Eat more cookies

Are we not blessed in America? When have we had the chance to choose between two fine Irishmen to lead our great country in its presidency? And here we are with Mr. McCain, and Mr. O’Bama.

What’s that now? Do you not know that Mr. O’Bama is as fine as Irishman as ever danced a hearty jig after a pint of porter down at Cohan’s? Well sit yerself down, and I’ll relay the story.

Sure’n twas down on the famed Ring of Kerry that himself, ol’ Paddy O’Bama used to turn the spade and cut peat to warm the family hearth. Out he’d come from the bogs, 60, 80, 100 lbs of turf on his blessed back, and ye’d think he’d long for to take a rest after carryin’ that load ‘cross the miles back to his own house. But ol’ Paddy would stack the turf and, just when you’d think he’d go inside for to enjoy a hot cup of tay by his own fire, the saintly man would begin his march back to the bog, all for to fill another pack with turf. This he would then take to the houses of all the poor widows in town, leavin’ neat little stacks of peat bricks outside their front doors, and them never knowin’ ’twas any but the little people who’d found favor with them, and supplyin’ them with the means for some heat and comfort.

Now in the evenings when he dangled his grandson on his knee he would tell ‘im, “Michaeleen, me b’y. Yuz always got ta give somethin’ barack when you’ve been blest as we are. We’ve the good fortune t’ live warm and dry in this house, with full bellies and quick minds and strong arms. This land has supported the O’Bama clan all these many years, and it will continue to be so for as long as we remain faithful to share our gifts. Yuv always got ta give barack.”

Young Michaeleen took those words to heart, and when his saintly grandfather crossed to the heavenly mantle, he sought fit to bless his memory by naming his own son “Barack”. The young b’y grew and eventually immigrated to Amerikay where he became interested in Chicago politics.

Now that we know him as a presidential candidate, some see fit to argue about his background, callin’ him Muslim and some such nonsense. So much the worse for those fools, for ‘twould be no shame in him bein’ Muslim and running for the presidency of that great land across the ocean. That’s the beauty of Amerikay ye know: Ye can be the president whether you’re Hindu, Muslim, Bhuddist, Catholic, or even an atheist you know, like them Protestants. Amerikay is a free land, free from the kind of tyranny that says “Ye must be this” or “Ye have to be that.” I almost wish sometimes that Mr. O’Bama was some kind of Muslim, and the good people of Amerikay show the whole world how they really live out the words in their grand Constitution by electing him anyway. Wouldn’t that be a blessed day?! A day to show the whole world that the American people are the best people in the world, and freedom reigns in that fair land as in no other.

Alas, we won’t be seein’ that day next November, as Mr. O’Bama is as Irish as any shamrock that ever greened Erin’s Isle. And now ye know the truth, may the good Lord strike me down otherwise.

As the Republican strategy for the 2004 election so brilliantly demonstrated, a candidate who changes position on various issues might as well be discovered with an Al Qaeda membership card.  We Amoronicans are far more interested in a candidate whose brain is a bulwark of idealism - solid and unchanging no matter how loud the cries of dissent - than one who actually considers information from all sides and is willing to change course when the situation calls for it.  John Kerry was the latter in 2004, and it cost him the election (and it cost our country a lot more); George W. Bush epitomizes the former, and we all remember the “political capital” he claimed to earn from that ill-fated election.

Well, the flip-flopping rhetoric has begun in earnest in this current election, but at least this time it applies to both sides.  John McCain is tacking to the right of center while Barack Obama is beginning to zig-zag a course toward the middle, both men striving to be as electable as possible to the largest number of people in the most advantageous states come November.  Who has more to lose? It’s hard to say at this point.  McCain seems to have dumped every part of his persona that made him attractive to oddballs like me.  I wish he’d just say “screw you Republican machine!” and go back to being the self-styled maverick he used to be.  Obama seems to be changing his message from “stick it to the man” to “stick like glue to the man”, and I’m not sure that’s going to work either.  The result of all this strategizing?  Oh I dunno, maybe 25% of eligible voters coming out next fall?

For an excellent guide to the the candidates’ blowin’ in the wind, check out Max Deveson’s article in the BBC.

Before the general election campaigns get crammed down our throats, it’s time for one last bit of humor before this all gets ugly. To wit, I’ve been really good about not trying to come up with stupid puns including variations on the theme of “Barack Obama.” But that’s all about to change.

