September 2008 Archives

A few weeks ago a friend sent me an appeal to donate to the JDRF, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, walk she is doing in Mississippi. In Chicago there are five walks around the area on October 5th. Chicago's walks bear the name of former Chicago Cubs third baseman and current WGN Radio broadcaster, Ron Santo. His story of playing professional baseball while battling Type I diabetes was profiled in This Old Cub.

So what is type I diabetes?

Type 1 diabetes often develops in children, adolescents, and young adults, so it's sometimes called "juvenile diabetes." Diabetes is not contagious. You cannot catch diabetes from someone who has it. Researchers continue to study how and why diabetes occurs in certain children and families. Although diabetes cannot be cured, it can be controlled.

Since people with type 1 diabetes can't produce their own insulin, they must put insulin into the blood stream through injections or an insulin pump. If people with type 1 diabetes inject too much insulin (or eat too little) they may have a hypoglycemic reaction. Hypoglyce­mia (low blood sugar) is the most common problem in children with diabetes. It can be very serious and requires imme­diate action.

Many walks are happening around the country and happen at different times, but for most there is plenty of time to sign up on your own or start a team. And if walking isn't your thing, you can always support a walker in your area. A cure isn't quite on the horizon, but advances in medical research make many optimistic that there is a cure out there.

Mark Tapscott is the staunch conservative editor of DC Examiner and a fellow media technologist at the Sunlight Foundation's Open Congress Project. He's for the to the bail but critical of it. For the sake of clarity, he has published on his blog a side-by-side comparison of the Paulson proposal and the one being put to a vote. Take a look at it after the jump.

Remember, this table is from the POV of a fiscal and social conservative. Still, given so many Republicans are against the bail out, I find it a helpful visual aid.

The chart confirms my first gut reaction: There's no help for victims of the sub-prime mortgage mess nor provisions to ensure the criminal prosecution of bankers who willfully lied about their creditors incomes.

Also, I see no reason to create a "bipartisan oversight committee" nor to create a new mandatory banking insurance when we already have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). On the contrary, the FDIC should be expanded as per James Galbraith's Washinton Post opinion piece, A bailout we don't need. I especially think it's really smart to empower the FBI with the money and tools needed to look at this economic crisis from the POV of potential criminal activity.

What do you think?

The US Treasury has just completed its plan for the bailout. The "Rescue Bill," as it's favorably called, will involve the now infamous sum of $700 billion, with $250 billion going immediately to the financial institutions and the rest to be spent in installments as needed.

Now seems like a good time to consider the $700 billion figure.

Over the weekend, I received a forwarded email about the bailout that I immediately took to be a fabrication -- a fake quote from a deliberately vague source so it could never be disproved.

But inspired by curiosity, I looked for it online, and to my surprise, found it within a minute on one of the country's most reputable sites for financial and business news: Forbes.com.

The quote, from a "spokeswoman for the US Treasury", states that the $700 billion dollars is "not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number."

I couldn't believe it was real. It's absurd and unconscionable that the US Treasury would simply conjure a number out of thin air and say, "Here! This oughta do the trick."

But then again, maybe it isn't. The spokeswoman's quote may not have been fake, but our monetary system certainly is. We haven't had a gold standard in 75 years. Every time we spend a dollar, its value is determined entirely by someone else's willingness to accept it. It's all just Monopoly money, and our entire credit system is a gigantic house of cards.

So when we're talking about much larger numbers, where the sellers and buyers are banks and governments, the dollar agreement described above is merely expanded. Every time a bank agrees to buy up the "assets" of another bank, or a government bails out a defunct and overspent industry, the transaction is only possible if both parties agree to accept the number as meaningful in some way.

The cycle then repeats itself, and the money -- like oil, water and air -- begins to circulate. First it's in the hands of one bank or other organization, then another, and then another. It's always just moving around, but "it" is actually nothing.

Or nothing more than an agreement, anyway.

So yes, the Treasury could have come up with any formidable number. It could have said $500 billion, $1.2 trillion, $875 billion. It doesn't really matter.

None of this makes the number OK, of course, and neither does the fact that $700 billion has become the de facto figure that people around the world are talking about when they talk about the financial crisis. It's become a reality of our economic and political climate, and regardless of how arbitrary it is, there's no longer any other option.

After the Senate decides what to finally do with the plan that was finalized very early this morning, we'll be hearing a lot more about this random, abstract, meaningless number.

It's amazing how much power something so artificial and nonexistent can wield.

Everyone keeps saying it: This is the most important election in generations. Voter registration drives are everywhere, get out the vote events will certainly kick into once we hit October, and groups who normally don't endorse in general elections are coming out of the woodwork.

The National Organization for Women endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket. Not a surprise you say? Well it is the only time NOW has endorsed in the general election without a woman being on the ticket.

Did you hear about the poll done about a month ago asking people if they would vote for someone without a pet? Well, the Humane Society Legislative Fund did and they reacted. It is their first endorsement in the general election ever.

One of the guiding principles of the Humane Society Legislative Fund is that we evaluate candidates based on a single criterion: where they stand on animal protection policies. We don't make decisions based on party affiliation, or any other social issue, or even how many pets they have. We care about their views and actions on the major policy debates relating to animal welfare

It also didn't help the McCain-Palin ticket that Palin keeps touting her hunting skills as part of her qualifications. Field dressing a moose and shooting wolves from helicopters doesn't make you friends with the animal rights folks.

If you don't want to get your heart broken, don't read the list of entertainers who have endorsed McCain or Obama. It's hard to read that an actor who played a favorite character is off fighting against your beliefs. Or you can read it and bask in partisan glory while watching their shows/movies.

But one celebrity's endorsement has set off more than the usual controversy. Daddy Yankee's endorsement has caused backlash from other Latinos, as well as from conservative Latinos who are offended by DY's lyrics.

The Republicans of Choice PAC and the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed McCain.

Despite a lengthy web search, I couldn't find too many "first" endorsements. I was looking for Luddites for McCain (I guess their endorsement wouldn't be online, now would it?) or the American Association of Knitters for Obama, not the usual suspects. Whether this really is the most important election in a generation or two remains to be seen. But it has definitely been one of the more entertaining in my memory.

Kenneth Cole explained how Americans can put their best foot forward by volunteering

Veronica highlights a particularly timely new book about "National Security Moms"

David Alm laments the lack of political knowledge of many U.S. voters and examines the true meaning of a "liberal arts" education

Robert Whitlock uploaded a photo of participants at a recent peace vigil

Ron Mwangaguhunga weighs in on the politicization of the meetings of the United Nations (Sarah Palin, anyone?) and highlights new initiatives at Google to battle infectious disease

Heather Dumford, Media Marketing Manager at Kenneth Cole Productions, highlighted new Green programming on the Sundance channel

Liza Sabater pointed to evidence that the Obama and McCain camps are planning even more mudslinging over the coming weeks

When our car died in 2005 we bought a Toyota Prius. It was more money than we wanted to spend on a car, but we went for it. Fast forward a few years, gas is a couple dollars per gallon pricier and we are even more in love with our car. One of the flaws with the Prius is trying to figure out if it is better for high MPG in the summer to roll down the windows or turn on the AC: it's all about aerodynamics and has been hotly debated in Prius circles.

