, and organize and blog, campaign and write, and give as much of myself, my family, my resources and energies as possible to people who DO have our backs, to people who are trustworthy down in the trenches. *waves to Al Franken and Alan Grayson*

I'm also going to tell everyone precisely why Obama and the DNC are on my shit list... because they are trustworthy to promise one thing, while doing another. They say they support Teh Gay, but what they really want is Gay Money while doing jack-shit for civil rights for ALL Americans. Fuck that, fuck them, fuck this.

Obama and the DNC get NOTHING from me -- no cash, no support, no good press, no volunteering, nothing -- till they not only speak great declarative Futures (which they're great at doing) but until they cease the hypocrisy -- UNTIL THEIR ACTIONS ARE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DECLARATIONS, WHEN IT COMES TO GLBT CIVIL RIGHTS, OBAMA AND THE DNC GET NOTHING FROM ME.

*smiles sweetly*

Trust is an assessment, grounded in Competence and Sincerity. 

Let me give you that again...

Trust is an assessment, grounded in Competence and Sincerity. The Obama administration's declarations (and promises) regarding gay civil rights are competent; they are not sincere nor were they made in sincerity. People and organizations who make declaration/promises from a place of competence while intentionally making insincere promises/declaring futures to which they are not committed, are assessed as CRIMINAL with respect to that domain of declaration and promises.

Why everyone is SO FREAKING PISSED at Obama regarding all this is simple. It is clear he and his team have intentionally used the Gay Community to raise campaign money for himself with no intention of fulfilling his campaign promise. This is a CRIMINAL act. Perhaps not legally (although perhaps), but absolutely socially. Barack Obama personally, and the Obama administration as a whole, have intentionally and deliberately violated, breached, betrayed their word, after already collecting -- repeatedly -- enormous campaign contributions which were given in exchange for the promise that Obama WOULD make gay civil rights a major priority, that he, Obama, would personally get this handled. And now we see it was all a lie. *sighs*

Obama took our community money and got himself elected. California was not possible, not possible without television commercials which would have cost (forced) Obama's campaign to (have to) pull TV spots and other major media buys from all over the country...which would have cost him electoral votes, and who knows what might have happened then without A-Gay Money and old-school Hollywood Support, hmmm? Plus every other GLBT flat-out breaking their piggy-banks open for Obama because he PROMISED a whole new world. He PROMISED.

We now know the Candidate, now President, made us a flat out CRIMINAL lie, a betrayal. (We won't get into parsing the other distinctions of how breaking a promise settles out. Just know that if someone is competent and insincere, linguistically people assess that kind of lie as CRIMINAL. Think Dick Cheney or Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon. Criminal betrayers, both of them. Competent liars, yet insincere in the promises/declarations they made.)

I trust the Obama Administration to do nothing for teh Gay. *shrugs* The made a cold-blooded determination it was less costly for them politically to take our money and do nothing than to take our money and keep their word. They lied and did so knowingly to over one-tenth of all Americans, said "Fuck You..." You're not even as valuable as 3/5ths of as an American. But please... we want your money and your vote.

It's a political calculus of the coldest kind. They figure we have nowhere else to go. Plus they've already got our money. Obama's already in office. What, they think, are we going to do? Throw a fit? Tell our Senators and Congresspeople to vote against the White House position on all the other bills we want? Piss on our own (well-tailored) shoes?

Obama thinks he's got our money and our votes and in addition, has managed to screw us over in broad daylight, thus gaining votes with middle America. (You know whose strategy this was. But Obama went along and he's the President, not Rahm.)

Until Obama, the administration, and the DNC stop talking about change and actually ACT on the change the promised, not one dime, not one bit of campaign support, nothing. We are DONE.

If they want me to trust them to something, they need to change their actions. But for right now, I trust them to do...

Nothing.

There's more...

At Last

(LOLObama created by little gator, not to be confused with The Littlest Gator)

At Last

When was the last time you felt like grown-ups were in charge of the country?

When did you last trust authority? I'm not talking about Questioning Authority -- for me and my cohort, at least, that's still a daily practice of rationality. But trust?

For me, it was when I voted for Bill Clinton as President, Ann Richards as Governor, and Glen Maxey (an out gay male liberal) as my District Representative all on the same day, back in 1990. It was the first time in my life I'd voted for people I trusted who WON. I was 35 years old.

I trusted Bill about as much as I trust Barack now -- that is, with reservations about their clear stance to the right of center. My expectations are similar. But oh, what a relief those expectations are, in comparison.

A good life, and access to happiness, I believe comes from allowing myself to feel all the emotions as they come along. Grief, fear, anger, and despair, feel 'em and let 'em wash through. And joy, relief, security, connection -- feel that just as deeply. I'm going to spend the day letting myself Feel.

Plus maybe Chicago-style deep-dish pizza for dinner.

There's more...

Car Repair

Starter for 1999-2003 Mitsubishi.

“I've got the Car Shop Blues...”

After lunch at the diner yesterday afternoon, the ignition turned over once.

Then... Nothing.

Had my car towed (AAA) to the repair shop at the top of the East Hill. Turns out my mechanic went out of business six to eight months ago, so I'm using the Goodyear shop. It appears to just be the starter, however when we got there it was too late to put it in the shop and tell for sure. A starter is about $150 on the Internet, so figure they'll charge me $175 plus (again, guessing) an hour's labor.

