Kelly

No, not the Presidential debate. But, the debate that took place on our living room couch, while we watched the pathetic back and forth of Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Our debate was not subject to every cable news outlet and their armies of hack pundits, nor was it subject to focus groups of independents. Neither Allison nor I were attempting to please our base, as we have no party affiliation beholden to scum-bag lobbyists. This is important to note, because the fact that we are individuals beholden only to our unique individual principles assures us that we will participate in a debate with real substance.

Sparking our “living room” debate was this question from Bob Schieffer:

Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn’t.

Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Senator McCain?

At which point, Allison is already responding, in fact, before the question has even left Bob Schieffer’s lips, “I hate this issue.” And though I do not wish to speak for Allison or interpret her words, it becomes clear through our debate that she hates this issue because it is so very divisive and because she believes it will continue to be that way until the decision making on abortion is turned over to the states. As it should be?

Frankly, I take issue with the idea that abortion rights should be decided upon by the states. The pro-life movement which is deeply rooted in Christianity would not suddenly halt their agenda if Roe v Wade were to be overturned by the Supreme Court and then put back on the states to handle. Nor would the pro-choice movement halt their efforts. Both sides of the issue would continue to fight for their beliefs; the only difference is that it would be at the state level. However, the infighting within the states is least consequential. Most importantly is that it is cruel and unusual that a woman would in some cases have to travel across a state line, quite possibly across multiple state lines in order to have a safe and legal abortion. Because my estimate is that the choice/life states would resemble the red/blue states map to a near tee. Thus, the 16 year old who becomes pregnant through the act of rape and happens to live in Kansas would have to travel up to thousands of miles were she to come to the decision to abort. In this instance, legislating abortion illegal is not a law made to promote the common good. Only one agenda is being promoted while the other side is not only being ignored, but being punished.

I suppose it could be equally argued that the pro-life people of this country have in fact had their moral cries ignored at the federal level since 1973 with the decision of Roe v Wade. And certainly they believe that God’s will is being punished under current law. Except that those who wish to choose life, can. There is choice. For whichever side of the abortion issue one falls, there is choice. Individuals may choose that which suits their ideologies or circumstances. Circumstances that cannot be foreseen by political parties being wined and dined by lobbyists. Circumstances that will always be far beyond what the human imagination can dream of. Circumstances that sometimes require difficult and heartbreaking decisions and whether the person or family making this decision lives in a red state or blue state should not matter, should not be an obstacle.

Joseph Marohl

In its pre-show to the third Presidential debate, CNN predicted that Obama would “try to avoid any gaffes” and McCain, behind in recent polls, would probably try to find a way to change that fact. Tonight’s debate would be unique, CNN assured me, because the two candidates would be seated, at a table, facing each other (1).

Wow.

The reality-show framework of modern political campaigning foregrounds situation, unique challenges, and viewer response. The focus used to be the candidates’ personalities and character—before that—though perhaps only in some mythical past—the emphasis was on national issues and, um, actual debate.

Perhaps in the near future we can hope to see candidates in an even greater variety of telegenic settings–lying prone in a potato field, answering telepathically broadcast questions while disco dancing, or holding a tribal hall meeting on an island where fashion models eat live slugs.

In the third debate, moderator Bob Schieffer prodded the two candidates to criticize each others’ campaigns and choices of running mates. No doubt in hommage to Jerry Springer.

McCain complained that Obama’s ads misrepresented his positions and tied him unfairly to George W. Bush. McCain even managed to lob a zinger, chiding Obama, “If you wanted to run against George Bush you should have run four years ago.”

Obama pointed to McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s inadequate responses to their audiences’ rabid jeering of Obama’s name—shouting, not kindly, “traitor” and “kill him.”

But Obama’s most conspicuous response was to laugh quietly yet derisively at McCain’s bluster.

This debate had the icky feeling of 90 minutes spent at a dysfunctional family Thanksgiving—with McCain playing the self-pitying elder barely containing his rage at others’ lack of deference to age and reputation—and Obama playing the mocking teen, shaking his head in disbelief at the elders’ passive aggression and blindness to nuance.

Though McCain criticized Obama’s campaign for unfairly linking him with Bush, McCain’s main tactic in this debate was to enumerate Obama’s associations with people like Bill Ayers, Hugo Chavez, and Congressman John Lewis. So, I take it, guilt by association is bad only when directed against McCain.

Clearly, McCain knew he needed to do something to bolster his flagging poll numbers. He attacked Obama’s strengths—insinuating that the Illinois senator’s oratorical skills were deceptive, while lacking sufficient skills to drive the point home.

He also introduced a semi-fictitious character, Joe the Plumber—no relation to Joe Six Pack or to me—based on a real person who apparently had spoken with Obama at a recent Democratic rally.