*insert flower sprout sound* Low Impact Living reports that the third generation Prius will use solar panels:

According to Marketwatch, the Nikkei reported that the solar panels would provide a portion of the two to five kilowatts needed to power the air conditioning unit. The solar panels would be supplied by Kyocera.

That sound you heard is a collective woot! by the hybrid nation.

While Toyota seems to still be having issues with catching up to Prius-mania, there is optimism that they will eventually deliver this much needed and wanted piece of technology for car owners. Considering that I feel that I get the highest MPG when the weather is cool enough that I just crack my window... if we can keep my windows shut in the summer, maybe we'd crack that 50-55 MPG barrier in the city.

Of course I then start to ponder if the AC technology is green enough to be truly offset by the solar power. Is there a car engineer in the house to explain if not using the AC is greener than using the AC even if it is solar powered?

Kermit was right — it isn't easy being green.

This spring, Google, the search engine par excellence with a Lefty public face, came under attack for a new twist on an old problem: censorship. Historically, censorship is associated with conservatives, while the ones fighting it are liberal.

Not anymore. (Or at least not in this case.)

The Christian Institute, a UK-based religious organization, tried to advertise on Google with an anti-abortion message, and Google said no. Spokespeople said the company does not allow ads with "abortion or religion-related content," but failed to mention that it had sold advertising space to doctors offering abortions and the non-profit abortion rights group Our Bodies Ourselves.

So the Christian Institute filed a lawsuit, claiming that Google was discriminating on religious grounds. After months of negotiation, Google revised its policies and settled out-of-court with the Institute. And as of last Wednesday, the search engine now allows anti-abortion ads provided they aren't graphic or emotional.

I haven't been away because am slacking. I've been away because I've truly been slogging through the bail out panic/credit crisis, trying to digest everything I can so I can blog it here.

Yet there is so much of it that I've been a bit overwhelmed. I will get back to y'all tomorrow with some of my thoughts on all that.

In the meantime, let's take a quick look at the major distraction : The mudslinging happening betwixt the campaigns. I think these two images summarize what's going on.

What do you think? Is it accurate, way over the top or even worse?

Google Inc. has vastly benefited from globalization, so it is natural -- and laudable -- that they would want to give back to the citizens of the world with largesse through their philanthropic arm, Google.org. For all the positive impacts of globalization (cheaper consumer goods, the information revolution, greater transparency of rogue regimes through citizen journalism, a more integrated global economy), there have been drawbacks (the off-shoring of jobs, the spread of infectious diseases, a more integrated global economy). Mark Smolinski is Google's director of the Predict and Prevent Initiative, a global health program that channels tens of millions of Google's dollars and the company's in-house technology expertise -- think Google Maps and Google News -- tackling the problem of infectious disease. Those challenges, which used to be buried in the international section of the newspaper, are now only a plane ride away, as we were reminded by the bird flu pandemic.

HealthMap, for example, maps and distills information about outbreaks of disease from around the world. This open and free resource has been favorably reviewed by The Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. HealthMap received a $450,000 grant in 2007 from Dr. Smolinski's global public service. Evan Ratliff of Wired profiles Smolinski this month:

"Smolinski faces a daunting landscape. More than 300 new diseases have emerged since 1940, many the result of jumps from wild animal to human. Outbreaks are expected to increase as environmental degradation thrusts humans into ever-closer contact with wildlife and as climate change alters the life cycles of disease vectors ... Meanwhile, older diseases are rapidly crisscrossing the planet. 'West Nile, which has been around in Africa since antiquity, appeared in 1999 in New York, and in three years it spread throughout the country,' Smolinski says. 'Now it is one of our endemic diseases.'

"Yet even though the next West Nile or HIV is just a plane flight away, the global public health system remains focused on responding to diseases after they've spread."

Google.org has given $5 million to InSTEDD (Innovative Support to Emergencies, Diseases and Disasters), another early detection non-profit focusing on humanitarian crises and global health. Google.org has also meted out a $2 million grant to Pratham, to improve the quality of education in India.

[Image: Remixtheory]

This Tuesday, September 23rd, on the Sundance Channel, the Green night of programming will consist of two different episodes of Big Ideas for a Small Planet. The first episode, which will air at 9pm, is entitled "Power." "This episode explores the booming field of alternative energy as it introduces several individuals who are working to develop clean, renewable energy from resources both well-known and left-field. In Washington D.C., we meet a team from Texas A&M University who are participating in the Solar Decathlon, a competition to build a fully functional home on the Washington Mall."

An all new U.S television premiere will air at 9:35pm, entitled The Planet. It was directed by Michael Stenberg, Johan Soderberg and Linus Torell. "This ambitious film delivers a comprehensive look at the earth as a system of interconnected elements-land, water, flora, fauna, etc.- on the brink of cataclysmic change. Filmed in over 25 countries, The Planet surveys how human beings have transformed the surface of the earth; startling images capture everything from sprawling recycling dumps in China, to the check-by-jowl proximity of African cities to wild animal habitats, to the dramatic deforestation of the Amazon rainforest."

The second episode of Big Ideas for a Small Planet for the night will air at 11:05pm and is entitled "Business," which explains how "corporations have begun embracing green business practices as beneficial to their bottom lines, productivity and consumer profiles. This episode visits four companies of varying size, all of them leaders of the eco vanguard."

Has the modern college or university become a liberal propaganda machine? Does higher education in America focus solely on Leftist politics at the expense of critical thought and a thorough debate? Are professors brainwashing their students?

These questions have been around at least since the 1970s, when the "culture wars" began with the onset of feminism and postmodernism and identity politics in the college classroom. In the 1980s and '90s, they became the norm -- so much so, in fact, that if "cultural relativism" and the "social construction of reality" weren't part of your daily conversation, you ran the risk of being considered uneducated.

Out were the dead white men; in were Southern women writers, black poets, "outsider" artists and courses on how to write your own memoirs (surely a challenge for some, whose 18 or 19 years of life hadn't yet availed much material).

Professors at small liberal arts colleges adopted a new teaching strategy: anti-teaching. Students would debate modern Christianity, the meaning of a novel's title, or the "paradigm shifts" of the late Sixties with little more than some leading questions and engaged nodding from their professors, with whom students were on a first-name basis. There were no "answers" anymore, just questions.

Now, in 2008, some wealthy conservative people and organizations are trying to wrest the Academy from the clutches of political correctness and postmodernism.

The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank in New York, developed the Veritas Fund last year to help curb the liberal influence on American campuses, and balance it with more traditionalist and conservative teachings by funding the development of new programs.

But as the Institute's website clearly states, "Our goal is not to topple what CAU senior fellow and former Olin Foundation director Jim Piereson has aptly coined the 'Left University' and replace it with a 'Right University.' Rather, we want to encourage universities to embrace a broader range of thought on the issues that are shaping our nation and the world. Many universities are devout champions of diversity when it comes to the racial and gender makeup of their student bodies-but without diversity of thought, such efforts are hollow. Through books, conferences, and panel discussions, the Center for the American University works to strengthen the role of the university in a free society."

The Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History, another group sponsoring such curricula, works with schools to offer conferences, lectures, fellowships, workshops and other programs to "raise awareness among academic leaders, parents and students about the need to strengthen the teaching of our nation's history and founding principles at the undergraduate college level."