Here are some really lame puns off the top of my head. I guarantee that at least one of these will make it someday as a headline in the New York Post - if it hasn’t already. Please enter yours in the “comments” window, and let’s see just how much humor we’ve still got left in this country. And Senator Obama? Thanks for being such a good sport about this and yes, I’d be happy to serve as your Secretary of the Interior.

1. dude #1: “Thanks, bro’.”

dude #2: “Don’t worry man, I got your Barack.”

2. “Obaminable snowman.”

3. “Barack-a-bye baby, in the tree top.”

4. “You scratch my Barack, I’ll scratch yours.”

5. “Obama-beautiful morning, Obama-beautiful day!”

6. “Obamin’. Obamin’ in the name of the Lord. Obamin’. And I hope ya like Obamin’ too.”

7. “Remember that creepy dude with the hoodie from Montana, the Unobama?”

8. “Barack and roooooll!!!!”

9. “Obama I’m in fear for my life from the long arm of the law.”

10. “Sweet home, Alobama.”

The floodgates have opened, and it’s time for the wild speculation on who will be Barack Obama’s choice for a running mate. But the Hillary Clinton supporters out there are having pipe dreams if they actually think she’d make a “dream ticket” with Obama - unless they mean a dream ticket for the Republicans, that is.

Why would Clinton make a lousy choice? Because like it or not, she is an anathema to everything Obama’s campaign has been about: change. How can a former two-term first lady represent anything to Obama supporters other than the old vanguard they’d like to be rid of? The energy and excitement of Obama supporters would, I fear, deflate with Hillary - or any other Washington insider - on the ticket.

McCain’s story will be “experience.” Some think Obama needs “experience” on his ticket. I say good judgment trumps experience. The last thing Obama needs is to water down the stark contrast of his good judgment on Iraq with someone who has more experience but demonstrated poor judgment on the Iraq War. There may be a place in an Obama Administration for Clinton or Biden, etc., but that place is not the Vice President’s office.

So who should it be? I dunno. Jim Webb is a little crazy, but might make some inroads with people not currently supporting Obama; Bill Richardson could presumably attract the burgeoning Latin vote, and he broke with the Clinton campaign early on, which showed a lot of guts. . .

Just please don’t do the self-defeating Democrat thing by selecting Hillary Clinton for VP! You’ll screw the whole thing up if you do.

It seems that the negative buzz term this election cycle is “elitist.” We Americans cannot abide by an elitist. Elitists are bad people. Elitists have college degrees - sometimes graduate degrees. They use big words and think about what’s going on in other countries and drink wine and drive Volvos. They don’t watch football, they don’t hunt, they don’t drink beer, they don’t drive trucks . . . These are the qualities we’re looking for in a president, apparently.

Are you kidding me? How collectively stupid can we be? We’re talking about the president of the United friggin’ States of America here - BY DEFINITION were looking for an elitist!

OK, elitism in the sense that the opinions of the elite are the only ones that matter can be a problem is an alleged democracy such as ours. But according to the description from Wikipedia, these are the characteristics of “the elite”:

“Attributes that identify an elite vary; personal achievement may not be essential. Elite usually denotes a person or group who is the best in a class. Elite attributes include:

* Rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field of study
* A long track record of competence in a demanding field
* An extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline (e.g., medicine or martial arts)
* A high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field”

How is someone at this level NOT what we want in a president? Just think for a moment about how elite is the group of people who have presided over this nation. To put it in a bit of perspective . . .

*There are hundreds of living people out there who have won Oscars. That’s hundreds of people who have stood before the audience and said “I’d like to thank the Academy . . ”

*There are hundreds of Olympic gold medalists. That’s hundreds of people who’ve stood on that podium while their national anthem blared. That’s pretty danged elite.

*There are dozens of Nobel laureates - dozens and dozens of people who have won the Nobel Prize. What could possibly be more elite than winning a Nobel Prize?

THERE ARE JUST 42 PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

(That’s depending on how you count them, of course. We could add a few more to the list if we counted the dudes who were president between the time we declared independence [1776] and when Washington was sworn in [1789].)

See? We don’t necessarily want a “regular guy” to be president, because the job requires that one be about the most “irregular guy” one could imagine - and that goes for women too.

The average folks on the street didn’t like John Kerry - he was too educated, too stuffy, and he came off as being indecisive because he actually thought about complex issues enough to see the merits of the many sides. He was an elitist! That’s no good. We Americans instead want somebody who’s a regular guy - a guy with whom you’d be happy to hang out at a bar and who shoots from hip. So what if he’s wrong? At least he makes decisions, and by God, he sticks to them too.