McCain leveled his eyes directly at the camera to speak to “Joe,” promising him to be a better President for the working man than Obama would be.

Not particularly effective to begin with, the chat with “Joe” became so bizarre that Obama himself began, tongue in cheek, to address McCain’s imaginary friend, too.

The thrust of this tactic was, it seems to me, to pander to traditionally Democratic, white, blue-collar workers with reservations about Obama, based on—no secret here—Obama’s skin color.

As in the previous two debates, Obama seemed the more confident and poised of the two—blamable only for, if anything, a detectable air of condescension and, at his worse, the dreary, nerdy sing-song I associate with Jeopardy contestants.

And, again, McCain’s almost constant blinking worked against any attempt the senator might have been making to appear to be telling the truth.

In fact, I sensed something a little bit creepy in McCain’s mask-like affect, a failure to convey humanity—or a working nervous system.

On some level, McCain may have succeeded in tapping into some Americans’ fears that Obama supports terrorism, wants to “spread the wealth” (i.e. “is a commie”) by raising taxes and gas prices, conducts “class warfare,” and is too inexperienced (having never traveled to Colombia, for instance) and too black to be President—all the while denying that he would stoop to such tactics.

But my call is that Obama won three out of three here, conveying in each of the debates a steady calm, intelligence, and consistency nowhere apparent in his opponent.

(1) Hornick, Ed. “Obama, McCain hope to woo undecideds in debate.” CNN.com. 15 Oct. 2008.

Joseph Marohl

The most crippling aspect of modern democracy is the decline in logical argument.

Logical argument was the invention of the Greeks, along with theatre (once used to bolster the free flow of ideas), philosophy, and Western democracy. All four of these contributions to civilization are posed against the blind acceptance of (or faith in) the dictates of authority and power.

In the first century of the American nation, political debates were actual debates—with set positions argued for and counter-arguments defended against. How great would it be now for seekers of high office to debate a single issue, such as the role of the middle classes in American society or the best policy towards foreign dictators!

At one time, argument permeated the social scene, with party invitations’ commonly instructing invitees to bone up on set topics in preparation for speaking on them with other guests. The middle-brow Circuit Chautauqua, nineteenth-century traveling shows, featured lectures on various topics from prison reform to memory improvement, mixed with band music and Metropolitan Opera singers, followed by question-and-answer sessions involving members of the community.

Much is made of the role of Faith in early American culture, but seldom is Argument credited for promoting progress and establishing America’s character and self-confidence. Ultimately, it was argument, not faith, that abolished slavery, expanded voting rights, and established the 40-hour work week.

By argument, I do not mean shouting people down. I do not see argument in the harangues of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. I would not count the glib sarcasm of Stephen Colbert and Al Franken, entertaining and valuable as it is, as argument. Oprah Winfrey, though a goddess of common sense, mainly exhorts and inspires—she rarely, if ever anymore, uses her show as a meeting-place for opposing opinions, as the old Phil Donahue and Dick Cavett shows used to do (and HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher still attempts to do).

Argument requires a forum, where differences in opinion are expected, respected, and encouraged in the interest of forming a more complete understanding of the issues under debate.

Argument requires clarification of the dividing lines between opposing positions. It requires a focus on logic and facts as proofs for the rightness of one’s position.

Argument requires that probability, not certainty and not mere possibilities, be put to the test, “proof” meaning, quite simply, the test that an opinion is put to—by speakers and listeners alike.

Today America is full of opinions, but few Americans know how to back them up. Few Americans feel comfortable expressing their opinions, convinced that blithe agreeableness is preferable to taking a position—while others think that bull-headed pontification requires no further explanation or proof.

Things have gotten so bad that to take any position at all more complicated or unusual than what can be fit on a bumper sticker smacks of extremism—or crackpotism.

The old adage forbidding discussion of religion and politics at the dinner table has now morphed into “Let’s just agree to disagree,” a more polite way of saying, “Shut up—I’m not interested in your reasons for disagreeing with me.”

Now that nobody expects anyone to back up anything he or she says in public, all kinds of bullshit pass for intelligent commentary these days. Idiocy is justified on the grounds that idiots sincerely believe in their idiocy.

Sincerity and good intentions are things we cannot evaluate or judge from outside. Facts, logic, and clarity of expression are things we can observe and make judgments on. As long as sincerity counts more than proof, humanity will not see further progress.

The sincerity of your belief and hope for the future is admirable, but what exactly are you saying, and how can you back it up?

