Cliff May on The Daily Show

Cliff May on The Daily Show

These memos are not torture memos. They are, if anything, anti-torture memos cause here's what they say:

They say look, there is a line that you may not cross. You can inflict discomfort, even some pain, but if you cross this line, it's torture and we're going to tell you what that line is, and you may not cross it under any circumstances.

May's argument goes nowhere that he promises. Instead of focusing on how to avoid torture, he explains how to avoid torturing the wrong people.

For example, it says, you can't do this unless it's an Al Qaida operative -- and it's gotta be a high Al Qaida operative. And you gotta know that he has information about a terrorist plot that's gonna kill people. And you have to have tried everything else so that you don't do this just cause—you know—you think it's a good idea. It's gotta be like you're at the end of your rope and you think you have to&mdash don't— You know this don't you, that only three people were waterboarded? Only three. All of them were Al Qaida senior leaders, all of them involved in terrible terrorist acts and not since 2003 there haven't been any of those.

Lest we allow this argument pass as only a partial argument—trusting that May has another point to make about the actual acts themselves, he makes it clear later in the interview that he is willing to argue in favor of different standards of torture.

...and the line for a criminal defendant... an American citizen has a line drawn here. A prisoner of war has a line drawn here. And a high ranking Al Qaida terrorist who has slaughtered millions, of Am-- thousands of Americans and would like to slaughter millions— I say the line gets drawn a little to the left of that.

What I find most laughable about his argument is the slippery slope appeal he tries to pass off against John Stewart's view.

MAY: Putting 'em in jail. That's torture. So let's open all the jails. let's open wide the cells—
STEWART: That's not— That's silly and nobody's arguing that.
MAY: No. You are. That's— that is the logical progression of where you're going. If putting someone in a jail cell is torture, or you can't say what torture is so if I say it's torture it is, you better open all the jails.

Slippery slope arguments are really pointless unless your talking about architecture or a sled. Especially when both sides claim to argue in favor of prudence and moderation.

But I'm stuck on his first argument about the importance of the identity of the person being interrogated. He is claiming that what we are unwilling to inflict on an American citizen—because it's torture—we should be willing to inflict on people he believes are evil and dangerous. And not even as punishment. But as a means to information. A means that has not been shown to be effective.

Dialogue

This is from an exchange with a close and trusted friend. My coming response to Part One of Casey's No Separation is Possible post will also keep this exchange in mind.

I'm in red and he's in blue. No symbolism.

Here's the issue -- Proposition 8.

Now because we're friends I'm almost sure that my wisdom and insight has influenced you enough so that you recognized the folly of the "pro" argument. But if you still think the Devil has corrupted my thinking I'd love to hear your argument.

As for Prop 8 - of course I am pro. Read Leviticus 18:22 and tell me G-d wants kids in that type of detestable home.

See that's wonderful. But maybe too good. Because I almost believe you can't be that ignorant. Almost.

You can of course believe in that single verse of Leviticus (while ignoring so many others because they're just too crazy to still believe) if you want to. You can take it literally. You can argue that G-d hates homosexuality (except for lesbianism). You still have to prove that the constitution should be based on a religious argument. I doubt you'll be able to convince me that our laws should also allow us to own Canadians and Mexicans as slaves because of Leviticus 25:44.

I say that we should ignore a lot of the bible tells us to do, and we should disagree with a lot of what the bible tells us is OK. I just flat out don't believe a whole lot of the Hebrew and Greek bible when it ventures a guess at what G-d condemns.

You could of course argue that government should enforce your religious view and impose it on everyone because of Lev 24:22. but at least admit then that you want to throw out the 1st amendment.

Imagine that there's a religion out there that sanctions and performs same-sex marriages. (It's evil of course, right? Must be Satanic?) Should the constitution be amended to revoke that religious right when the revocation is based on nothing more than another religious belief regarding Hebrew scripture? Even in the face of the American Psychological Association's view that the prejudices against same-sex parenting are unfounded? Are we simply supposed to trust bigots as long as they argue that G-d is also a bigot?

