With this election, I believe I've discovered an instance in which the democratic ideal is truly being tested. Consider: democrats consider themselves the champions of the weak and oppressed. The motto at the base of the State of Liberty is our motto. "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Langston Hughes poem speaks to the core of democratic values

O, let my land be a land where Liberty

Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,

But opportunity is real, and life is free,

Equality is in the air we breathe.

As liberals, as catholics (in my case and the case of many) we find ourselves unsure. We root for the underdog. We seek to give rights to the weak and oppressed. In abortion we have finally found a wrong the gives us pause. We want to help those who cannot help themselves, but we simply seem unable to DO that for these two groups. If we help women, we destroy the unborn. If we help the unborn, we destroy the freedoms of women.

What do we do? The church seems fully decided. It is the duty of catholics to help the unborn at the possible detriment of women. In an unusual break, the democratic party also seems fully decided. It is the duty of democrats to help women at the detriment of the unborn.

Both views seem simple and weak minded. They are both correct. They are both wrong. They are both blind to the realities of the opposite side.

A professor of mine argued that with enough creativity, it is possible for everyone to come out happy in a conflict. And so I have homework for any readers I might have (i.e. I guess nobody). Find an answer. It can be brilliant. It can be idiocy. Just find it. How do we stop destroying the unborn, while maintaining the rights of all women?

I wish you good luck and pray you don't stop without an answer.

In a quest to keep this argument fermenting, I'm gonna post Jon Stewart's discussion with Ted Koppel. It is an interesting and important discussion. Could there be truth behind what is either right or left? I think, to an extent there may be.

I'll let you make your own decisions.

DNC: A serious interview with Jon Stewart
While eating breakfast with reporters in Boston on Monday, Jon Stewart accused the media of being "stage managed." Now Nightline's Ted Koppel asks Stewart some tough questions about his role on The Daily Show. What follows is a partial transcript of an incredible (and oddly serious) interview:

KOPPEL: Back 40 years ago, we would actually come to these events with the expectation that something unexpected was going to happen.

STEWART: But unexpected things used to happen in the world. They don't happen anymore.

KOPPEL: Oh, sure they do.

STEWART: Very rarely. Very rarely is an event not parsed prior to when it happens. And when it happens unexpectedly, it's only because the speculation was off cue.

KOPPEL: When there were only three of us [networks], we were not that easy to manipulate because you could only play A off against B off against C.

STEWART: Ok, that I agree with.

KOPPEL: Right? Now you got 200 of us. You don't like what Jon Stewart is doing? Go to...

STEWART: But we're separate. We're a peripheral, we're a Sunday bar. We're reactive and not actual news, so if you don't like Jon Stewart, you'll have to go to another comedy program, not a news program.

KOPPEL: You're refreshing honest about that, and I appreciate that, but the reality of it is -- and it's no joke anymore -- there are a lot of people out there who do turn to you for...

STEWART: Not for news.

KOPPEL: Well...

STEWART: For an interpretation. A comedic interpretation.

KOPPEL: To be informed. They actually think they're coming closer to the truth with your...

STEWART: Now that's a different thing. That's credibility. That's a different animal.

KOPPEL: That's what I want you to get into a little bit. This notion of... for example, people who listen to Sean Hannity also are looking for...

STEWART: Want a narrative.

KOPPEL: Al Frankin...

STEWART: Gives a narrative.

KOPPEL: A different group of people, different narrative.

STEWART: Right.

KOPPEL: That's the slice. So what I'm trying to get to here, is what is going on now with these literally -- I don't even if there are even hundreds anymore -- there may be close to a thousand outlets here.

STEWART: It's that the partisan mobilization has become part of the media process. That they realize that, this real estate that you possess, television, is the most valuable real estate known to rulers. If Alexander the Great had TV, believe me, he would have had his spin guys dealing. Napoleon would have had people working. The key to leadership is to have that mouthpiece to the people. And that's what this is. You guys are... This is the battle for the airwaves. And that's what we watch, and I think that's what is so dispiriting to those at home who believe that... I think, there's a sense here that you're not participating in that battle, and there's a sense at home that you're ABSOLUTELY participating and complicit in that battle.

KOPPEL: Go a little further on that.