If executed wisely, these programs could do a tremendous amount of good for today's college students, but only if they proceed in a spirit of critical inquiry and serious analysis of the issues. In this weekend's edition of the New York Times magazine, a compelling case is made for why great teaching will never be "cool." A great teacher, the article states, challenges your notions of normalcy and convention, asks you to reconsider your long-held assumptions about the world, and even puts you a little on-edge.

Organizations like Veritas and the Jack Miller Center have the potential to do just that, especially now, after decades of an increasingly Left-leaning approach in academia. But only if they remain dedicated to the project of education, not the production of conservative ideologues.

[Image: Old Main, the oldest building at St. Olaf College, my undergraduate alma mater, where I created my own major in a program that gave evaluations instead of grades, and where all of my courses were either small seminars or one-on-one tutorials. I was at St. Olaf from 1993 to 1997. Photo by calebrw]

This week the United Nations General Assembly opens their 63rd session, bringing global theater and oftentimes surreal behind-the-scenes meetings between heads of state and their ambassadors into the heart of New York City. Drama!

The 192-member world body is many things to many people. To Idealists, or Liberal Internationalists, the United Nations, despite its faults, represents -- at its best -- the true parliament of mankind. But according to Walter Russell Mead, more of a Realist, in Power, Terror, Peace and War, "The basic American position (is) that institutions like the Security Council are an important element of international relations, but that they cannot bear the full weight that (Pro-International law nations) would like to place on them." And from the right end of the spectrum, Fox News contributor and former Senate candidate Oliver North writes, in his archest Us-Versus-Them manner, "The UN Headquarters building in Manhattan has become the venue of choice for 'diplomats' and foreign leaders to condemn America, our values and virtues." Charmed, I'm sure.

There will be full plate at Turtle Bay. U.N. reform, Russia's invasion of Georgia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Darfur, Burma and Zimbabwe are all on President Bush's radar as he visits the city starting Today to wade into this world of drama for the eighth and last time. On Tuesday Bush will meet with new Pakistani President Zardari, just a few days after a deadly terrorist attack.

Seventy-five-year-old Roman Catholic priest Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, the new president of the UN General Assembly, recently riled the Bush administration with what they perceived as "anti-U.S. remarks." Father d'Escoto -- a Roman Catholic Sandanista; I couldn't make this up -- earned himself an official rebuke from U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad last Thursday. The bad blood between America and the priest goes back to the 1980s. France24 writes, "In 1983, Nicaragua accused the CIA of trying to murder d'Escoto, by sending him a bottle of Benedictine liqueur laced with the poison thallium." Again, I couldn't make this up if I tried.

The General Assembly President will attend a dinner for controversial Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sponsored by the the Quaker United Nations Office, Mennonite Central Committee, Religions for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee and the World Council of Churches. Alaska governor and Senator McCain's running mate Sarah Palin will also be in the city, no doubt offering up strong opinions on the United Nations "nuance" contrasted with her small town values. Palin, no political slouch, will probably use the platform of her appearance speaking at that National Coalition to Stop Iran Now rally -- where Senator Clinton was also supposed to speak -- to make her point. One final tidbit: Governor Palin, whose foreign policy credentials have been parodied by everyone from The Colbert Report to SNL, will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai during the General Assembly's opening.

May we live in interesting times!

UPDATE: May we live in interesting times, indeed! This post was early. In the intervening time, Governor Palin was disinvited to the event, which, in due course, has caused a bit of a media firestorm. Former UN Ambassador Bolton has told Fox News: "Well, I think it was a mistake. But I know the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. It's a very important group. They have never done anything, in my view, that was partisan. So they must have come under extraordinary pressure from Democratic activists to cancel that invitation. And I think it's damaged the group, unfortunately, and distracted attention from Iran's nuclear program."

[Image: Stephan Savoia for the Associated Press]

There's an epidemic sweeping across our nation on both sides of the political divide. In my daily interactions with everyone from family members to friends and co-workers, I have noticed a disheartening trend: Very few people take the time to research the candidates' positions.

Last week I was talking with some co-workers about the economic crisis facing the country. A few of them were well-read on the subject and we were sharing some frightening statistics. Then a liberal, young, gay, minority man we work with offered his two cents: "I'm voting for Obama. That's it. No more debate. There's nothing to debate. I'm just voting for Obama."

Why is he voting for Obama? Because that's who a young, gay, minority man is supposed to vote for? (And by the way, his comment was a complete non-sequitur. We weren't talking about the candidates at all.)

One of the biggest mysteries of American rural voters is that they vote against their best interests when they vote Republican.

This is true from an economic standpoint but not from a moral one. Republicans and many rural Americans have the same conservative values, but the Democrats are the ones who want to protect their paychecks. So which side should they weigh more on November 4th?

The New York Times magazine published a phenomenal article on Sunday, August 24th titled "Advanced Obamanomics", detailing the Democratic nominee's economic plan, which many would be surprised to find shares some striking similarities to Ronald Reagan's economic plan -- aka "Reaganomics." Obama, after all, spent 12 years at the University of Chicago, where Milton Friedman built a career and the Chicago School of economics, which champions a free-market ideology.

Those years left their mark on Obama, but he has tempered their hard-Right teachings with a more compassionate, Clinton-esque agenda for benefiting working Americans. Of course, this too has its critics. In June, Naomi Klein published a comparatively harsh piece on the U of C's influence on Obama in The Nation.

Nevertheless, if more Republicans who vote on fiscal responsibility alone read that one article, I suspect a lot of them would vote for Obama this election. Especially since John McCain has openly admitted that he's pretty fuzzy on economics, period. Maybe even some Democrats would have second thoughts about their party's candidate.

But single-issue voters still pose a threat to our political system, and the only worse thing is when people vote -- superficially -- for whomever they think they're "supposed" to vote for, refuse to engage in the debate, or simply learn about the candidates, like the co-worker I mentioned above. Just think about all the Obama merchandise you see everywhere you go: the man's become a fashion statement, feeding the muses of silk-screeners and button designers nationwide. And while I don't have a problem with the merchandise itself, it troubles me that wearing a t-shirt has become a de facto substitute for being politically involved.

It is not a substitute.

After all, however popular and cool a president may be, he's not a rock star. The stakes are too high to elect him as such. Moreover, the next president is going to be around for at least four years, and he's going to have control over a lot more than the one thing that inspired you to vote for him.

If you're still reading, take this short click-through quiz to see how your beliefs stack up to quotes taken directly from Obama and McCain, without attribution, on issues like the economy, Iraq and illegal immigration. At the end, you'll be shown which of your answers were for Obama and McCain, respectively. You might be surprised by the results.

[Images: Obama: realjameso16; McCain: dsb nola]

News flash: Not all American women like Sarah Palin. Super-news flash: Not even all Alaskan women like Sarah Palin.

Just hours after Saturday Night Live's hugely popular sketch featuring Tina Fey as the Republican vice presidential nominee and Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton, nearly 1,500 women gathered in Anchorage to let their voices be heard about the woman who has overnight become the face of Alaskan women. Nothing could please these women less.

This video provides a close-up of the action.