The real test will be if the Goodyear shop charges me for a new oil filter. See, you don't have to change the oil filter when you change the starter. It's possible to simply cover over the filter, thus keeping debris out while working. If instead Goodyear charges me for a new oil filter without asking first, it speaks to sloppiness or a willingness to run up the bill. (And no, I don't want them to do a lube and oil, thank you, nor have I given them permission to do anything other than fix the starter.)

We shall see. It's a question of trust. And honesty.

Before this car I had an Acura Legend which I absolutely loved, the most favorite car I've owned, ever. Which I drove into the ground I loved it so much. Simply could not accept it was long past its prime. Ended up with over 400,000 miles and still on the original engine (I got it at 171k.) The car still sits in my carport, one (perhaps two) tires flat. And the battery dead of course. It was the brakes which died. Completely. The final drive I coasted into the driveway very slowly, dragging my feet. Seriously.

The car in the shop now is a Mitsubishi (a 2000) which I've had two years, maybe three? My oldest, Avian, was dating the youngest son of one of Puget Sound's better car dealers. The father did me a real solid, putting me in a car which hasn't needed any repairs beyond routine maintenance since I drove it home.

This spring I'm selling my home in the suburbs and moving to Bellevue. (With all the kids off to college or moved out, I don't need this huge place anymore. I can get an apartment in Bellevue with an extra bedroom for when a kid wants to stay. That will be easy for a cleaning service to handle, and Bellevue is more central to my life now.) Shortly after I move it'll be time to sell this used car and buy another. Quite possibly through the same dealer seeing as how he did such a wonderful job last time. I'm planning on taking my time and letting him find me another Acura, hopefully a used Legend.

Thursday afternoon AAA showed up promptly, packaged my car for towing quickly, and hauled the car and me up to Goodyear rapidly. First-rate professionals. It was inside the four mile limit on the AAA Basic membership. Of course, there's also the 100 mile towing of the AAA Plus membership, which has saved my ass MANY times over the years. What I love about AAA is it's valid for the PERSON, not the car, so you can help the people you're with when they get in trouble (or when you're in a car which gets in trouble.) Other than condoms, birth control pills, two or three Plan B packs and a cell phone, a AAA Plus associate membership card (off of your membership) is one of the major gifts on the Mandatory list for a college-age daughter headed off to school. (All of the above except the birth control pills will be on my son's list.)

Now the question is, will Goodyear have the job done in time for me to get to my appointment with my hair stylist at 3:15 this afternoon. Or should I call at 8 am and reschedule for early next week. I need to have my hair done before my flight to New York City Wednesday night. Also, I have dry cleaning I was going to take in today which now I'm worried about getting done. Decisions, decisions.

Plus now I've been up all night, so I need to sleep. And eat, but I can't drive down to the diner and get breakfast, 'cause my car is in the shop. Grrrr.

Good morning everyone. It's Friday!

Open Thread on anything in this Post.

There's more...

Breaking: New York Times Calls McCain a LIAR

John McCain and Rick Davis (left). 2007. Stephan Savoia/Associated Press.

“Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel.”
Mark Twain

Yesterday McCain and his campaign attacked The New York Times, claiming McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, had not been a consultant to Freddie Mac or paid by them in years, and that The New York Times was in the tank -- liberal paper -- for Obama.

Big mistake. HUGE.

Not only is The Times running the story of Mr. Davis' firm taking $30,000 a month on Page 1 AND running the NEWS ALERT so EVERYONE will see the story, The Times also on Page 1 is running how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Translated NYT:

McCain is a LIAR. Remember the Keating Five? We do. Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager got $30,000 a month till weeks ago for helping destroy the U.S. economy and steal YOUR MONEY, HOME, PENSION, 401K, and REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO.

Then McCain and Davis LIED and tried blaming the press because they have nothing else left (they won't even let television cameras in the room when Palin meets with U.N. ambassadors, she's so incompetent; so CNN walked away.) The FBI are investigating Davis for his actions. We'd call both McCain and Davis assholes if we didn't have too much class.

Speaking of class, McCain has 13 cars, three of which aren't even American. (How many cars do you have?)

Call us liars will you? BITE ME.

We've been journalists almost as long as you've been alive, old man. If you weren't dying of cancer which you're also lying about, you might have remembered that, before being so stupid and short-tempered as to lie and attack us and think you had even a remote chance in hell of pulling it off.

Also, speaking of pulling it off... where IS Vicki Iseman?

The New York Times

McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac Through August

WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a remark by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the two people said.

They said they did not recall Mr. Davis’s doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than to speak to a political action committee of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the approaching midterm Congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis’s firm, Davis Manafort, had been kept on the payroll because of his close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis Manafort for the presidential campaign, but as an equity holder continues to benefit from its income. No one at Davis Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.

A Freddie Mac spokeswoman said the company would not comment.

Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign, did not dispute the payments to Mr. Davis’s firm. But she said that Mr. Davis had stopped taking a salary from the firm by the end of 2006 and that his work did not affect Mr. McCain.

“Senator McCain’s positions on policy matters are based upon what he believes to be in the public interest,” Ms. Hazelbaker said in a written statement.

The disclosure comes at a time when Mr. McCain and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, are sparring over ties to lobbyists and special interests, seeking political advantage in a campaign being reshaped by the financial crisis and the plan to bail out investment firms.