I say G-d isn't.

Can you come up with any evidence that prejudices against homosexuality are well-founded outside your scriptural reading?

The Bible is what it is. It is tilted toward man. If it says "man" it makes references to women as well, I am aware of the paradox this presents in Leviticus. But I am convinced the scenario of the garden of Eden is persistent and compelling in its message of marriage. I am also becoming more cognizant of androgynous births and unusual patterns of human development, but G-d can not be interested in the perpetuation of degenerate attractions that sin designed and the malignant mutations driven by poor human choice. By that I mean, when humans turn to incest, drugs, and self abuse, unnatural births follow.

Prop 8 to me simply restates basic Biblical principals and strives to protect the order of family as ordained by God. This belief is further solidified by the concept that Satan is working first and foremost to destroy the family as a functional unit of heavenly practice.

As for the loss of constitutional rights, I am convinced as far as eschatology goes, this is inevitable and should not be encouraged, but I am downright convinced that tolerance has its limits in light of risks.

The rights that same-sex couples want are only those that are granted by the state. they only want the government to protect the rights that come with a state recognized union/marriage. They don't care what any church thinks. They don't care what you preach. They don't care if you think they're the product or cause of sin. Teach your children to judge them. Or if you're an enlightened evangelist just teach your children to judge the sin while loving the sinner. That's fine.

But can you ask the government to deny that right without asking the government to rule based on your religious beliefs? Can you give an argument other than one that disregards the first amendment? Or are you willing to say that on this issue the government should not be bound by the constitution?

I cannot immediately come up with a non-religious arguement for Prop 8. I will consider it. However, I am not convinced I can remove my religion from any aspect of my life. Therein lies the controversy.

Before you sprain a brain muscle don't confuse G-d with your religion and don't confuse your life with the constitution.

What I'm getting at of course is that maybe you don't really value separation of church and state. If so then this disagreement is resolved and we have to move on to the next argument: why you should or shouldn't value some sort of separation.

Excellent point. I believe I have been giving lip service to the support of the separation of church and state, but I privately insist on the commandments in the courtrooms, the prayer of students and faculty in school and the instructions of creation or at least intelligent design. I like these, but believe it could mean we would be leaning toward Christianity, only to find Christianity leaning against me and my beliefs one day soon. So again, excellent point. Nice wake-up call. Let the state of California recognize these degenerates if they want, but I will still insist on pitying any innocent child subjected to that lifestyle.

Speaking Without a Forked Tongue

Eric makes an extremely important point in his comment to my Huckabee post. Sometimes a label like bigoted is unnecessary. He recalls a conversation:

Had I described this family member's views as bigoted that would have forever ended the conversation.

And we're hoping for the opposite of course. To extend the conversation and find more understanding. Of course I would feel morally discredited by the suggestion that I might come to agree with someone who believes homosexuality is a sin and G-d condemns it and all its practitioners. There is no way that I'm going to move in that direction. None. I'll tell you that right now.

And yet I'm expecting to tell someone that what they hold sacred, what they believe to be piety, is an outrageously backwards belief. That it's contrary to my view of morality. As softly as I state it the conversation is founded on each of us saying this to the other.

Part of Thanksgiving day was ruined for my wife after a phone conversation with her father. It was their first conversation after the election so instead of arguing about candidates they got to talking about issues. He's conservative. Extremely. And when it came to a discussion about Proposition 8 she told him that she would have voted against.

His sermon began with an explanation of the Levitical law and a summary of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He explained that many homosexuals are sexual deviants in every way. They want kids just so they can recruit them. She told him of friends whose rights she respected and who were good moral kind loving people who could be trusted with kids. He told her she would not see them in Heaven. He told her that she was moving away from the values that he and her mother had tried to instill in her.