[Image Credit: Mudflats Blog]

Last weekend, the New York Times published the following correspondences between former New York City mayor Ed Koch and some of the 400 people on his email list. The paper reports that Koch had disclosed that he is endorsing Barack Obama for president, which many view as a contradiction since he also supported George W. Bush. Koch, like every New York City mayor before and since his reign in the 1980s, was a controversial leader. Neither universally loved nor despised, he had his friends and his foes. Both can be found in these brief and often hilarious exchanges. Koch's responses are italicized.

"Though I could not disagree with you more on your backing of George W. Bush, I congratulate you on your choice this time around."

"Isn't it possible that both my choices were and are correct? History will make that judgment."

"I believe you made the wrong decision. ... I just pray that whoever wins is the choosing of our Lord."

"I really don't believe God chooses our candidates and winners. If that were the case, how did Hitler win? He was elected in a democratic election before the dictatorship. So let's leave God out of this."

"How can you think a community organizer has the backbone to stand up for America?"

"Why do you disparage community organizers? Weren't Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson in effect community organizers?"

"You have chosen political correctness over the preservation of Israel and this country and this greatly saddens me."

"Reread your note. Don't you think it is arrogant? Isn't it possible that my judgment is more informed than yours? Can't we simply agree to disagree, without you accusing me of political correctness?"

"No one believes you are really endorsing Obama out of a sincere belief that he is the better candidate after you endorsed Bush in '04."

"How foolish of you. ... The fact that I exercised independence of my party then is surely relevant and establishes that I vote my conscience."

Why would anyone want to boycott the Queen of Self-Improvement? Until the 2008 Presidential election, billionaire talker Oprah Winfrey had played it relatively safe career-wise. As a result, Oprah was all things to all people and didn't alienate any particular demographic. Who among us -- Conservative or Liberal -- doesn't want to better themselves? It was on this foundation of robust inoffensiveness that The Oprah Nation was formed. But in endorsing fellow Illinoisian Senator Barack Obama for president last May on Larry King, Oprah has run into what can only be properly construed as a Barack-lash. In Colorado and Florida there are moves to boycott Oprah, mainly for her decision not to have Governor Sarah Palin on the show.

Oprah is wading still deeper into the choppy waters of American partisan politics, challenging powerful Republican Senator Tom Coburn on Senate Bill 1738, known as The Combating Child Exploitation Act, which was sponsored by Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden. Senator Coburn, nicknamed "Senator No" for his zeal at cutting spending, has blocked the bill, arguing that the legislation would authorize a billion dollars in law enforcement spending over eight years to combat the exploitation of children. Winfrey, who is a survivor of sexual abuse, has asked her viewers to call and write the Senate and demand support for the bill.

In a 1999 survey of the most admired and respected 20th-century women, Oprah came in second only to Mother Teresa. But an August 2007 CBS News poll -- taken three months after she endorsed Obama -- showed her favorability had dropped to 61 percent from 74 percent. Has Oprah paid a price for getting into politics? What do you think?

[Image: George Burns, Harpo Productions Inc.]

How many of you are like Barney Fife, the Don Knotts character in this video who knows not a word of the US Constitution, not even the Preamble?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

C'mon, don't be shy, 'cause I know there's quite a number of you out there who don't even know that paragraph ...OK, OK, count me in as one of those people. But that's no excuse not to read our Constitution regularly. Hey, if a guy like Dennis Kucinich carries it in his pocket wherever he goes, so should we.

This Thursday, Rooftop Films is offering a sneak preview of October Country, a new documentary by Michael Palmieri and Donal Mosher about an American family struggling for stability while haunted by the ghosts of war, teen pregnancy, foster care and child abuse. As Rooftop's release puts it, "This vibrant and intimate documentary examines the forces that unsettle the working poor and the violence that lurks beneath the surface of American life."

The film will be shown on the roof of the Open Road Rooftop at 350 Grand St. (corner of Essex) on the Lower East Side at 9pm. (Arrive by 8:30 for good seats and some live music.)

At just $9.00 a ticket, it's cheaper than a regular movie theater and you get live music, a program of short films prior to the feature, and the chance to sit atop one of New York's rooftops under an ephemerally warm September sky. Unless, of course, you'd rather spend your Thursday night fighting for space at yet another bar...

The Sundance Channel will be hosting another night of Green Programming, beginning with "It's Not Easy Being Green," episode 8 at 9pm. Tonight, "Dick and Jim visit a Cambridge mechanic named Gary, who wants to save money by switching his car to biodiesel. Using scrounged and free materials, the men construct a backyard bio-fuel processor, which will convert used vegetable oil from the local take-out restaurant."

At 9:35pm, "Off the Grid: Life on the Mesa" will air. This documentary, directed by Jeremy Stulberg and Randy Stulberg, is about "some 400 people who make their home on rugged 15-square mile stretch of New Mexico desert known as the Mesa. Devoid basic amenities like running water, paved roads and power lines, the Mesa isn't an easy place to live, but it does offer solitude and autonomy to those who need it, as well as an alternative to contemporary consumer society. This candid documentary captures the tenor of a proudly self-contained and democratic society while profiling several residents, including Marine, a magnetic Gulf War veteran; Mama Phyllis, an even-tempered former psychiatric nurse; and Stan a kindly pig farmer and father figure to the teenage runaways that have come and gone for years."

EngageHer.org is trying to shrink that margin. Would this video be too little too late? I'd like to see it because, if anything, it would be an invaluable tool for Get Out The Vote canvassers and candidate campaigns alike.

From their blog :

With over 30+ million minority women in the U.S. who are eligible to vote, we can make a big and profound impact on our November elections. More importantly when you multiply our influence on our families, communities and social networks, to go out and vote, we have a huge part to play in choosing our next President. Even more important is all the excitement and feedback we're getting from women regardless of their racial or ethnic background who want to join us. They're saying that our key messages and focus on the issues we universally care about is what we all should focus on when we vote. Together, we will pick the next President of the United States.

Our key messages:

1. Focus on the issues: Education, Health, Economy, Environment, Social Justice

2. Demand accountability from the elected legislators for the past 8 years and moving forward

3. You can Vote for just the President, member of Congress and Senate and skip the rest of the ballot

4. Use the absentee ballot so you don't have to worry about childcare, getting to the polls, etc.

Our documentary tells the stories of minority women and the reasons why they don't vote.

So if there is one video you pass on today to friends, family and colleagues, make it this video.

Growing up, I thought all Democrats were lazy. I thought they were uneducated, slow-witted drunks. I thought their primary concern was to form unions that would ensure them a lifetime of decent pay for minimal work. I figured they were all looking for a hand-out, a free ride, and just enough cash for another six-pack.

And I got my thoughts where most kids do: from my parents, or at least how I perceived my parents' positions. I remember cheering on the TV in 1980 as our family gathered around to watch the states turn red, signaling Ronald Reagan's ousting of Jimmy Carter. I remember "voting" for Reagan myself in a mock-election during fourth grade, when he ran again in 1984. I remember feeling really nervous when I found out that my friend Scott's parents were Democrats, but then figuring it made sense because Scott's dad worked in a factory for John Deere, the farm equipment manufacturer that employed my own father, who worked in an office at the shimmering corporate headquarters, who always wore a suit, and who commuted to work in a grey four-door sedan.