Mr. McCain’s campaign has been attacking Mr. Obama for ties to former officials of the mortgage giants, both of which have a long history of cultivating Democratic and Republican allies alike to fend off efforts to restrict their activities. Mr. McCain has been running a television advertisement suggesting that Mr. Obama takes advice on housing issues from Franklin D. Raines, former chief executive of Fannie Mae, a contention denied by Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign.

Freddie Mac’s payments of roughly $500,000 to Davis Manafort, the people familiar with the arrangement said, began in late 2005, immediately after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae disbanded an advocacy coalition that they had set up and hired Mr. Davis to run.

From 2000 to the end of 2005, Mr. Davis received nearly $2 million [ed: bold added] as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing. That status let them borrow cheaply, helping to fuel rapid growth but also their increased purchases of the risky mortgage securities that proved to be their downfall.

The payments that Mr. Davis received for leading the Homeownership Alliance were reported in Monday’s issue of The New York Times. On Sunday, in an interview with CNBC and The Times, Mr. McCain responded to a question about that tie between Mr. Davis and the two mortgage companies by saying that he “has had nothing to do with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.”

Such assertions, along with McCain campaign television advertisements tying Mr. Obama to former Fannie Mae chiefs, have riled current and former officials of the two companies and provoked them to volunteer rebuttals.

The two people with direct knowledge of Freddie Mac’s post-2005 contract with Mr. Davis spoke on condition of anonymity. Four outside consultants — three Democrats and a Republican, also speaking on condition of anonymity — said the arrangement was widely known among people involved in Freddie Mac’s efforts to influence policy makers.

There's more...

Let me give you that again, BOLD added...

From 2000 to the end of 2005, Mr. Davis received nearly $2 million [ed: bold added] as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing. That status let them borrow cheaply, helping to fuel rapid growth but also their increased purchases of the risky mortgage securities that proved to be their downfall.

On Sunday, in an interview with CNBC and The Times, Mr. McCain responded to a question about that tie between Mr. Davis and the two mortgage companies by saying that he “has had nothing to do with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.”

Four outside consultants — three Democrats and a Republican, also speaking on condition of anonymity — said the arrangement was widely known among people involved in Freddie Mac’s efforts to influence policy makers.

Again, short...

Mr. Davis received nearly $2 million to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status. That status let them borrow cheaply, helping to fuel rapid growth.

Mr. McCain [said Davis] “has had nothing to do with it since.”

Four outside consultants said the arrangement was widely known.

McCain IS A RECKLESS PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

McCain lives purely right now, now, now.

• He fails to remember previous lies,
• what really happened
• let alone what other people's opinions are.
• his staff lies also. Lies lies lies.
  
• McCain says ANYTHING to get people off his back NOW.

Imagine McCain in the Situation Room. Seriously.

Imagine McCain doing ANYTHING to get those fucking

• Russians.
• Iranians.
• Pakistanis.
• Indians.

Or anyone in the Southern Cone, someone with dignity who will not be pushed around. (There are at least two nations in the Southern Cone who have nuclear devices; we don't talk about it much. And two more who could build them within a few months if pushed. McCain will push them; Obama will not.)

McCain will do ANYTHING, say anything, promise anything, lie about anything.

John McCain is not trustworthy.

The New York Times called Senator John McCain (R-AZ) a LIAR.
Page 1 above the fold.

Give it a read.

There's more...

Money Erodes Trust: Lawrence Lessig at Netroots Nation

(Photo of Lawrence Lessig at Netroots Nation, 19 July 2008, by Wylie Maercklein)

Money Erodes Trust: Lawrence Lessig at Netroots Nation

Last night's local (Austin, TX) news was focused primarily on the impending approach of Hurricane Dolly, where it will hit landfall, and how it will affect Texas/Austin, especially in terms of weather and our terrible drought. I was intrigued, however, by a solid segment on the fact that Rita and Katrina both damaged oil production in the Gulf, with spills as well as delayed return to pumping and refining. The angle was whether this would, again (as it did that year) drive gas prices up. The intriguing part was that this information was a direct contradiction to the lie being floated around by Republican leaders right now that hurricanes don't result in Gulf oil spills.

I know you know this, but I have to say it: The Republican interest in expanding drilling (to previously protected ocean zones or in Alaska) has NOTHING to do with lowering the price of gas.

The price of gas is permanently up. We are in Peak Oil's mudroom. There may be minor fluctuations if we come up with alternative energy sources which reduce demand briefly, but any temporary vacuum will be rapidly filled. The party is over, time to help pick up the mess and think about next week.

The Republican interest in expanding drilling NOW is because the money to be made from this change will be immediate, unrelated to actual oil coming from the ground -- instead in futures, markets, and tax breaks. Money which will flow to the major corporate sharks already in energy and to their remora.

We instinctively suspect this because our governmental leadership accepts money from oil companies in order to be elected. We understand that money erodes trust. [Go here to Follow The Oil Money in our government.]

Trust was the basic message of the speech by Lawrence Lessig at Netroots Nation on Saturday, July 19. Jesse and I were there and listened to Lessig's launch of his web-based project Change Congress. Founded by Lessig and Joe Trippi, "Change Congress is a national movement that aims to end corruption in the United States Congress by reducing the distorted influence of money in Washington...[It] organizes citizens to push candidates to make commitments on the following issues: take no money from lobbyists or PACs, vote to end earmarks, support publicly-financed campaigns, and support reform to increase congressional transparency." (Quote from Wikipedia.)