She had no time to adjust to this. All she could say was that she disagreed with him. A great response would have been to investigate those values. To plumb the foundation of love and to ask what the point of respect is. To show him that it's because of her mother's values that she respects and loves and trusts her friends. And that it's because her mother was such a generous and protective and supportive and dedicated wife and devoted parent that she now recognizes love so easily. And she sees that any person who loves that way loves correctly. Your goodness is in how you love, not who you love.

What words she tried to get in, her father cut off. No matter what she said, he would have heard nothing. Trying to convince him to step down from his principles was doing exactly what calling him a bigot would have done.

This is why such words, which I don't disavow, end the conversation. Because the conversation is headed to either of two conclusions that will not be shared.

Their conversation ended badly. With no resolution and no reconnection. The next conversation they had was civil. It was about the new cat. And home repairs. Something about the central heating…

Should they not have had the prior discussion? Was there nothing to share there? Of course their was. But on that issue, if I had been a place to offer any response to his accusations it would have been this: that the world is changing. And I like where it's going. And I'm trying to be a part of it getting there sooner.

Regarding the point about words like f-g and n----r I've been a part of many subcultures in which the taboos actually are almost identical. In many conversations I've had, 'The F-word' doesn't refer to fuck. From this experience I feel that bigotry is appropriate because it is just as strong as warranted by a growing sensibility.

I've been told that I come across as arrogant. But that's fine. When I'm loving my values I hold them out proudly. So it was on Thanksgiving evening that I put the new subhead on this blog: Let them be the angry ones

Because that's what I believe has to happen. Until I know someone well enough to know that nothing can stop the conversation, I'm not going to share my judgment of their views unless I'm perfectly happy to see that conversation stop. And sometimes I'm OK with that. In an online community. On the street. In an organized debate. These are conversations I have all the time that I know will end. That the mere acquaintance will end and often be forgotten. (Tho I can't remember my last organized debate on the topic.)

And in those conversations I'm comfortable putting a claim in front of the other voice challenging them to represent their views as something other than my characterization. Because there are some who have not made up their minds and who are still working on their own view of the issue. And I believe that for the sake of those who listen and for the sake of my argument, the ugliest labels belong on the ugliest beliefs. If they see that they cannot shake those labels off, they are more ready to pull for the change I'm hoping to see.

But in those conversations that might die, but that I hope don't end about marriage rights, the connection has to be a desire to understand the facts being used to inform values. I know a lot of them of course. I grew up hearing them and I was taught to use them in the same way we see them used still. But I don't know or understand anyone as well as I can. And that's why the conversations are still worth having. Because with growing trust even the facts can be disputed. And the point can be to understand how values still survive.

I guess my response, Eric, is that I don't have the policy conversation unless I'm comfortable saying to that person you're a bigot. And I've had those conversations. They've been good conversations. And not because my friend thought I was kidding. Because I wasn't. This was the same friend who said to me that G-d gave me a good mind and Satan had taken advantage of it through pagan literature and worldly knowledge. I rolled my eyes and we continued on some other point about the historical accuracy of the Hebrew canon.

I'll share some of those conversations in another post.

Experimental Philosophy

This is actually an interesting question. I don't really care about the ethical difference between the scenarios. But what about that simple and undeniable distinction: why people see the intentionality differently.

Take a look at the YouTube comments to see a lot of people not knowing what they're disagreeing on. It's one thing to say this is why they're different and a whole nother to say this is why people think they're different.

via OUP Blog

This Is Not What We Were Hoping For

What's the difference what he said? Really Keith? You have never been the only voice. And you're still not. You know that's how it should be.

In Summation...

What must we put behind us? Relatively recently the Hartford Courant retracted a series of criticisms that might have been unfair towards one candidate:

One particularly gloomy outburst from Mr. Burleigh predicted the following outcome under your presidency: “Neighbors will become the enemies of neighbors, fathers of their sons, and sons of their fathers. Murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practised, the air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”

See Craig Silverman's post at Regret the Error for more on the paper's change of mind.