STEWART: I'm a news anchor. Remember this is bizarro world. And I say, the issue is health care and insurance, and why 40 million American kids don't have insurance -- 40 million Americans are uninsured. Is this health insurance program being debated in Congress good for the country? Let's debate it. I have with me Donna Brazile and Bay Buchanan. Let's go. Donna. "I think the Democrats really have it right here. I think that this is a pain for the insurance companies and the drug companies and this is wrong for America." Bay. "Oh no, what it is..." And then she throws out her figures from the Heritage Foundation, and she throws out her figures from the Brookings Institute, and the anchor -- who should be the arbiter of the truth -- says, "Thank you both very much, that was very interesting." No it wasn't! That was Coke and Pepsi talking about beverage truth. And that game has, I think, caused people to think, "I'm not watching this."

KOPPEL: Alright, so you have found an answer through humor...

STEWART: No. It's not an answer.

KOPPEL: Well, an answer that...

STEWART: I found an outlet. I found a catharsis. A sneeze, if you will.

KOPPEL: It's not just a catharsis for you, it's a catharsis for your viewers. Those who watch say, at least when I'm watching Jon, he can use humor to say BS, that's a crock.

STEWART: But that's always been the case. Satire has always been...

KOPPEL: Ok, but I can't do that.

STEWART: No, but you CAN say that's BS. You don't need humor to do that because you have what I wish I had which is credibility and gravitas. This is interesting stuff, and it's all part of the discussion and I think it's a good discussion to have, but I think it's important to take a more critical look. You know, don't you think?

KOPPEL: No.

STEWART: And certainly not from me.

KOPPEL: No, not from you. I've had enough of you.

STEWART: I know my role, I'm the dancing monkey.

KOPPEL: You're finished. (Smiles)

(Shake hands.)

One other post for tonight. For the hilarious views of a psycho who takes absolutely no time to back up her extreme, asinine comments, read the following. Ann Coulter at her best.

Amazon.com: How important is this presidential election in the larger context of the Republic and its history?
Ann Coulter: Insofar as the survival of the Republic is threatened by the election of John Kerry, I'd say 2004 is as big as it gets.
Amazon.com: Is there one standout issue, and why does it make a difference? What are the most crucial issues?
Coulter: I repeat: The survival of the Republic is threatened by the election of John Kerry. I'd say that's the big one.
Amazon.com: What are the top five books you'd recommend to become an informed voter? And what can your new book contribute?
Coulter: The Bible, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Slander, Treason, and How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).
Amazon.com: What's the closest parallel from American history to this year's race?
Coulter: 1864. Bush is Lincoln and Kerry is General McClellan--who, I note, was a great military leader.

---

I repeat: The survival of the Republic is threatened by the election of John Kerry. I'd say that's the big one.

---

Amazon.com: What is the most important lesson from President Bush's term so far?
Coulter: Peace through strength is an idea that never goes out of style. Also, some people can’t be negotiated with but have to be crushed; e.g., the Taliban, al Qaeda, possibly North Korea and Iran, Pat Leahy, Carl Levin, Richard Ben-Veniste...
Amazon.com: What would a Kerry administration mean?
Coulter: Quite possibly the destruction of the Republic.

So I've spent a great deal of time thinking about my next post. Since then, I've done other things and have now forgotten my thoughts. As such, I've determined to post a lament.

Perhaps worse than anything else, Bush's presidency has created an even greater polarization in the nation. I spend a great deal of time chatting on another blog. I represent the moderately liberal voice in the discussion, yet my ideas regularly get attacked by the other side. Often I find myself attacking the opinions of those same members of the other side. It's sometimes painful to realize the extent to which we all get angry at each other over the politics of this nation. It's as if we can no longer think and may only express ourselves through emotion.

Many people suggest that this polarization was caused by Bush's policies. They say he acts like a president who won in a landslide, yet he technically lost the popular vote. While the supports to this argument stand, I think the overriding theory is based upon a mere correlation.

Polarity and a rush to judge based upon gut decisions doesn't come out of a president acting too strongly in one direction. When an entire nation operates under a theory directed decision process, they do so for myriad reasons. My personal theory lies in the direction of fear. The twin towers fell. For months we were afraid and acted as a team. We were the good guys, everyone else was the bad guy. Then things changed.