Lessig is known as one of the founders of Creative Commons, as a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is currently a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. Prior to joining the Stanford faculty, he was the Berkman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and a Professor at the University of Chicago. He represented web site operator Eric Eldred in the ground-breaking case Eldred v. Ashcroft, a challenge to the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

His shift in focus, to address corruption in Congress, is good news. He began his speech by having us chant a mantra: "9%." We were called on to repeat this number at pertinent points during his presentation. Nine percent is the approval rating given Congress by Americans polled in a recent Rasmussen survey -- the first time ever it has dipped into single digits. This is a third of the dismal rating given Dubya the Dementor, for cripes' sake.

Lessig outlined several detailed, bipartisan examples of how the presence of money has eroded trust in governmental decisions made, whether or not it is actually the case that money distorted the outcome:

--The persistent belief by parents of autistic children that mercury in vaccines caused their child's illness, because the studies conducted to determine the truth had vaccine-maker money involved.

--The fact that Fannie Mae, a government entity, has made $900,000 in campaign contributions and has lobbied the very government of which it is ostensibly a part for special legislation.

--After the World Health Organization determined that the maximum intake of sugar in a healthy diet should be no more than 10%, the sugar industry successfully forced the U.S. standard to be set at 25% of the daily diet, a decision perceived as "bought and paid for", particularly since the World Health Organization declined to change their own standard.

--Hillary Clinton's 180 degree change on a vote about "regulating" credit card debt after she received contributions from credit companies.

--The recent revelation that the 94 House Democrats who recently reversed their previous votes and approved immunity for phone carriers who helped the National Security Agency carry out the illegal wiretapping program without proper warrants had received almost twice the dollar amount of contributions from Telco PACs than did Democrats who did not change their vote. Lessig is involved with MAPLight.org, the money and politics exposure group which offers detailed information about this particular vote here.

It is possible that in each of these instances, the insistence on the part of the decision-maker that financial interests played no role in the outcome is a sincere belief. Their belief, their intention is irrelevant. What is relevant is that public trust in the honesty of our legislation has evaporated, and the source of that disappearance is the presence of money.

I have my own example from the private sector to share here. During the late 1990s I worked in the medical records division of a large cancer clinic. One of the seven physicians there confided in me often. He told me that 80% of the income generated from the clinic was from medications, mostly chemotherapeutics. He said this was typical, and the mark-up was allowed because (a) chemotherapy is perceived as what actually cures or extends the life of patients being treated for cancer, and (b) the drugs themselves are so toxic they require extensive hazmat handling.

The large speciality hospitals you see popping up in more affluent areas always focus on a medical discipline where such enormous profits are possible, either because lobbying by Big Pharma insures drug prices are passed on to insurance/Medicare, or specialized tests and surgery are likewise billed at a high rate without government intervention. The proliferation of these hospitals are not linked to actual medical need.

In our clinic, as you can imagine, the pharmaceutic reps were thicker than dung beetles in a feedlot. They wanted a means of influencing medication selection by our docs beyond the usual post-it notes and ballpoints emblazoned with drug names. So, every single day of the week, one of these reps brought in lunch for all 40 of us who worked at the clinic. Sometimes we got breakfast as well. These were not just pizza and sandwiches, often they were elaborately catered meals. Everyday working day of the year.

One the physicians there was a medical ethicist and was very vocal in his opposition to this practice. He was outvoted by his practice partners, however, who maintained they could not possibly be influenced as to which medication to prescription by a plate of lasagna and a cold soda: They were medical professionals, after all. My doctor friend secretly agreed with the ethicist's position, but he was unwilling to deprive the staff of such a massive job perk. We never had to think about lunch. We simply walked to the break room, filled a plate, ate and left. We didn't even have to do clean-up.

The six physicians who agreed to the free lunch policy took turns being the guinea pig who would come to eat with us staff and let the drug rep bend their ear for a while. But I noticed a couple of things in short order. One is that of the two anti-emetic drugs then battling it out for market share, one provided much better lunches than the other -- so much better that we would ask each other with anticipation, "Is it going to be a (insert drug name here) day?" And, along with that, the drug rep who brought these superior repasts was stunningly beautiful, in that conventional heteronormative sense. I am usually rankly ignorant of what passes for the straight world's erotic posturing, but even I noticed that when she would lean into a doctor and speak to him in a soft, authoritative voice, the physician (all of them male) would appear to curl his toes and flare his gills. So to speak.

Anti-emetics are the medications that can determine whether or not a patient is able to endure chemotherapy. If you puke out your guts 12 hours a day, refusing to eat and becoming dehydrated, your chemotherapy will be stopped and that's it, jill. So they are viewed as almost as important as the chemo itself. My doc friend told me there was no discernible difference between the two main anti-emetics then on the market, not in efficacy, cost, or side effects. He kept a little tally to insure he prescribed them both equally. But after the particular lunches from one of these drugs became commonplace, I noticed it was much more likely to be prescribed by the other physicians. It's just what came into their head first, I'm sure.

In his speech, Lessig asked the rhetorical question, "How much of the legislation from our government is enabled by extortion?", and his answer is, "All of it." The only way to change this is with public funding of public elections.

At this point, Jesse leaned over to me and whispered "The Supreme Court has ruled that limiting campaign contributions is unconstitutional because they equate giving money with free speech. Lessig knows this, he's a lawyer."