I recently had an online discussion with some friends who disagree with me on some issues. But I'm not absolutely sure what those issues are. I offered a criticism of the 'socialist' argument by saying simply that McCain is as much a socialist as is Obama. And by the way, neither candidate is a socialist. My friends offered the view that Democrats unduly reward those who are less willing and less able to contribute to society. I criticized corporations and they agreed. They criticized government efficacy and I agreed. In the end it wasn't that clear where the lines between us were drawn.

One friend said You truly​ are a Liber​al Democ​rat.​ And I responded i am a liberal.​ yep. when it comes​ to civil​ liberties i definitely take the 'liberty' part seriously.

Later today I spoke on the phone with another friend who had just voted for McCain. The only time I got upset was when an argument relied on misrepresentation. Obama didn't 'lament' the Warren Court's lack of financial activism. He didn't say it was a failing that the court didn't redistribute the wealth. The Warren Court was not a radical court. Should Obama be criticized for knowing that and saying it. But these are now old arguments. And up to this point the ranting rhetoric has been geared at ultimately affecting an imminent decision. That decision is now pretty much made. So for just a moment we look back.

Throw away all the false arguments. Did you still support McCain? I can respect that. We all voted for the statement we wanted to make.

So my next statement. I'll publish a retraction right now. Mr McCain, I'm sorry that I recently posted an image of such a dismissive and disrespectful expression. I may have lost respect for your campaign but I don't have to be a jerk too.

Well I'm not taking it down, but I will take it back.

Not To Choose

On October 23 Ron Osborn posted on the Spectrum Blog an argument for abstention from California's Proposition 8 vote. He has recently posted an apology for the accidental deletion of the post and all ensuing discussion. I include here the text of his original piece.

---

This I Vote: Why I Don't Plan to Vote on Prop.8

by Ron Osborn

According to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California, Proposition 8, which would amend California’s Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage, is likely to be defeated on November 4. The Church State Council tells us that if this should happen our religious liberties will be imperiled. According to Adventists Against Proposition 8, the real threat to religious liberty lies in the attempt by religiously motivated groups to enforce their own theological understandings on others in the secular political realm. It seems increasingly clear to me, however, that for Adventists there can be no winning side in this debate. On November 4, I plan to abstain from voting either for or against Proposition 8. In the event that it is of any interest or use to others, here are the reasons why I have come to this decision:

1. I fully support, without reservation, the civil and human rights of same-sex couples, including equal tax benefits, the right to adoption, healthcare, etc; however,

2. I do not believe that it is a civil or human right to have one's private sexual identity affirmed or recognized or sanctioned or sanctified or codified or categorized or validated by the state; and,

3. I also believe it is necessary to preserve the right of religious communities to have their own distinctive institutions—and distinctive words to describe these institutions—without encroachment by the government.

A “No” vote on Proposition 8 seems to me to violate both numbers 2 and 3 above. The word "marriage" for most people in America continues to invoke not only a legal status but also a particular set of historical, cultural, and religious understandings (including the view that marriage within our society ought to be restricted to two persons). In this perspective, legislative overriding of traditional cultural and religious norms and redefinition of the word along more avowedly “secular” lines marks a troubling encroachment of the state into matters it knows not whereof.

A “Yes” vote on Proposition 8, however, seems to me to violate both numbers 1 and 2 above. As long as non-religious heterosexual marriages are recognized by the state without controversy, religious communities have no basis for objecting to legalized same-sex “marriage” on religious grounds. In this perspective, legislative imposition of traditional cultural and religious understandings on non-believers—or upon believers with different beliefs—marks a troubling encroachment of the state into matters it knows not whereof.

How, then, to cut the Gordian knot? If we truly support separation of church and state, I submit, we should be agitating not for the collapsing of civil and theological understandings of “marriage”, as both pro and contra positions do in their own ways, but for two distinct institutions: 1) “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”, which would be the only unions recognized by the state and would be exactly the same for all couples, regardless of their genders; and 2) marriage as a theological sacrament, which would involve different restrictions, meanings, and obligations depending on the theological understandings and beliefs of different religious communities.

