Honesty will get you disqualified

There's a very sad and ruinous Catch-22 going on in our politics these days...though it perhaps has always been there. No one candidate (or even their entire team of advisors) can have an answer (especially the right answer) to all questions/issues/problems they are or will be confronted with. But that certainly doesn't keep all of them from pretending to. Indeed, some supporters expect this of their candidate, and even more so of the candidates they don't support. So, if a candidate attempts to take the honest and lonesome path and admits to not having enough knowledge on a given subject, or just flat out doesn't know an answer, they are immediately judged as insufficiently experienced and therefore completely unqualified for the office they seek. Seeing this as political suicide, the candidates instead pretend to know everything about everything, which of course makes them look foolish to the observers who choose to stay connected to reality. The trick is to make yourself look more informed and honest than ignorant and dishonest. This is what we've fallen to. How do we climb back out of this to a higher ground? ...Can we?

The Sleeper President

Here's a wacky idea for an intrigue novel or movie...

A radical-religion terrorist organization with sleeper-cells in the U.S. selects, preens, and successfully supports one of their own to run for POTUS, under the guise of being a nice, eloquent, educated Christian. Against all odds, and with a rather shrouded and somewhat suspicious upbringing, he is able to climb his way up through elite higher education, then oddly veers away from the highly lucrative careers that such credentials are used for. Instead, our intrepid character moves into local, then state and eventually federal office to enjoy a short term as Senator before launching into his presidential campaign. Having a complete lack of executive experience, or any real political experience to speak of, he covers for that by simply being a minority, which wins him significant unwaivering support from those who see that as an over-riding benefit in itself. Once he secures the Oval Office, he then unleashes his sleeper initiatives, covertly and with deniabily of course. With the power of the Office and his supporters behind him, he brings down disabling havoc on the country's financial, energy, military and other critical systems, thereby setting it up for his overseas co-horts to come and have their way with the U.S. --the Great Satan.

Fortunately, this is total fiction, and could never actually be pulled off. ...Right?

Candidate Clinton: Independent

Prediction, June 3, 2008:
Faced with the likelihood that Hillary will not be able to sway sifficient delegates over to her, driven by her all-consuming hunger to take the Oval Office she will choose to leave the Democratic ticket and take up the fight as an Independent, striking a pose as the Moderate candidate.

Regardless, McCain will win the election.

McClelland: Hero or Hack?

Scott McClelland's tell-all book, What Happened, according to its author, is an attempt to change Washington politics for the better. The argument goes that the partisan bickering and undercutting must stop so that we can return to the way our capital should be run, and hopefully this book will contribute, even in some small way, towards that end. Some conclusions must be drawn from this posturing:

1. In the author's estimations, it will be well worth all the massive damage inflicted on the still sitting war-time president, by his enemies around the world using this fresh ammunition against Bush and the administration, if in the end his book helps even just a little bit to reverse some of our political divisions.
2. The author would have us believe that it is merely coincidental that the book is released in the very midst of a pivotal national election campaign. A time in which the absolute last thing any engaged member desires is reconciliation with the other side...let alone any within the same side.
3. He would have us believe that the sliver-thin difference between his precise wordings, and the accusations they are easily turned into by the other side, are unfortunate misinterpretations.
4. The author believes our political divisions are unhealthy, and need to be repaired, and that such a goal can actually be achieved and measured.
5. The book focuses on poor-judgement decisions made by the president and his advisers, and that those mistakes need to be rehashed and analyzed so as to properly learn and avoid them next time.

One must conclude that Mr. McClelland is incredibly naive, or uncontrollably altruistic, or shamelessly greedy, or unfaithful to his allegiances, or possessed of inconceivably poor judgement himself, or incapable of seeing the danger of his Monday-morning observations. I must conclude, after seeing his explanations on live TV this evening, that he is all of these at once, and that his strongest justifications are in reality none at all. This book is a colossal case of bad judgement itself. Not only will it not lead to improved relations between the political factions, but it will actual contribute significantly in the opposite direction. The political damage will have been made, the book will be tossed aside, and the author will have been forgotten by both enemy and former friend. The very best we can additionaly hope for is that the publisher will find itself stuck with a warehouse of books that nobody wants to buy. To that end, I pledge my part.