Lessig made several other points:

--We have entered an era of socialized risk, privatized benefits.

--Our government is getting easy public policy questions wrong (like how much sugar in a healthy diet) because of the distortion money creates in how information is spread.

--The corruption of dependence on private fundraising is subtle and leads good people to do bad things.

--Reform will have to be bipartisan, a "purple" effort in order to be successful.

He then talked about what the Framers of our Constitution meant when they protected freedom of the press: "There was no New York Times; there was no Washington Post; there was no Wall Street Journal." The "press" which needed freedom was pamphlets. Some of these pamphlets were brilliant and world-changing (Tom Paine, anyone?), some of them were vicious lies, but any restriction on their speech would be destructive to democracy, and our nation's founders understood that. He compared the realm of pamphlets to the current blogosphere. We as bloggers are instrumental to solving the problem of trust.

From here, he moved into the goals and practices of Change Congress. Citizens and candidates are being requested to pledge support to any of these four reforms:

--Commit to take money only from individuals, no lobbyists or PACs
--Ban all earmarks
--Support reform which will increase transparency in government, especially Congress
--Support publicly-financed campaigns

Once every candidate has made public which of these reforms they support, Change Congress will seek to trap reform and fund reform. New steps being announced by Lessig that day included the creation of a blogger council; issuing a "blast" to Congresspeople requesting a commitment to reform from them and then posting those results on the Change Congress website; and expanding targeted donations. He asked that in the future, when any one of us makes a campaign contribution of any size to a Congressional candidate, we add 9¢ at the end. The meaning -- that of the 9% approval rating Congress currently hold -- will spread and have an impact.

In his conclusion, Lessig played a clip of Al Gore speaking in March 2008 (available as video and transcript at TED.com), replaying several times the segment where Gore states "We have to solve the democracy crisis."

During the brief Q&A, the second questioner repeated the same point Jesse had made earlier, about the Supreme Court ruling which appears to block public funding of elections. Lessig responded by acknowledging the law, but urging us to not view a single SCOTUS decision as the boundaries we must eternally live within (Dred Scott comes to mind).

-------------------------------------------------------

YouTube has, so far, only two small segments of Lessig's address:

"Trust is built in many contexts by keeping money off the table."



"Money changes outcomes."

There's more...

Public Service is NOT Charity Work

The Crucible with Daniel Day Lewis and Winona Ryder.
February 4, 2002. photo Barry Wetcher/Twentieth Century Fox.

“You Must SUFFER in the NAME of His HOLINESS”
“But I wanted a BLACK iPod. Frack!”

I dunno. You're buying the lastest gadgets, but then asking for money.
Bollox Ref

I'm not picking on Bollox Ref. This is one of those “attack the idea, not the person” moments. The above idea is about to be taken out. Bollox Ref on the other hand... no problem. *smiles*

Let's understood, then kill off this concept. It is an ENORMOUSLY destructive line of thinking and an ongoing barrier to raising funds for progressive causes.

The concept, said simply is this:

"Public service is charity work."

It sounds silly, but when you cut down to it, that's how many people think.

Call it the "Mother Theresa" VOW OF POVERTY life of public service model.

The penitent one takes a vow of poverty, turns over any and all income from all sources to charity, and works around the clock ceaselessly in a life of selfless service dedicating oneself to that which is being served. But it's okay, because of God.

In the Mother Theresa model, nothing is allowed but service. No money, no belongings (other than simple gifts made on potting wheels from Mother Earth, lovingly presented at a ceremony while school-children sing a song composed especially in honor of the occasion.) Of course, if the gift has genuine monetary value from a serious artist, one would naturally auction it at Sothebys and contribute the funds to “the cause.” If one suffered a little and wrote a short but heart-felt poem on tree-bark which was then posted on your blog to inspire your followers, so much the better.

Oh. My. Gods.

THAT IS NOT A FUCKING LIFE. (That is not a fucking life.)

No wonder the Republicans have been kicking our ass.

They have institutions, research grants, scholarships, third-party offers, 501C3s, 501C4s, and so goddamn many different institutes, universities and colleges, it isn't even funny.

From the moment Republican kids walk into college they are taken care of. An entire HOST of institutional choices are available to Young Republicans, all designed to make certain of two things:

1. Republicans get paid.

Got that? Republicans get paid.

Let me say it again. If there is one thing Republicans always make damn sure happens, it is this: they get fracking paid.

We could learn from them.

2. Republicans have careers.

I didn't say jobs. I said careers.

Upward fucking mobility. With benefits. Mentors. Fully-paid conferences, retreats and education. All designed to make certain they STAY REPUBLICANS (because that is where they get paid) and that they have Republicans all around them all the time, telling them how great it is to be a Republican.

Damn. Sounds sweet.

Furthermore... (and this is really a third point.)

3. Republicans get quoted.

Where? By other Republicans. It's a damn echo chamber. Hello, 'lo, 'lo...

But Republicans also get quoted by the traditional media, which is lazy enough to fail to mention such-and-such an institute is being funded by Adolph Coors who coincidently gives x million a year to hard right-wing causes.

Which gives the Republicans cred when they apply for the research position. Which gives them status when it's time for that University appointment. Fellowships. Book deals. Editorial appearances on radio and television.

Round and around and around.

Republicans take care of each other, always. They have each other's backs.

* * * * * * * * * *

Progressives?

We?