Let the state be truly neutral in its language, let this language be the same for heterosexual and same-sex couples alike, and let this language be something other than the language religious traditions have long claimed as their own. Religious communities can then work out for themselves how inclusive or exclusive their particular belief systems can be on the question of same-sex marriage.

This position is not, of course, an option on this year’s ballot, and many Adventists will feel compelled to vote either for or against Proposition 8 on the basis of what they think is the lesser evil. I respect their personal decisions. Conscientious refusal to vote can, however, also be a creative and responsible political action, particularly if one shares one’s reasons for abstaining with others. And on some issues the most compelling witness Adventists can still make in the political realm, I would argue, is to refuse to be trapped in the false dichotomies of America’s culture wars.

---

I will respond in a later post.

The Center Cannot Hold

(in response to a friend)

You say that you want to remain skeptical of the beliefs that might motivate you to speak out on political matters. You are no more susceptible to political dogma than to poetic dogma. Nor are you more safe with poetic than political. If you're going to be a true skeptic don't believe it just because Walt and Emily say it.

Regarding policy I have to say that this race is not addressing those issues that I care about. Neither candidate is as good on policy as Dennis Kucinich. And I'm completely serious about that. I told everyone early on to consider Kucinich. He pushes hard and in the right directions. And regarding McCain/Obama: as politicians I don't see them as so different. As actors on the current stage I see them as diametrically opposed. How important is that? It depends.

We caught your pointed reference to the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Here's my point if you want to go with the Nazarene as a model:

Jesus saw someone being accused and oppressed. He said to the oppressors Lay off. You're no better. He said to the accused Find the strength to stop. There's judgement in both of those statements.

He didn't like to attack people. But he did attack assumptions and institutions. And individuals that stood up for that institution were made to feel foolish. Their goods were strewn on the temple floor. Their questions were ignored. Their bias was held against them.

If you want to argue that Jesus avoided political discussion, you have a great void of evidence in your favour. I'll not find many stump speeches on the mount in support of any candidate. But this isn't the same as staying out of politics. And you won't convince me that Jesus stayed out of social issues and steered clear of commenting on hatred and hypocrisy.

You quote Emerson saying the following of the soul:

It is not hot and passionate at the appearance of what it calls its own good or bad fortune, at the union or opposition of other persons.

I know Emerson has told me not to do this, but I disagree fundamentally with the idea of not disagreeing. (Of course, right?) But then I should probably read what else he said on the topic. Because we listen in order to understand. And we understand in order to act accordingly. And we act in order to connect appropriately. We have to understand disagreements in order to do all of that. It might be comforting to say that we can just get along without disagreeing, but there is a divine faculty that will fust in us unused if we swallow that bromide.

So I'll quote Yeats:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

The problem being that the best need more of that same rage.

To move over to another poet we can blame both fire and ice for harm. Both desire and indifference can do equal damage.

You set semi-racist McCain-voting in opposition to Obama-fawning and I read in that an important statement of your values. Which values you have made clear at several stages in this discussion and others. You have fought hard not to topple over for Obama. Because you don't want to stop considering. And that's what all these discussions do isn't it? It becomes a wholesale acceptance of a platform. It becomes the battle between us and them identical to good and evil. And so understanding stops. You're right. That is worth nothing. Here is why I ask you to reconsider the nature of the discussion and I ask you to consider contributing further.

Notice that very few of my posts are pro Obama. Because I agree that a presidency from each of them will be more similar than many of us would all like to admit. The troops might return from Iraq a little sooner with Obama. But they will simply move over to Afghanistan. And the middle east will no more be in hand because of pulling out or staying in. Either way it's fucked.

Health care will not become what Obama has on paper. And when a move towards government-provided preventive care is taken, it will be much smaller than the universal-ists have hoped for. And the closer it gets the more people will complain and blame the government, fairly or unfairly. Canadians cheer about their own healthcare system because it pisses off Americans, but they will also admit that the government often mucks up the system. Even when it is ensured that all will have equal access to some care, the quality of reasonably available care will remain inequitably distributed between the rich and the poor.