To my child's mind, Republican meant "smart" and Democrat meant its opposite.

Then, to make a long story short, I grew up. I realized that the two parties are far more complex than I'd thought, and that wearing blue jeans to work doesn't mean someone is dumb. And of course, I realized that plenty of suits aren't very bright.

Over the past 20 years or so, since my political "awakening" began, I've had many debates with my father, whom I may disagree with politically but whose intelligence and logic have always commanded my respect. Simply put, he's a smart guy.

But he's also stubborn as hell, and in all my 33 years, I have never seen him capitulate his political loyalties. He's a Republican, end of story.

Until now. Below is an e-mail he sent to a Republican friend of his this weekend after getting fed up with the slew of anti-Obama emails the friend was sending. In this slap-dash effort to shore up his friend's fears about Obama, my father, the 64-year-old Vietnam veteran, Fifties generation company man, and Midwestern stalwart offers his thoughts on our country's future under the leadership of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Try to picture this: McCain dies in office and the glib, chirpy and vapid soccer mom ascends to the presidency, sandwiching presidential decisions in between tending to her newborn and trying to figure out what Gibson meant when he asked her about the Bush Doctrine.

Now she has to go up against Chavez, Raul Castro, Kim Jong Il, Ahmedenijad and Putin, all of whom are laughing their asses off. Bush has meanwhile pissed off Russia, setting relations with Russia back to Cold War days, over a scrap of land he chose to defend because a pipsqueak former SSR winked at him real friendly-like, and McCain has taken up where Bush left off.

She scratches her head, trying to draw upon her experience as the mayor of a town of 8,000 or her 18 months as governor of Alaska to determine what to do next -- that is, after she mops up the baby's drooling and freshens up her lipstick. Now Honduras has broken diplomatic relations with the United States, in sympathy with Venezuela and Bolivia, and other Central American and South American countries are getting nervous.

She reassures them: "Don't worry about a thing! I stood right up to the Wasilla City Council and I sold the airplane on eBay!"

I simply cannot take a chance like that. This time, for the first time in my life and in fact for the first time in the history of our family, I am going to have to vote for a Democrat. I disliked all the possible candidates on both sides -- hated and feared Hillary and Huckabee in particular -- but I was still pretty much on the fence until McCain picked Palin.

True, I detested the way the born-again Christian Right has hijacked the party and I was very leery of McCain's hotheadedness, but still, I thought maybe he was just enough of a maverick to get the party back out of the clutches of the Right Wing extremists and return it to the position it used to occupy in American government: solid, responsible and intelligent public management versus social engineering and throwing money at problems.

But when he picked Palin, he destroyed whatever remaining faith I had in his intelligence or fitness to govern. Not only does he put us in the jeopardy of having a soccer mom answer that 3am call, but he wastes the opportunity to prepare the next potential Republican candidate for a shot at the presidency -- all for the sake of pandering to the Far Right and to women voters (those I know, by the way, are as appalled as I) between now and Nov. 4.

What concerns me most is what happens after January 20.

Image Credit: PH1 Michael B. Lewis, USN]

The city of Fayetteville, NC decided to put an exorbitant fine on panhandling, the likes of which meant it would either never be issued, never be collected, or would be an excuse for further action. The homeless, mostly unaware of the law being passed in the first place, continued to ask for money in downtown areas after dark. I was driving home one night and saw this gentleman standing on the corner with a sign that he rolled up when traffic was moving and unrolled when the light turned red. I pulled over and asked him about the law and if he'd mind if I took a few pictures. He consented, and had very little to say. When a small weekly newspaper ran one of the photos of him I'm told he was much more excited, saying "I'm a celebrity now!"

He never showed any intention of being deterred by the fine, but the impression I got watching him ask for money against the rain slicked asphalt backdrop wasn't one of determination so much as it was of nothing left to lose and not enough energy to care.

Steve Wyatt, Associate Creative Director at Kenneth Cole Productions, uploaded several new videos in the "One Size Fits All" series

Liza Sabater pointed out that pink has become the new political branding of the anti-war movement

Michael Karnjanaprakorn shared his views on why New Orleans remains a fun, vibrant, resilient, and innovative city

Richard Spencer comments on the crude logic of "energy independence"

While David Alm reported on the activities of protesters at the RNC in Minnesota, Liza Sabater commented on the behavior of the riot police at the event

Veronica reminded readers of ways to help out hurricane victims in the Caribbean

Robert Genovese, Vice President of Marketing and Media Director at Kenneth Cole Productions, highlighted Kenneth Cole's role at the Service Nation Summit

Byron Edwards uploaded a particularly poignant photo of a family member with a brain tumor

Heather Dumford, Media Marketing Manager at Kenneth Cole Productions, alerted readers to green programming on the Sundance Channel

Where does America, going forward, move from here on civic engagement? As divided as this nation is politically, both major presidential candidates set aside their differences yesterday and were waxing rhapsodic on the subject of volunteerism at the ServiceNation Forum. Keeping in that spirit of bipartisanship on the subject of national service, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, coming from opposite sides of the aisle, will introduce the Serve America Act today. The legislation creates an opportunity for 175,000 more Americans at various stages of life to give a year of public service to their country, expanding the number of participants to a quarter of a million. From The Salt Lake Tribune:

"The bill, which is essentially an expansion of the AmeriCorps program, would provide $5 billion over five years to help nonprofits, community organizations and faith-based programs create volunteer opportunities in five areas, or five new and distinct 'corps.'

"... Most of the money would go to state service commissions or multi-state nonprofits, who would then provide grants to smaller groups. Any nonprofits securing funding would have to match the money, dollar for dollar.

"Participants could serve full-time or part-time and would receive modest pay and an educational stipend."

"While the bill is targeted at college-aged people, 10 percent of the money would be set aside for programs where the majority of volunteers are at least 50 years old."

The five new and distinct "corps" will cover specific national challenges in Education (the dropout crisis and mentoring), Health (improving low-income health care), Green Energy (improving energy efficiency), Jobs (expansion of economic opportunities) and Emergency response (disasters). A brief history of National Service, from NationalServiceResources.Org [PDF].

[Image: Time magazine]

Imagine you're a 19-year-old college student with a stellar academic background, a solid understanding of current political issues, and the buzz of getting to vote for the first time in your life. You're a sophomore at an out-of-state college, reading blogs and newspapers daily to stay abreast of the heated contest for the presidency.

Then the local registrar of elections tells you that if you register to vote as a college student in your adopted state, your parents will no longer be able to claim you as a dependent on their tax returns, and you'll lose your scholarship, as well as coverage by your parents' health and auto insurance plans.

This is exactly what happened at Virginia Tech this year, which some believe was an effort to thwart left-leaning students from voting for Barack Obama in a predominantly right-wing state. The warning was issued on August 25th, incidentally the first day of the Democratic National Convention. Shortly thereafter, the school sent around another, more subdued warning, that quoted the Board of Elections Website directly, but took that site's "warnings" out of context, making them both vague and foreboding.

The Obama campaign said the release sounded like a "good-faith effort" to inform students of state guidelines, and did not suspect foul play of the sort I suggested above. Moreover, the initial release was reportedly written by an intern, which may account for some of its murky language.