Don't make me laugh; it hurts.

We have bloggers who hold fundraisers to pay some blogging bills, yet even though it's our own damn money get looked at funny if we buy a fucking iPhone!

Let's get a few things clear.

Professional work requires professionals.

It requires hiring pros. It requires being professional.

I used to cringe when Steve - a fucking pro if there ever was one -- felt he had to justify himself every time he bought Jen something nice. While with his enormous talent and big donor base, he still lacked the funds to buy a world-class health care policy.

My dear friend Melanie died in part due to lack of health care.

No damn well-known Republican ever died because their job didn't have full benefits. And a 401K. And stock options with a golden-parachute kicker.

We have fundraisers. And people questioning our commitment.

STOP IT.

It's ugly and it's mean and it is wrong.

Donate, don't donate, it's your call. But be clear... We are not Mother Teresa and we don't follow that model.

We will use the money you give us wisely and carefully. We are using it overwhelming for items such as:

• hotels (probably)
• travel (maybe)
• basic business expenses
• back end blog costs
• stuff you'll find out about Tuesday

I wish we had more money so we could pay for more. As it is we're all having to pay too much of our own expenses to suit me. But we do that and don't complain. Because we all believe in public service and we believe in America.

That the four of us, er, six of us now with Evan and TLG are able to afford to pay for our own expenses (and buy iPhones if we want) is what has kept Group News Blog up and running. We've been up for a year and this is the first time we've ever asked anyone for a nickel.

Why? Because I respect you too much to do this any other way.

Let us be blunt. Jen put the keys to the kingdom in my hands. Before I'm going to ask y'all to give us money, I had to be sure you thought what we were giving you was worth it. That takes time and trust. Traditionally it takes a year.

So here we are.

From the donations pouring in, you trust us.

You've read our posts. You know we're the real deal. You know we're not nuns or monks. If we get the chance to have a good time, we will. Probably not with GNB funds simply because there aren't enough of them to use them that way. But if there was, I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty having a good meal and buying the gang a nice bottle of wine on the company nickel. (I don't drink; with my meds it could kill me.)

So...

My point is, each of your bloggers contribute enormously to Group News Blog:

• financially with actual money in various forms and ways,
• editorially by writing posts and comments as well as emails,
• technically each within our own specialties, and
• physically through giving hundreds or even thousands of hours of time and energy.

What we do with your financial donations is... We use them wisely.

We have great lives which we're happy to live. We ask you to contribute financially because we can not afford to fund -- nor frankly, should we -- the expenses of a serious journalism business which is growing and expanding.

Mother Theresa was a Saint and she practiced holy orders.

Group News Blog is a business and we practice journalism.

Being a progressive liberal and a journalist doesn't foreclose owning cool toys.

Please continue donating -- $100, $75, and $50 dollars.

Thank you for your support.

There's more...

What Price The Quest?

“We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious.”

As we knock loose teeth and shatter limbs and joints during our “pre-season” figuring out who's going to start for our side in the “big game”, it seems our opponents have already made a choice of champion. So while we kick our own asses grabbing at the fleeting thrill of Varsity glory/ avoiding the agony of JV ignominy, there he stands in the tunnel—the other team's “choice”, awaiting us. Awaiting America.

An immensely flawed “choice”.

Dangerously flawed, in fact.

Yes, I said dangerously flawed. And there's not a whit of hyperbole in that phrase.

Let's dig into the phrase itself for a second though—shall we?

dangerous (dān'jər-əs)
adj.
1. Involving or filled with danger; perilous.
2. Being able or likely to do harm..

----------------------------------

flawed (flô'd)
adj.
1. Imperfect, in an often concealed way that impairs soundness.

If you could put a dictionary-style picture next to that phrase that would sum it up, you couldn't find a more perfect one than the photoshop mash-up that heads this post. John McCain—as the quest-twisted Gollum from “Lord Of The Rings”. He is the GOP's champion. Their standard-bearer. This time-and-disrespect gnarled man who the very pursuit of the “golden ring” of a collective, national pat on the back has grossly disfigured.

Not externally disfigured...but soul-deep. Heart-deep. Core-deep.

When a person allows his sense of values—hard-core right and wrong to be so eroded that it is but a chip to be tossed onto the pile in trade for prestige...when a person will push his self-respect across the table and cheaply barter it for a chance at something he doesn't need, but his ego craves—you are dealing with a dangerously flawed individual.

Let's look at him again...John McCain.

Now, you might think of that image as cruel, or snarky...but I put him and Gollum together because I can think of no better way to visually represent what has happened to this man than to see him as this creature—simultaneously sad, pitiful, quest-addled, and yes, dangerous.

Read a little on Gollum and try not to bruise your lap from the jaw-dropping irony:

Originally known as Sméagol, Sméagol was later named Gollum after the guttural, choking, coughing noise he made in his throat. His life was extended far beyond its natural limits by the effects of possessing the One Ring. His one desire was to possess the Ring which had enslaved him. He pursued the ring for 76 years after having lost it to Bilbo Baggins.

During his centuries under the Ring's influence, he developed a sort of split personality: "Sméagol" still vaguely remembered things like friendship and love, while "Gollum" was a slave to the Ring and would kill anyone who tried to take it. In The Two Towers, Samwise named the good personality "Slinker" (for his fawning, eager-to-please demeanour), and the bad personality "Stinker" (for obvious reasons). The two personalities often quarrelled when Gollum talked to himself (as Tolkien put it in The Hobbit, "through never having anyone else to speak to") and he had a love/hate relationship with himself.