More aptly, things didn't change. The war in Afghanistan was winding down. The fear had a chance to recede. But it didn't. Why didn't it? Because we were still under heightened (color-coded) terror warnings. We began a war with Iraq. We failed to get Osama.

Remember how I called Bush a magician? Here is yet another example of his magic at work. He personally speaks of daisies and sunshine. The world is good! We are winning the war on terror! But he's gotten everyone else to sing a different tune. His people continue to issue warnings. They talk about the threat of Kerry being elected. They beef up security in NY for the RNC to three times that of the DNC in Boston. Threat of attack is imminent.

And the liberal side does much the same. Draft! Iraq will never end! The world hates us! For every terrorist Bush kills, three more pop up!

Is any of it true? Who knows? Who cares? The point isn't validity. The point is terror. America's terrorists aren't Islamic. They are the media. They are the government. They are the democratic and republican parties. Why are we afraid? Because they tell us to be. Why do they tell us to be? Because it strengthens their "base."

There are a good dozen studies that show we stop using a data-driven approach in decision making when mortality is salient. We don't look at all the facts. We look at the facts that confirm what we already believe.

Does that sound familiar?

So I was watching the debate yesterday, when my friend Annie asked the question, "Why is 'liberal' a bad word?" It's an interesting question. Ultimately, it brings up the strange lack of parralel that seems to exist in America these days.

Being a liberal is bad. Being a conservative, while not always great, is not bad.

What the hell? Why is this? Did you know Bob Schiefer is a registered republican? I'm not sure if that's true, but I've heard it from two independent sources. Anyway, back to the questions. Why do Bush speeches vaguely sound like Hitler speeches from the mid 30s? How do blatantly conservative entities own a major cable news channel, the vast majority of talk radio, and what has been dubbed an "empire" of local stations?

Here's another one. Why does the current conservative movement seem less interested in being traditionally conservative and more interested in being the simple dominating group. "Just how "conservative" is it, after all, to run up record budget deficits? To make the nation bleed jobs? To invade another nation under false pretenses? To run roughshod over states' rights? To impose a radical unilateralist approach to foreign policy? To undermine privacy rights and the constitutional balance of power? ... To grotesquely mishandle the defense of our national borders?"

These are all somewhat interesting questions, at least to my mind. Perhaps the most important one to me is close to that of the original "liberal" question. Why has it been "unpatriotic" to challenge anything the current White House has said since Sept. 11, 2001? It seems the only people allowed to do so are Kerry and Edwards, and they are RUNNING against the white house. It is, according to a democracy, almost required that they challenge the white house.

The following article I've discovered (and borrowed from w/ the quote) posits one possible explanation. Feel free to accept or disregard the theory proposed. The important thing is reading the arguments that support the theory. It's startling how many of them seem vaguely familiar.

The Morphing of the Conservative Movement
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_dneiwert_archive.html#109028353137888956

There you go.

Alrighty, folks. I just spent about 1/2 hour trying to find any evidence that the following was faked, a forgery, or satire. As far as I can tell, it is 100% true. However, I'd suggest you do a search on it yourself, just to make sure.

As I understand it, this is an email written to friends by a journalist at the Wall Street Journal. If you pay any attention to general politics, you know that the WSJ is a traditionally conservative printing. Originally, this letter was not intended to reach anyone outside the set of friends (though, from the style and content of writing, I vaguely doubt this ascertation), but it appears to have been leaked. As such, here it is in its entirety.

Believe it or not, it's a pretty powerful letter. Here is where I found it...

Poynter

WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends

9/29/2004 2:58:10 PM From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi Subject: From Baghdad Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference. Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second. It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come. Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad." What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them. Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day. A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq. For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods./CONTINUED BELOW

WSJ reporter Fassahi's e-mail to friends /2

9/29/2004 2:47:12 PM The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating. I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive. America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly. As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here. Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq? Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler. I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad. Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost." One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle. The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war. I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?" -Farnaz

Yeah, I don't have a lot to say concerning this debate. Who do I think won? It's debatable. Do I think that it's stupid that Bush would probably be given the win because he wasn't as terrible? Definitely. Oh well. Here's some stuff.


Actually, Mr. President, in 1997 we fixed Medicare, and I was one of the people involved in it. We not only fixed Medicare and took it way out into the future, we did something that you don't know how to do: We balanced the budget.