The financial crisis is the fault of both parties who were focused on the wrong regulations and who might have had good intentions regarding home ownership and economic stimulation. But the encouragement of indulgent consumption caught up with us. It wasn't a partisan event.

They will both treat the environment about the same. Neither will turn the country into a wind-power driven grid. They will both consider domestic drilling and neither will spend much time making sure the auto industry turns its back on oil.

If he wins am hoping that Obama will strengthen his stand against torture and keep his promise to stop it and to move away from the doctrine of executive power. But he never promised not to use signing statements. McCain did. Point McCain.

So I have to say that while Obama is intelligent and charismatic and symbolic of important change, the values of no single individual will rely on his presidency. He will not change any minds about race. He will not simply BE the argument against racism. But when we look at the current stage… at the campaigns that are running right now…

To say a little bit about my contributions and my need to speak out.
Notice that my posts really don't say anything about Obama saving us. About Obama's victory being important. In fact the posts that are in support of him are more in support of the people who are attributing their new confidence to him. I'm really just bashing McCain. And more specifically his judgment and the values that choose and allow the tactics that we see.

About three years ago you and I had a discussion about race and discussions in the classroom. I remember getting somewhat energized in that discussion telling you to implicate your students' indifference. I told you to tell them that they had no business not caring. I used the story of my professor Ralph Williams who started his class on Primo Levi this way:

You may ask what business do you, a goy, have teaching this class on the suffering in Auschwitz? This last century has been my century. I will live the majority of my life in this century. And I must say that when I look at the world and at my own country's behaviour over my lifetime I can't say that I'm extremely proud. After reading Levi's words and and learning from his perspective, I see that he understood of the hatred and the violence that this came about. And as a chemist he sought to understand how outcomes could be avoided. So I say to you: What business would I have not teaching this class?

And that's only a slightly stronger accusation than I would make about your bowing out of the discourse. To be clear:
1) There is no moral or ethical obligation to address the race or the candidates.
2) This political discourse need not be the center of social movement.
3) Political discourse in its simple delineations often does a disservice to the issues as they deserve to be considered.

But here is what I ask you to remember as you retreat: this race has gotten people to care about things that you also care about, and to admit things for which you have a bitter distaste.

Here is what I ask you to consider: that the tactics on one side of the race have encouraged racial divisions and have given many people the comfort to call for continued disrespect for the old categories and even to rally behind newly charged differences.

Here is what I simply ask: Does it not frustrate you that Colin Powell had to remind everyone that Muslims are not evil? That in these times yelling Muslim and sending an email about someone's middle name are enough to be called an accusation? That a candidate can be accused of caring "too much" about race issues?

When we hear paranoid and ridiculous arguments about the New World Order gaining strength from the UN and the Vatican we chuckle and move on, ignoring the prophets because we know they have no case and their delusions are clear. But then we hear paranoid and ridiculous arguments about the oppression of the white male. So then Joe The Plumber represents the country. And a candidate is not only OK with this, he has framed an issue this way and used it to seek an advantage. Have you seen the "I'm Joe the Plumber" ad? C'mon. I still chuckle. But it's harder to move on because a lot of people are buying it.

As I write, Steve Clemons is talking on Washington Journal saying that we should stop attacking the morality of positions. We should instead attack the soundness of commentary. There's something nicely staid about that philosophy. And it's a lovely way to conduct an exchange. But what's wrong with attacking an opposing morality? What's wrong with rattling a political cage and trying to take down one side's credibility before taking down their argument?

So Casey -- I'm not saying that you need to talk about politics. I'm not saying that you're letting us down. I'm not saying that you can't do good away from political discussion. I'm not saying that political discourse is the necessary end of moral expression. But I hold firm that it's not a dead end. And it's not a hindrance. And it doesn't have to be a distraction.

Jon Stewart: Part of the Problem?

Now lest some recent conversations lead you to think that I don't greatly appreciate Jon Stewart let me make it clear. I like him a lot.