“His desire was to possess the (brass) ring which had enslaved him”.

“He developed a sort of split personality”.

“His fawning, eager-to-please demeanor, and the bad personaliity”

Hmmmmm. Let's connect the historical dots, shall we?

The Senator and candidate came from a family of Navy officers—his father and grandfather being Admirals actually, and the first father-and-son to achieve four-start ranking, no mean feat. He would also take to the military, albeit with less-successful results. He was renowned as a “red-ass”—rebellious and rambunctious at the Naval Academy, he accumulated so many demerits per year (over 100) that he was enshrined in the infamous “Century Club”—a rare assemblage of ne'er-do-wells who piled up fuck-up after fuck-up. He blanched under authority and developed a bad reputation for it—while simultaneously trying to measure up to the family's Naval officer tradition.

He would graduate nearly at the bottom of his academy class—894th out of 899 cadets.

The man...was a callow, daddy-addled, headstrong Tom Cruise early-90's movie character come to life (Top Gun, A Few Good Men, Days Of Thunder) with repeated incidents of reckless derring-do, narrow, near-death escapes and wild living.

And then, he was off to Vietnam where his ability to be in the middle of freaky incidents would follow him like a hard, film-noir shadow, and then...he was captured by the VietCong after his A-4 Skyhawk was shot down. His body, broken badly in the ejecting from his shot-to-pieces plane (he broke both arms and a leg) would be further savaged as they bayonetted him, shattered his arms again and again, bound him, tortured him, beat him and to sunder his mind, solitary confined him.

I don't want to even think of the nightmares this man must have. They wrecked him body and soul for five-and-a-half years—sometimes getting the mayhem up to three beating a week for extended periods of time. His spirit...would eventually give—as pretty much anyone's would under that sort of onslaught and he painfully signed a statement written by his captors agreeing with their depiction of the U.S. as an imperial, invading power, calling out himself and his fellow members of the U.S. military.

Understand that this was a third-generation Naval Officer doing this, “(dishonoring of) his country, his family, his comrades and himself by his statement.”

He would eventually rebound and withstand later pressures by his torturers, but the die had been cast, and the spotless run of the two previous generations of McCain “excellence” would sadly end there. He would come home. He would see his broken body fixed as best as it could be. But in spite of his heroism and gumption, the landscape had changed in his absence. There would be dinners and photo-ops with hawkish politicos, but the broad-based respect he craved would not come. There would be no third-generation McCain Admiralty.

Life would grow fragile. A marriage would end after several affairs and a final, advantageous liaison with a wealthy, connected daughter of industry as his career in the armed services petered out (He'd retire as a captain). He'd fallen in with a political circle as a Navy liaison to the Senate and would then curry favor in his now-new wife's family's business circles as a base to launch his own political career from. He'd parlay this into a career as a member of the House of Representatives, and eventually onward when he would be elected Senator in 1986. He was, “a comer”, a close friend of President Reagan who'd embraced him upon his return from Vietnam, and on his way upward when he hit the road-abutment that was his involvement in the “Keating Five” Savings and Loan scandal that effectively ended the careers of four of the five—the survivor being McCain alone.

What saved him? A canny ability to play nice with the political press and speak with a patina of bluntness. Exhibiting in essence...a “fawning, eager-to-please demeanor.”

That would garner him a “reputation” among the press cognoscenti as a “Maverick”, unafraid of what his words and actions would cause. The fabled “Straight Talk”. And he would appear to buck just enough trends (but never really follow through) to continue that facade right up to his master plan—his claiming of the ultimate respect, or “his desire was to possess the (brass) ring which had enslaved him”.

The Presidency of the United States.

It is here, during the primary season of that 2000 Presidential election that McCain would again find his lifelong quest for respect thwarted and his very soul—his service, his patriotism, his sanity, and his family ripped to shreds by his GOP opponent George W. Bush, and the Republican hierarchy who came to dislike him for not toeing the line 100% with its conservative values.

They trashed him for abandoning veterans on POW/MIA issues and having ”come home from Vietnam and forgotten about us.”—using a trotted-out, and sketchy veterans activist to deliver the brutal message.

They then smashed him as a traitor, using his torture-obtained statement in Vietnam as a weapon against him.

And then, they attacked his family—push-polling , faxing, flyering all of South Carolina, a key primary state with rumors of his being insane (due to his POW ordeal) wife's being a drug addict, and his having fathered a Black child out of wedlock—a brutal, but effective lie playing on his having adopted a non-white daughter from Bangladesh.

His campaign would never recover from that assault and Bush would triumph in that election—with a bit of help from the Supreme Court, voting irregularities and some bused-in hooligans in Florida. And as a terror-addled populace and war-crazed GOP rallied around the fear-mongering Bush—amplifying his power many times over, and freezing out any sort of “Maverick” opposition, something terrible happened to John McCain.

His lifelong quest for respect would lead him to repeat and sadly compound the one thing that had haunted him for thirty years.

He would again embrace a vicious tormenter. Unabashedly. And this time...literally.



The man and operation that dragged his patriotism and military service through the mud, slagged his wife, abused his child as a campaign weapon and play to racism, and then...effectively called him insane he was now practically fellating...for a bit of blessing for future considerations in that infamous “quest”. A trade of one's core integrity, a heaping scoopful of innate self-respect—handed over to the man and machine that tried to destroy him.