Obama the Great Unifier?

Candidate Obama claims to be the one and only who will be able to re-unite our fractured country. Assuming for the moment that we're actually in need of a national reunion, where's the evidence of his ability to do this? Has he accomplished this even within his own fractured political party? No? Well, how about then just the disunity between himself and his sole Democrat opponent. No? Even when the two disagree about so little in the first place?! Odd.

Rather than serve as a unifier, has he not actually chosen to be a divider? Has he not chosen to fabricate or exaggerate distinctions with his opponent, for the hope of political advantage? What would make you think that he, or anyone, would not resort to this same tactic once ensconced in the Oval Office. where the demand for it may only be greater?

Great Unifier? Just more Madison Ave polish.

Barak Hussein Obama, U.S. President?

Though it's now 6+ years ago since 9/11, our nation is still recovering from that event, and perhaps the largest wound yet to heal is our suspicion of all things Muslim...even things Muslim-like. At this point, Barak Hussein Obama has a real shot at garnering the Democratic nomination for president, if not the Oval Office itself. Mr. Obama professes to be Christian, and I have no reason to doubt his claim, yet his Muslim-like name remains, and surely there will be some who prefer to doubt his affiliation.

So, what would happen if the U.S. were to elect as president, in these suspicious-of-all-things-Muslim times, a man who bears such a Muslim-like name? (If our suspicion doesn't make that an impossibility in the first place.) And let's say that he follows through with his promises to get us out of Iraq in the first days of his presidency. How would xenophobic ultra-cons deal with that? Might one of the more extreme among them decide that it's time to complete the image of Obama being the next JFK?

Or, what if in taking office Mr. Obama realizes that such a withdrawal really isn't the right thing to do after all? How would the Islamic world take to the idea of a "Muslim-like" guy being our new commander-in chief, and he's choosing to continue the war against their people rather than end it? Could that turn even more of them against us?

The rising cost of...TV

People might tell you how technology has simplified -and even reduced the cost of- living. While that might bear true in many instances, it surely isn't holding true for our TV lives. ...Not our lives on TV, but our lives with TV. Have you shopped for a TV lately?! For many years, TV set prices have been steadily falling, if not in actual ticket prices, then at least in terms of bang-for-the-buck. But now, any serious shopper is foregoing the tube-TV units and is choosing among the various LCD and Plasma flat-panel units, which tend to start at twice the price of an equivalent old-school set. And bigger units (i.e., 42"+) tend to be the more popular choices. And if you do the right thing, and hold out for a full-HD unit (i.e., 1080P), then you're looking at an $1800 pill, likely more. Now, since you went top-drawer on the set, you can't then just settle for the integral speakers that it comes with, and you surely can't waste your time watching broadcast signals on it. You've got to pony up for a worthy home entertainment system, including high-end speakers and an HD DVD player. But do you go with BlueRay, or HD? And of course your analog cable subscription won't do either. You'll need to upgrade to digital service, at greater monthly cost. Or perhaps even switch over to satellite. And don't forget costs that you might incur in getting rid of those perfectly functional analog sets you probably have, as nobody will likely be interested in taking those off your hands, given the analog-to-digital change-over that's coming in '09...just to further frustrate the situation. After all is said and done, you could easily be looking at a $3K investment for your new TV outfit...per room, with monthly fees higher than what you're dealing with now! Do any of your believe that these system costs will ever come down to the sub-$750 range. ...Fuhgetaboutit.

Hmm...giving it all up and going back to radio is looking pretty good. ...But then there's XM vs. Sirius subscriptions, and HD-Radio units. Arg!

Books!...yeah, books...good ol' cheap, paper-back books. That's the way to go!