Monday night's episode of The Daily Show had a point to make. And perhaps he says it better than I did in my last post: it's not about the people. It's about the theme.

As you can see from tonight, we're all a little chafed here about this whole "some parts of the country are real and American and other parts are not. And uh this weekend I was performing at Northeastern and I kinda had just read the statements that Sarah Palin had made about you know the pro-America parts of the country and I think I might have said in response to that I think I mighta said uh…fuck you.

And…uh…you know that's just my way of saying I think that's a profanity to say, and I was answering with a profanity. But it's not really fair and it makes it seem like…uh…I'm just addressing Governor Palin about this and I'm not. It's really this whole entire theme that there's more-American areas, or some people love the country, some people don't. So I guess what I meant to say was Fuck all yall.

Real America, If You Will. I Will Not.

Nancy Pfotenhauer:

I certainly agree that Northern Virginia has gone more Democratic. … But the rest of the state, uh real Virginia if you will, I think will be very responsive to Senator McCain's message.

It's a frustrating point to hear being made repeatedly by the McCain campaign. I can understand one person trying to make a point about the country as she's always imagined it to be and saying something about the real America in an unscripted and meandering conversation. The best forms of expression don't always come right when we need them.

But you back off when someone takes exception. Not because of a rule, but because it's worth being careful when you start flirting a little too provocatively with intolerance. And when you start to rely on a premise for argument you reveal something about yourself. And to rely on the premise of real segments of the nation is to belittle the value of voices just because they're different.

I could be accused of doing the same here. And that's why I want to make this point explicitly: what bothers me is not that the people who think this way have a voice. Speak up. Go ahead. I don't want anything to stop anyone else from making their point clear too. What does bothers me is that this way of categorizing breeds disregard and bigotry. It's an easy shorthand for racism and hatred.

And it's being used deliberately and repeatedly by a system that's running for office. From Sarah Palin's convention speech line quoting Westbrook Pegler saying We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity to her recent comments about the pro-America areas of the country, to Pfotenhauer's real Virginia comment, we're seeing that this isn't just a quick attempt to make a rhetorical point. It's a fixation on divisions that best serve the campaign when they are encouraged and endorsed. These lines provide a pivot point for the campaigns most vocal and energetic bases. Those who get excited when their prejudices are rewarded.

And so I don't accept that my frustration with these tactics is bred of a similar intolerance for diversity. I'm upset at the campaign. I don't belittle any region. I don't know the individuals who are listening and feeling reassured by the lines being drawn. If I could address one of those cheering in the audience I would probably most want to get into a conversation to understand her fear. And if I found myself unable to give any reassurance I would evaluate my ability to connect. I would adjust my approach. Because some connection is always possible.

But when I see and hear the candidates and their surrogates working against these values of mine, I don't feel at all hypocritical saying that I just don't want to hear it. I don't need to tolerate that voice. And I'm proud I can say that in order to shut them up I'm refusing to vote for them. It's pro-American.

David Sedaris on Indecision

It isn't Sedaris' funniest essay, and he certainly didn't intend it to be primarily funny. Still it has moments like this passage:

The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

And this line: [C]alling yourself a maverick is a sure sign that you’re not one.

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin

I have to hope that the undecided voters aren't waiting to see who's more likable or who's prettier. They're weighing issues and competence. And when PALIN/mccain are weighed and measured they lose the vote. Taking an average of each side I'd go so far as to say that the Obama/Biden ticket is prettier too. And more likable. Wait. Remind me: why is anybody supporting McPalin?

The VP debate was not the bloodbath that many were hoping it would be. Sarah Palin had all her lines memorized like a good automaton. Biden wisely softened his smile and he tempered the edge on his gaze. He focused on McCain and let Palin remain empty even while letting her seem half confident. Seem. Half. Where she fell apart was in the issues that reveal her backward views. This isn't about a stupid person serving next to the president; it's about dangerous philosophies that would poison the Potomac.

Palin believes the role of the vice president is ambiguously suspended between the legislative and executive branches. This is the philosophy that allowed Dick Cheney to deflect accountability and oversight while breaking knees and biting ears for the President.