"I own a timber company? That's news to me. Need some wood?"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15687&item=3935038859&rd=1

The American media has an amazing grasp of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. For those of you who took an introductory Psych course, this may mean something. If not, bear with me.

The United States of America is a representative democracy. This means select individuals of a state may pay close attention to the government so the rest of us don't have to. Who wants to spend an entire day discussing a labor bill concerning migrant workers in Alaska? No one. That's what we pay our representatives for.

Unfortunately, this puts the citizens of America and their representatives in a tight position. The reps are supposed to read all the information and make an informed decision about it. The thing is they can't in the modern world. Every decision made may be scrutinized and then presented by the oposition to the citizenry as evidence that the current rep has not acted in their best interests.

Which is problematic. Remember, the citizenry specifically elected reps so THE CITIZENS CAN PAY ATTENTION TO OTHER THINGS!! As such, when it comes to politics, the citizens simply aren't going to be motivated to pay attention, except as a form of entertainment and/or idleness. Ultimately, this means all political messages to the citizenry must be in a form that better fits the peripheral route, which means scary music, grainy colors, and angry actors can change votes. This also means the reasons behind a reps actions are ignored for what is called "the sound byte."

Not many people really understand this. I know about it. People who spend a great deal of time reading the news and paying attention to politics seem to know this. In years past, Americans didn't seem to get it.

Now let us return to my ascertation that the media (specifically television media) has a powerful grasp of the ELM. The 2000 presidential elections were decided on sighs, stiffness, "liar" soundbytes, and archetypes. In the present day this is all called spin. Spin, according to the ELM, is how you absolutely dominate the peripheral route. You use one-liners "I invented the internet." You repeat simple messages over and over, "The Vice-President sighed a lot." You pay little attention to real stories in favor of "The Governor seemed real folksy." That is the peripheral route.

American elections are based upon this route, by the manner in which the constitution was drafted. The drafters said, "Hey people, elect other people to do your central processing. Work in your law firms. Farm your fields. Operate your smithies. The professionals will take care of things." This is great, except every two, four, and six years, we are all forced to return from our real jobs to pay attention to matters that we simply haven't been concerning ourselves with. We don't want to deal with this political crap. We want to get back to our lives. Through conditioning and desire, we simply don't process centrally.

The news media knows this. But they don't know that we know they know. As such, pay attention to the spin. Notice who the media is calling "stiff." Listen for mentions of slouching and wrinkled suits. These are the tell-tale signs that let us know EXACTLY who the media wants to win.

In 2000 it was, without question, Bush. In 2004, it seems to be shifting back and forth. Two weeks ago, Kerry kept shifting stances. He was wishy-washy. Bush was steadfast. Does anyone know what the hell these words mean? I'm a graduate student, and I don't think I know. Suddenly, after the debate, Bush seemed uncomfortable and scowled a lot.

I'm a liberal guy, but it really pisses me off that Kerry might win because Bush "scowled a lot." I want Kerry to win because I think he is simply the better candidate with better ideas and a willingness concede faults. I don't want him to win because he seemed "relaxed."

Yet that is how presidential debates are won. The citizenry wants to do the right thing, but they don't want to spend a great deal of time doing it.

You know what I think? I don't think there is a liberal bias or a conservative bias in the media. In think there's an entertainment bias. I think there's a "keep the viewers glued" bias. People prefer to watch and read what they agree with. I'll bet not a single mention of relaxed vs. detached was made until AFTER the insta-polls were finished and the media knew which way to spin the results.

Cater to the public. Show the right peripherals. Screw the world.

Alrighty, so I watched the debate and enjoyed it. I personally feel that neither guy landed a knock-out punch, but I do feel Kerry managed an important feat. He GOT THE POINT ACROSS IN LESS THAT 2 MINUTES!! It's amazing!

The only thing I'll mention is the one briliiant knock out punch performed by the DNC. I'm taking the following paragraph from another source...

"The thinking-ahead prize, however, goes to the Democratic National Committee, which ran a banner ad on the Washington Post's home page all night with the large words, "Debate Shows Kerry Strength, Bush Fails to Deliver Plan for Iraq."

Way to go, tricky advertising!!!