Still, when young adults are getting involved in politics for the first time and are trying to get their bearings, murky language and vague threats are not the best introduction. Or maybe they are. The political process is anything but clean, and maybe its best to let young people in on this dirty little secret as early as possible. Make 'em learn the hard way, so to speak.

On second thought... no. Virginia should just stop bullying its college students into not voting. It's unAmerican.

I'm here at ServiceNation's Presidential Forum on the importance of community and civic service.

ServiceNation Summit, Sept. 11-12 in New York city, will bring together 500 leaders of all ages and from every sector of American life --from universities and foundations, to business and politics --to celebrate the power and potential of citizen service, and lay out a bold policy blueprint for addressing America's greatest social challenges through expanded opportunities for volunteer and national service.

The Forum is being broadcast live on PBS, so I am not going to give you the blow by blow. What I am going to give you is my rapid impression of the candidates.


When asked how to make sure people don't forget September 11, he said that commemoration is important but also service and sacrifice.


One of the points the organizers of this event have made is that John McCain and Barack Obama both have served our country; they've just done it in different ways.


For McCain, government is about protecting people and keeping them safe. The private sector, including "faith-based organizations," are there to take care of communities.


He believes there are enough volunteers in the country. That America is great for its volunteerism. That contrary to what Judy Woodruff had asserted, most volunteers are well-to-do.


He wouldn't force companies to provide paid-leave for people who want to do community or national service. He would encourage it but not make it public policy.


John McCain is calling out Columbia University for not allowing the ROTC. This is in response of Judy bringing out statistics about how under-educated and under-skilled some of the military is.


Why wouldn't have we have a blend of compulsory community and military service in this country? He doesn't believe that it should be compulsory and that there are programs already working like the PeaceCorps and AmeriCorps. He doesn't believe that service has to be run always by the government.


The question of the night : What about Palin's comment about "community service?" It's tough business. He skirts the answer and says we need to end partisanship. Yet says the tone of this campaign would have been completely different had Obama accepted to appear on Town Halls. 


Government can't do it all. Volunteerism starts at the grassroots level.


He believes the US should that foreign countries that do not like the United States should.


He believes we should send PeaceCorps people to countries "that do not like us." Do not give then aid but give them Americans so they can see the good we can do. We also should be opening our arms to people from other countries so they can see how great a nation we have.


McCain is passionate about the greatness of the United States. He thinks we're not going to have social strife as whites become the minority. That's because this country is used to immigrants.

It's an odd thing, this idea of service. The word itself was one of the first loan words from Norman French into English, along with préson, which obviously carries more unambiguously dark meanings. The French term comes, as that language generally does, from Latin, where servire is the verb for being in the state of servitude. The noun to the verb is the Latin term for slave.

I'm here at the First Service Nation Summit at Columbia University in New York City; expected in a few minutes is Governor David Paterson. After the governor, at 8pm Eastern, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain will be taking the stage to talk about the idea of service (watch the livecast here).

We have come to understand service not as something entered into with iron bounds, but willingly, in many cases, without significant reimbursement. Our rulers don't speak of their power; they cloak it in the lofty language not of dominion, but of aid rendered, lives eased, deeds done for the common good. Just as our rulers do not rule, our soldiers do not fight, they serve, as do our guardians of public order. The motto of the NYPD, for example, is To Protect and Serve.

The discussion today will take place in an environment characterized by imposing imperial architecture, not something one would normally associate with the idea of service; I write this from the grand marble hall of the Low Library, beneath a century-old Roman dome.

Outside, however, is a crowd of eager youth, the students of Columbia, the fresh young face of contemporary America. Inside the hall, our society's powerful speak about service; but it's those young people of every ethnic, religious, class or infinitely variegated other backgrounds, who will provide it.

Blogs level the playing field in journalism and filmmaking. You don't need a budget, a resume, or even a "job" to reach audiences far and wide. Recognizing this new media landscape, YouTube has partnered with the Pulitzer Center to present Project: Report, a journalism contest for non-professional, aspiring journalists to tell stories that might have gone uncovered by traditional media.

Project: Report consists of three rounds in which reporters will be given an assignment to complete, the first being to profile someone in the entrant's community, in three minutes or less. A panel of journalists from the Pulitzer Center will narrow the field to 10 semi-finalists, at which point the assignment for Round Two will be announced. The YouTube community -- i.e., you and me -- will judge that round to determine the five finalists who will move on to the third and final assignment. Winners of each round will receive hi-tech prizes such as video cameras and laptop computers from Sony VAIO and Intel, and the grand prize winner will receive a $10,000 journalism fellowship with the Pulitzer Center to report on a story outside of his or her home country.

According to the news release, the Pulitzer Center and YouTube hope that Project: Report will bring an audience to as many of these stories as possible and draw attention to important topics that have been under-reported, misreported, or not reported at all.

The deadline for Project: Report is October 5th, so if you are an passionate filmmaker with a story to tell about where you live, charge up your DV camera and get to it.

The health of the 53-member African Union is, in many ways, indicative of the health of the African continent. The AU is sort of the 2.0 incarnation of the Organization of African Unity, which was in its day mainly an organization rooted in anti-apartheid and colonialism. The African Union replaced the OAU in July 2002.

Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, the current AU Chair, yesterday launched the creation of a civil society advisory panel. The Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the African Union (ECOSOCC [PDF]) seeks to be interactive -- directly representing the concerns of Africans -- to speak directly to heads of state through their General Assemblies. Twenty-five of the 53 members of the AU have already agreed to participate in the council. From Ghana's Joy Online:

"The AU Chairman explained that the Union was designed to be a partnership between governments and all segments of civil society in the African continent and added that with the establishment of ECOSOCC there was going to be a people oriented, people centred and people driven community in the African Union.

"He urged the newly elected Presiding Officer of ECOSOCC, Mr. Akere Muna to develop an interactive work plan with the African Commission to consolidate and expand existing policy space for civil society engagement with the AU."

The inaugural ECOSOCC General Assembly, which ended on September 9, was held in Dar es Salaam. Membership of the council includes grassroots organizers of all kinds, including: NGOs, business owners, trade unionists and human rights activists.

[Image: AFP via Google]

Two more videos from the One Size Fights All video series:

Parachute

Petting Zoo

Tonight, September 9th starting at 9pm, the Green on the Sundance Network is offering another great night of television. "It's Not Easy Being Green" will air its 7th episode from the seventh season. In this episode, the Strawbridge family will explore the seaside area of New Forest, where "Matt Goldschmeid wants to make a permanent home of the lush vacation property his parents bought in the 1980s. The estate's elegant villa has an intriguing, sexy history ‐ and a massive heating bill from its oil-burning tank. Matt has come up with a radical solution to the problem but Dick causes him to reconsider."

At 9:35pm, "All in This Tea" will air, which is directed by Les Blank and Gina Leibrecht. "This documentary immerses viewers in the rich world of Chinese tea while profiling the affable Californian importer who has made it his mission to introduce Americans to the brew's many pleasures. All in This Tea looks at the history, traditions and intricacies of tea and joins Hoffman on a buying trip to China, where he seeks out small, artisanal growers and tries to persuade Chinese officials to turn away from industrial production in favor of handcrafted, environmentally sustainable tea farming."