Palin wants to deny rights to same-sex marriages if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. She promised that she is and would be nothing less than tolerant. But don't believe it. It's not tolerance that fights against changing a bigoted tradition saying unfortunately, that's sometimes where those steps lead. It is only intolerance that is unwilling because of tradition to take the step of granting every couple the right to choose marriage.

Palin told Katie Couric that she would find some examples of McCain pushing for more regulation. Joe Biden gave her an opportunity to show the fruits of her research. And her response?

Palin: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

I'm hoping the undecided voters have been waiting for an answer. I'm hoping they're demanding one. Because she gave none. Last night was an opportunity to go beyond mere personality. But from Palin we saw no policy revelation or delineation of steps for change. And if that camp can't come up with evidence that McCain will likely push for regulation then why the hell don't they come up with an argument that he shouldn't. That's his stance. That's the pedigree of his economic philosophy. And there are many many people out there who are still on board with that philosophy. The refusal to argue the point is both stubborn and weak. And it reveals not just their lack of resolve on an issue, but also the inability to formulate any argument that effectively contradicts Barack Obama's stated goals and the history he has of pushing for them. This is evidence enough that a vote for McCain is based not on any faith in his ability to manage the economy.

Vote for McCain -- Because you don't care about the middle class either.

So it's a foreign-policy/defense thing? McCain supported the surge. But what next? What standard to leave Iraq? His plan doesn't say how; it says when. So when? According to McCain it doesn't matter. He believes in the dignity of waiting.

Biden called for some specifics of a plan for Iraq, and all McCain has put in the chamber is a call for victory. He expects the voters to trust him when he says that waiting is necessary.

Well it's not. It's not necessary because we should not stay in Iraq just to prove that we can. Palin had nothing to add to this. She had nothing because They have nothing. And the most disturbing thing is that it seems to be a bragging point for her. No wait. The most disturbing thing is that these answers worked for some viewers.

I can understand that some voters have made up their minds and they're not listening for arguments. We're all guilty of that at times. And some voters argue on a platform of values that I don't share. If you believe homosexuality is a sin and you believe the constitution should define it as an aberration because of your reading of the bible, then I'll assume that you don't care much for distestablishmentarianism. You might take issue with my conjecture but at that point the argument changes and it's no longer about the candidates.

So getting back to them--

We don't know what the undecided voters are waiting to hear. It might be that they're not sure what the economy needs. They might be unclear on Iraq. Perhaps they have not yet resolved the competing stories. If they haven't seen the numbers they don't know how to judge the tax plans. If they haven't read the bill they don't know what to think of Obama's support of kindergarten sex-education. They might not know if the arguments are misleading or incomplete.

Ignorance is accepted. And it's easy to remedy. In the debate Palin showed some rhetorical dexterity. But she did so by encouraging ignorance by flaunting her necessary incuriosity. I hope that undecided voters are still monitoring the balance because of their refusal to settle on that same ignorance.

Miss Alaska Stumbles in the Interview Round

She read her speech well. And she had the hand-wave down pat. But her recent and recurring gaps and disfluencies are starting to make people cringe. And if she makes sense it's only long enough to show that she's got nothing to say.

Sarah Palin's tarnish is turning to rust. Her campaign has holed her up in the garage hoping to paint over the oxidation before the big show. But rust will out. And I hope Thursday's debate format gives Joe Biden the chance to rattle her frame and point out the red flakes sloughing off. Palin can't hope to hold up when Biden runs at her.

I wonder:

Will she have those examples of McCain's leadership on regulation ready for Katie Couric?

Will she be able to answer just exactly how her proximity to Russia has done anything for her insight?

Is she going to stick with her argument that drastic earmark reform simply means transparency? (Something that every candidate supports, by the way.)

Will she argue that waving the cost of a rape examination kit would be Communist?

Does she oppose equal rights and benefits for same-sex marriage because gays are witches? Or is it because they're devil-possessed?