Not only is this some of the most asinine thinking of all time, it’s a line of thought that never would have let guys like John F. Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, or Thomas Jefferson make it to the presidency. Those guys were elitists!

Now, of course, it’s Obama who’s fighting the elitist stigma. (Interesting analysis on his April remarks here.) Multimillionaire John McCain isn’t an elitist because he was a POW. Multimillionaire and former First Lady Hillary Clinton isn’t an elitist ’cause she pounds boilermakers at the local Elk’s Club.

Attention America - all three major candidates are elitists of some form or other. Two of them are going out of their way to pander to the baser elements of their respective parties in an effort to garner support for their campaigns. One of them is trying very hard not to do that, and is being more honest with himself and with us.

Next November, I won’t be voting for the captain of my softball team. I won’t cast my ballot for a fifth at my weekly poker game. I won’t be looking for a pal to go fishing with me. I will, however, be voting for someone who I expect to deal with some of the most complex foreign policy, economic, environmental, energy use, and social issues ever faced by humans on planet earth. You’re damn right I’ll be voting for an elitist to preside over this country.

Sometimes I’m downright proud of my church.

In a recent story, a Vatican astronomer indicated that extraterrestrial life is in no way contradictory to Catholic doctrine.

You’ve come a long way, baby.

That’s right, nothing in the Catechism precludes the existence of life elsewhere in the universe. Our faith is built around the human experience here on this planet - there’s no telling what sort of other projects God may have in the works. Makes sense to me.

We Catholics are such a confusing lot. On the one hand, we cling to medieval traditions and regard every sperm as sacred. [*Warning - mature content in that last link!*] On the other, we can be quite progressive, as in the official Vatican acceptance of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I like to tell people that I first learned about Darwin from my Catholic high school biology class, where Sister Antonella Giba spoke freely and positively about evolutionary theory. Quite unlike its mistreatment of Galileo, the Church is fully on board with Darwin.

So the Catholic enlightenment continues. Now if we could just figure out why so many of us seem to be supporting Hillary . . .

There’s been so much political rhetoric of late regarding Barack Obama’s supposed inexperience on the international stage.  But just because you are older and have benefited from being First Lady in terms of meeting people all over the world in diplomatic contexts, or just because you have earned tremendous foreign policy street-cred due to your exemplary military service, that doesn’t mean that you are automatically better qualified to render important national security decisions. So here I’ll lay out some of the fallacies I’ve heard circulating that seek to erode confidence in Obama’s fitness for the job of U.S. President.

1. Iraq War. No doubt about it, this was an enormous foreign policy gaffe. There were no WMDs - certainly no nukes - and Saddam was not in league with Al Qaeda. We took our eye off bin Laden and he escaped. Five years later Afghanistan is still a major problem, we’re hopelessly mired in Iraq, bin Laden is still out there, our military capacity is reduced, and we’re running our own economy into the ground to support the war effort. Sorry Hillary, but you and McCain supported the Iraq invasion. Thanks for your wise leadership on that one. In contrast, Obama remained bravely steadfast in his opposition to the war, and guess what? He was RIGHT. So of the three of you, Obama is the only one who has demonstrated true wisdom on a matter of grave national security concern.

2. Presidents - even “deciders” - don’t make decisions in a vacuum. They surround themselves with people who can provide necessary expertise and counsel to help arrive at the best decision. Of course if you surround yourself with like-minded ideologs and yes-men, then that counsel can return to haunt you. But isn’t this notion of waking up in the middle of the night to make some national security decision in the next 5 seconds rather silly?

3. Speaking of “acting presidential”, I’ve always taken offense to the support given W for his “strong leadership” during the chaos of 9/11. Strong leadership? He walked around with a bullhorn, shook hands with emergency services personnel, and vowed to get the bastards. Yeah, that was pretty predictable. What did people expect him to do, go rock back and forth in a corner while sucking his thumb? I fully expect that leadership like W displayed is the absolute least we could expect from a crisis-facing President Obama.

4. Maybe, just maybe, the best message of good will we can send around the world is for this country to start practicing what it preaches. Maybe if we actually did elect the man of color with the Arabic-sounding name, we’d send the message that we really believe this democracy stuff we keep spewing, and we can start to repair our damaged reputation in other countries, and the pit of government cynicism in our own.

I haven’t decided if I’m supporting Obama in this presidential race - we’re still a long way from November. But for crying out loud, there is no reason to think that he is somehow unfit for the job.

(more…)