"Big Ideas for a Small Planet" will air at 11:10pm, with an episode entitled TRANSPORT. "This episode will show us how city governments, private organizations and university scientists are working to get commuters to leave their cars behind for cleaner, more efficient modes of transportation."

Barack Obama is a popular guy. He inspires millions of people, many of them young, to get involved in the political process. He draws record numbers to his speeches, both in person and via broadcast. He's been called the "great white hope" of the Democratic party and is often compared to Bobby Kennedy for his ability to articulate the problems facing our nation with equal parts compassion for the people he's talking about and a clear vision for the future.


But not everyone sees the Democratic nominee that way, and depending on how much time you spend discussing politics with people who don't share your views, you might be shocked to hear about the man a lot of Americans talk about when they talk about Barack Obama.

To them, he's an inexperienced, smooth-talking snake oil salesman. He's an inside operative for terrorist organizations in the Middle East. He's the Antichrist. He's going to sell out the second he takes office and let Al Qaeda win.

If any of these sound too extreme to be real, trust me: I've heard these assessments with my own ears. In Denver, after Obama gave his acceptance speech at Invesco Field, a friend and I took a cab through Denver to my rental car. We asked our driver what he thought of the speech, and he said he shouldn't talk about politics because he's "on the other side of the fence." We won his trust by saying we were going to the Republican National Convention the following week, and that worked like a charm.

For the next 15 minutes, we listened to this middle-aged white man's thoroughly formed -- if factually flawed -- opinions of Mr. Obama. He cited reason after reason for why Obama will be the demise of America and everything it stands for if he is elected. We listened to why Obama is the Antichrist. We nodded when he said, "And I think most Americans feel the way I do."

Not because we agreed, of course, but to keep him talking.

Our reasons were simple: I was there as a journalist, and my friend was doing academic research. We wanted to know what others think about the man just about everyone I know considers the greatest politician of our lifetimes. We wanted to understand the range of opinions in the United States.

The cab driver might sound like a nut case, and I'd be lying if I said we didn't think the same. But he's a functioning, active member of society. He's not in prison or an institution. He's a US citizen just like you and me, and as a US citizen he has the right to his opinion.

But what a scary opinion it is, and to know that he isn't alone -- in fact, he's no doubt tapped into the same right-wing sources that millions of other Americans are -- is doubly frightening. Not because diversity of opinion is a problem, but because so much of what is bandied about in political discourse is simply false.

For example: according to our cab driver, Obama wrote in one of his books that if push comes to shove, he'll side with the Muslims. "He wrote it in his book!" the man repeated for emphasis.

Clearly he's been told this by someone, and that someone has wielded a dangerous amount of influence over the voting public. Not only that, but that "someone" is actually many people, and together they comprise a right-wing propaganda machine under the pretense of "news" and "information."

It's important that we know about these alternate views, and that we engage with people who don't see things the way we do. Not so much to argue our own positions in a vain attempt to persuade, but just to be aware. Being informed doesn't just mean knowing what you want to know. It means knowing what you need to know.

[Image Credit: Fogster, from Wikimedia Commons]

Republicans and Democrats might not agree on whether we should drill in Anwar, but when they pontificate on "energy independence" -- the idea that America should supply all of its own oil and gas -- their talking points are pretty much interchangeable. Obama wants to be "independent" in 10 years; McCain is also a hawk on the issue and might have brought Sarah Palin onto his ticket, in part, because she's the governor of energy-rich Alaska.

This "energy independence" consensus seems to derive less from environmentalism than from a general distaste for the people who sell us the crude. Although no politician would ever make it explicit, the image evoked is of a cruel desert sheikh, lounging on cushions while being fanned by his 50-odd wives and using all his oil revenues to fund terrorism or build ridiculously tall buildings in Dubai. Such a character might shut off supply, "blackmailing America" with oil, or some other dastardly deed.

Though it's true that there are some rather unpleasant people in the global oil biz, the U.S. imports most of its crude from non-threatening Canada. The dreaded Middle East accounts for only 17 percent of U.S. consumption.

More importantly, there's the question of whether oil can actually be used as a weapon by any rabid sheikh or crazed dictator.

After Saudi Arabia and Mexico, the largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Venezuela -- yes, the country run by Hugo Chavez, who's built his international reputation on denouncing the imperial, perfidious Yankee and who, many neoconservatives warn, is a threat to the American Way. Why is it that Hugo sells so much oil to a country he so despises? The answer has little to do with foreign policy or ideology and everything to do with geography. Oil is priced on a global commodities market; however, where we actually get the black stuff is dependent on pipelines and ease of transportation.

So, let's say that Hugo really wants to stick it to Uncle Sam by cutting off all oil to the country, as he's sometimes threatened. As David Henderson points out in his study of the "oil weapon," the Venezuelan dictator could do this in one of two ways.

Either he could dramatically reduce production -- which for him would mean drastically reducing revenues. (And let's not forget that much of "21st-century socialism" is funded by Hugo's state-run oil company, Citgo.)

If Hugo doesn't want to lower production, then he'd have to find a new buyer of the crude he usually sells to Uncle Sam. Let's say he insists on selling solely to China. Well, if the Chinese decide to work with Hugo, this means that either they or their former providers would soon have a glut of crude on their hands -- and be looking for another buyer. Sooner or later, the excess oil would be sold to America, with the added transportation costs bumping up prices at the pump only slightly.

Put simply, the "oil weapon" fires blanks, and there are far better things for politicians to worry about than "energy independence." For if Hugo Chavez and anti-American sheikhs are willing to sell us the black stuff, then probably most anyone would.

[Photo credit: Department of Energy]

Last week, an unknown housewife from Wasilla, Alaska, the small town where Sarah Palin was mayor from 1996 until 2002, sent around an open letter about the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.

Anne Kilkenny probably didn't expect her email to go viral, but it did. NPR even did a story on her after the letter began its pinging journey around the nation, casting a shadow over Palin's already controversial persona. Many people quickly speculated that Kilkenny isn't real, but was created by the anti-McCain/Palin base to damage their campaign.

NPR went to Wasilla to prove that Kilkenny is real, and she is. She's also really earnest in her criticisms of Palin, and gamely accepting her role as a kind of citizen journalist, hoping to answer the question millions of people in the US and abroad are asking about McCain's surprising choice: Just who is this woman?

Kilkenny's email lays bare Palin's record as mayor of Wasilla, and articulately assesses her character. Naturally, much of her account is subjective, and there are sure to be others from Wasilla who would disagree with Kilkenny on some points. But the numbers she cites are objective, and her candid account of Palin's effect on the community of Wasilla should sound a few alarms on this newcomer to national politics.

[Image Credit: Pfc. Christopher Grammer, 50th Public Affairs Detachment]

I was feeling the need to start taking pictures again and bought a compact 'point and shoot' in November 2007. This happened to be the same month my father was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

As I've never been a fan of the posed family photograph I just started taking candid pictures of what was happening at home when I visited, warts and all. Admittedly it's a cathartic process for me, making it easier to be there amidst the family struggle and grief at what's happening. In time I'll hopefully have a record of some smiles as well as the hardship and sadness. I wish I'd started doing it years ago.

This picture is my father meeting Alison, the MacMillan occupational therapist who will, as she said, "coordinate help until I am no longer needed."