If that folks, is not “dangerously flawed”, my God...what in heaven's name is?

But it gets worse. Much worse.



John McCain, who once said after his ship-board near-death on the U.S.S. Forrestal, “It's a difficult thing to say. But now that I've seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I'm not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam.” would say mere weeks ago about the idea of the U.S.'s being in Iraq for an extended period of years, “Make it a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea …we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me.

Those are stunning words from a man who spent half a decade in a POW camp as a result of fighting a war we still can't justify today. It shows a sad broken-ness in the man. An inability or worse, an unwillingness to connect reality with the things he's seen, felt and still has the physical scars from. And that sad “broken-ness” was displayed for us all a mere 72 hours ago when Senator McCain—a victim of some of the most painful-to-rehash torture that any living American could ever speak of, did a 180º degree turn—a smart, spit n' polish about-face on his previous, well-documented stance AGAINST the use of torture against enemy combatants in the well of the Senate during a crucial vote on a bill outlawing the heinous acts.

Senator John S. McCain voted AGAINST outlawing torture.

He okayed it.

In November of 2007, he was against it—so much so that he wrote legislation outlawing torture—a stance he'd held ever since returning from Vietnam, saying to Kwame Holman of PBS's Newshour at the time:

“First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence because under torture, a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy, if not in this war, then in the next.”

---------------------------------------------------------

“If we inflict this cruel and inhumane treatment, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.”

This man, who remains unable to raise his arms above his shoulders, and came home with legs so torture-wrecked that he could not bend his knees without the aid of multiple operations. Bayonet wounds to his stomach and feet. Teeth knocked out and a shoulder busted to bits like a stale fortune cookie. All of this at the hands of his brutal captors.

And now, because it is politically expedient as a wingnut stance during election season, he suddenly, cravenly embraces torture...just as he physically embraces the morally diminutive “man”—the President who signed off on it.

To curry favor with a party that in many quarters hates him.

A party run by people who for the most part are actual cowards who ran like light-struck roaches from serving in the war he sacrificed the health of his body and a bit of his soul to. His courage-measured lessers—men who couldn't put up with a tenth as much as he did, were somehow able to—without the threat of physical pain, mindfuck him into doing their bidding. To the point where he effectively sold off, like some internal organ he could semi-live without, to a wealthy, willing-to-buy patron—one of his core beliefs—in the inherent evil of torture.

What would you say of a man—no...a person asking you to trust him or her with the powers of the highest office in the land who would turn on his heel, and for a shitty little pat on the back, debase himself before the people who denigrated his daughter, slandered his wife, called him crazy, and then totally cede a personal principle the he need only look at his scarred body to realize it's terrible impact?

You would say that man is “dangerously flawed”.

Let me paraphrase Henry Fonda's “William Russell” character in the 1964 electoral politics film “The Best Man” in these words to Senator McCain—respectfully sir, “We can't let you be President.”

This isn't about simple horse-trading or deal-cutting. That's part and parcel of the life behaviors of a political animal. No...this is about willfully giving up every shred of your self-respect for a chance—just a lousy fucking chance at a brass ring you don't even know why you “need”. You've allowed yourself to be twisted, bent, mutated into something other than the relatively clear thinking human being you were. You're a creature that will give over anything and everything—family, integrity, self-respect to get at something you crave.

You...are Gollum. And you don't care how hideous, creepy or disgusting you're going to make yourself look in your pursuit of this “quest”. Something has totally broken deep inside you, Senator—something key, something intrinsic to living a decent life that no longer functions as it should. For that reason alone—beyond the retrograde politics you wanly espouse, and the bottom-dwellers you trawl with nowadays, you are NOT fit for the office of President.

Just. Not. Fit.

I am not calling you crazy. But I am saying that anyone who makes the decisions you have of late cannot be trusted with the affairs of state. You have no scruples. No balance. No sense of proportion, right or wrong, or a moral compass that works as it should. The decades-long and just as long, un-fulfilled quest for a plurality of Americans' “respect” on your terms has damaged you deep within. You are...a danger.

Long, futile quests can do that to a man. History and literature are riddled with such tales—Ahab and that damnable white whale, Nixon and his psyche-twisting pursuit of the White House and his going further 'round the bend—fracturing the very Constitution to keep it. But I suppose the one that best captures it is the one depicted in the film The Bridge On The River Kwai, where ironically enough after Sir Alec Guinness's driven POW camp detainee Col. Nicholson has selfishly sacrificed the lives of countless fellow prisoners in his crazed, perfectionist building of the infamous bridge at the behest of his captors, he himself meets his end—amidst the bodies of his co-horts as the bridge—the quest itself—is ultimately destroyed. A fellow officer, Major Clipton comes upon the terrible scene—seeing nearly everything laid to harsh, senseless waste. Lives, souls and that...quest, and he shakes his head and utters the film's classic final words that sum it up perfectly.

Words the Senator from Arizona if he has a shred of self-awareness left, hears as a whisper in the back of his mind based on knowing the damage of his feckless trading-off of his integrity. And if he hasn't that self-awareness anymore, it means he can't hear the words—but they ring doubly true as that “deafness” merely verifies them that much more—if not to him, then to we who look on, like “Kwai's” disgusted Major Clipton.

“Madness...Madness.”

There's more...