In the next couple days, you're sure to see more from Liza and Nezua on the protest at the Capitol building in St. Paul at the close of the Republican National Convention last week. We were all there, cameras at the ready, nervously maneuvering among police officers on horseback, in riot gear, on bicycles, in golf carts, in cars, and in plain clothes. Some were possibly even posing as protesters themselves, planted there to agitate the crowd in an insidious form of entrapment.

But everyone has his or her own experience with these things. Despite the black-and-white categories that incidents like this create -- i.e. "Protesters," "Cops" and "Press" -- there were still a few hundred individuals there, among them homeless kids; anarchists; moms and dads with their babies; students; professors; immigrants; journalists; bloggers; filmmakers; and cops, male and female, with expressions behind their riot shield helmets that betrayed their individuality and the range of human emotions: boredom, ice-cold apathy, glee, and the occasional glimmer of regret.

Everyone there had his or her own experience of the event, which began as an uneventful and sparsely attended concert but devolved quickly into more of what we'd seen and heard about all week: a bunch of people being bullied by a needlessly militant police presence.

The categories that protests create tend to cement themselves in the face of mob action. When you're a civilian in the midst of dozens of uniformed men and women, you lose your sense of identity pretty fast. You realize damn quick that you're not distinguished from anyone else who isn't donning riot gear and a badge, and are subject to the same treatment -- rational or otherwise -- that threatens the sense of security among everyone else around you. Likewise, I'm guessing that if you're a cop in such a situation, you stop thinking about the summer you followed the Grateful Dead when you were in college and become what your uniform mandates.

But at the end of the day, when most of us had returned to our homes, our hotels or, in the case of an unfortunate few, jail, we were back to being ourselves. And that's when the real work was done: the remembering, the theorizing, the abstracting. That's when we distilled our individual experiences down to a narrative with some kind of moral, or at least a point. We figured out what the experience meant to us and that, in the end, became the experience.

To me, the experience on the Capitol lawn last Thursday, just a few hours before John McCain spoke at the Xcel Energy Center, was a reminder of how fragile our civil liberties really are. I witnessed two kids lying on the lawn be surrounded by police bikes, creating a barrier to obstruct anyone from entering the circle, and get arrested for allegedly being part of a riot earlier in the week. I saw innocent people nearly get pushed over by a stampede of cops on horseback. And I saw the eyes of several of those cops, some of whom looked almost embarrassed to be part of this show of brute force.

I'll be the first to say that I do not hate cops. Living in New York, I'm grateful for them far more often than not. They do brave work and make the world a safer place for most people.

So my issue last week was not with the cops, but the precedent being set by a system that's become ever more tolerant of a police state. I fear that if we don't pay attention, we'll lose the freedom and sense of security we too often take for granted.

There's a lot of talk about "Homeland Security" and protecting our nation from terrorist attacks. Maybe there should be more talk of protecting our rights as American citizens to feel like citizens -- and not domestic terrorists -- when we exercise our Constitutional right to attend a peaceful protest.

Visually, CODEPINK is one of the most consistent brands out there. You see the pink in lettering, fliers, stickers, t-shirts and you immediately get who it is you are looking at.

I'd say call the cops, because this party is indeed "so over," but it's really not necessary: they're all over the place.

Still, even the thousands of officers who've been poised for riot control throughout the Twin Cities for the past week seem to agree with this man's placard. If not both facets of the double-entendre, then at least with the most obvious one: the Republican National Convention. (We'll have to wait and see about the GOP itself, but it's not looking too healthy either...)

At last, the dullest convention ever comes to a close. Time to read articles that make it seem a lot more interesting than it really was...

On Monday veteran journalist and "Democracy Now" host Amy Goodman was arrested while inquiring about the state of two news producers at the Republican Convention in Minnesota. Producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar -- with their journalism credentials in full view -- were arrested earlier in the day while covering the convention, ironically, for "Democracy Now." Amy Goodman was ultimately charged with misdemeanor obstruction of a legal process and interference with a peace officer. Few MSM news organizations covered Amy's story and the other arrests of journalists on the scene until this little YouTube clip was viewed over 714,000 times in the past few days. The rest is history:

Democracy Now is asking that you contact Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner and St. Paul City Attorney John Choi to get the charges dropped.

Earlier, I feared that McCain's jokes tonight would be so stellar, they would encourage joke theft. But it looks like comical plagiarism has already occurred. Last night Palin delivered a joke which was nothing more than a remix version of a classic Reverend John Hagee zinger. Hagee, of course, is the pastor whose endorsement McCain actively sought. McCain stood by the pastor in spite of Hagee's anti-Muslim and anti-gay rhetoric. It was only after the reverend bombed during his "The Holocaust was God's idea" set that McCain finally distanced himself.

Hagee's joke goes like this: "Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman Pincher? The answer is lipstick."

Ms. Palin substituted Hockey Mom for the woman with a PMS and a pitbull for the snarling Doberman. But the joke is clearly a Hageeism rip-off. I wonder if we'll hear more Hagee jokes tonight. Another gem is "Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a terrorist? You can negotiate with the terrorist." Maybe McCain will make a joke about "the difference between Obama and a terrorist." I mean, people claim his fist bump is terrorist.

[image: Ron Edmonds of the Associated Press]

When I heard Giuliani's Tuesday night RNC address had been cancelled I had assumed that our incriminating photos together hadbarred him from the RNC forever. Turned out, they just moved his slot to Wednesday night. I guess I'll need to publish the photos in more publications. But, boy am I glad Rudy was allowed to perform at the RNC. Having watched the show live from St. Paul's Excel Center, I can vouch that the crowd loved Rudy's political punchlines. These two gems got huge laughs from the audience:

"Obama was going to take public financing for his campaign, until he didn't. Obama was against wiretapping before he voted for it. When speaking to a pro-Israel group, Obama favored an undivided Jerusalem. Until the very next day when he changed his mind. I hope for his sake, Joe Biden got that VP thing in writing." (Badabing!)

"When Russia rolled over Georgia, John McCain knew exactly how to respond. Within hours, he established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he'll respond as President. At exactly the right time, John McCain said, 'We're all Georgians.' Obama's first instinct was to create a moral equivalency - that 'both sides' should 'show restraint.' The same moral equivalency that he has displayed in discussing the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel. Later, after discussing it with his 300 foreign policy advisors, he changed his position and suggested that the "the UN Security Council," could find a solution. Apparently, none of his 300 advisors told him that Russia has a veto on any UN action. Finally Obama put out a statement that looked ...well, it looked a lot like John McCain's. Here's some free advice: Sen. Obama, next time just call John McCain." (HE-llo! Am I right?)

But Rudy wasn't the last RNC comic standing. Sarah Palin had the audience in
stitches with these zingers:

"And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. *I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities." (Oh snap!)*

"[Obama] can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot -- what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?" (Oh NOOOO she didn't!)

"I gotta love the hockey moms. You know what they say about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." (I know, right? I mean what is the deal?)

I can't wait to hear what John McCain, whose signature joke is "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," says tonight. Let's just hope comics don't still his jokes. If they're half as good as last night's, it will certainly be tempting.

[Photo credit: Mike Segar for Reuters]