Allison Bricker

In the self aggrandizing banter following last night’s Vice-Presidential debate, the punditocracy’s own, Chris Matthews committed a giant verbal faux pas.  As soon as the word “depression” left his lips, Mr. Matthews froze. Viewers could literally witness his face glaze over, trying to process the gravity of his own words.  Mr. Matthews then attempted a course correction, nervously fumbling over, “recession”.

Make no mistake, now that this bailout bill has passed and is on its way to the President, our American republic is headed towards a multi-year economic depression, instead of just a shorter less painful recession. Contrary to the condescending tones from the financial “gurus” about how “We the average People” just do not understand the complexities or necessity of the bill, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that you do not fix a debt problem by shoveling on more debt.

Americans knew all too well twice before that central banks were bad for the country.  Both “The First and Second  Banks of the United States” were ripe with corruption, caused wild speculation in markets and, were not renewed at the times their 20 year charters came up for review before Congress¹.

However, unlike “The Third Bank of the United States”, i.e “The Federal Reserve” the first two central banking schemes utilized sound money to back the currency.  Where once the American Dollar bore the words “Gold” or Silver Certificate”, meaning the Dollar was legally convertible into actual gold or silver on demand of the bearer.  Today’s Dollar only bears “Federal Reserve Note” on its face, and are thus nothing more than paper backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

From 1800 to 1933 the average daily price of one Troy ounce gold, chugged along steadily at $20.00/ounce². Thus a Dollar in 1800 basically bought the same amount of goods in 1912. However, on March 9, 1933, in an effort to “stabilize agricultural crop prices”, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt signed Presidential Executive Order 6102 which invoked his authority to make it unlawful to own or hold gold coins, gold bullion, or gold dollar certificates³. By the end of that year gold rose 62% to $32.00/Troy ounce.

As the “Great Depression” continued, the government tried all sorts of measures, such as the 1933 “Agricultural Adjustment Act”⁴. The AAA even paid a subsidy to farmers to plow under their crops in order to “stabilize crop prices”, whilst 7 million+ Americans starved.  All so “Prices” could remain stable on the “open” market. Only after inflating the currency even further via the “Lend/Lease” scheme of World War II and being in charge of the massive rebuilding of a devasted Europe, would America climb out of the “Great Depression”.

Following World War II, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Government continued its effort to move totally away from a sound currency.  Finally, in 1973, President Nixon put the final nail in the coffin, and removed the dollar completely, 100% off the Bretton Woods gold standard⁵.

Since that day, our money’s value has been based on one thing; the peoples ability to perpetuate the borrow/repay cycle needed to sustain a wholly fiat currency.  This time however we are propping up “home prices” by buying up these failed mortgage backed securities at an over valued price, from the criminal financiers who recklessly packaged said instruments in the first place.  It sometimes seems like we never learn, and hence why my philosophy on the importance of history is: “You cannot know where you are going, if you do not know where you have been.”

Please do not misconstrue my analysis that we are headed into another depression as yet another condescending statement to “We the People”.  The difference now is that in previous borrow/repay cycles, the creditors were fellow Americans, in the form of local banks, business, etcetera, etcetera.  However, now the creditors are wholly foreign as we no longer produce much of any real assets,  instead we consume.  We consume all the wonderful distracting gadgets, such as plasma televisions, iPhones, and clothing to name a few.

In the final analysis, let us say you take a credit card with a $50,000.00 limit and spend until the card is completely maxed to its limit.  You then fall behind on a couple of “minimum payments on the National Debt”.  Which leads you to the bright idea to call the credit card company and explain to them to raise your credit limit so you can buy/invest in some more consumable not durable goods or real assets, which will then allow you to make a profit to pay off the originally purchased items “sometime in the future” - maybe.

What do you think that credit card company would say? This is exactly what this bailout is in essence requesting.  However, even more despicable, is that this bill will print the money out of thin air and then try to sell these Treasury I.O.U’s to our master creditor, the Chinese government.

My fellow Americans, this is the situation we now find ourselves in thanks to the wholly uncaring, selfish, corrupt, and deviant government that runs amok in Washington.  It spread its “Consume until bloated” mentality to both the state governments and the American people.  Unfortunately, the “United States Credit Card” has officially just been Declined” for the inability to repay.  My fellow readers, our country is bankrupt.  Perhaps Mr. Peter Schiff’s words from an interview on Thursday says it more succinctly, stating “we’re screwed” in response to the question, “What will happen if the bailout passes?”  Mr. Schiff, as our loyal readers already know, warned us two years ago exactly where this current debt based bubble was taking the U.S. economy.

Unfortunately, I have no direct answer on how to solve this crisis.  If our family was wealthy enough we would invest in foreign gold and silver markets.  However, this malfeasance threatens our Republic’s very existence, and even if that opportunity were available, it is only a matter of time before the government outlaws the possession of gold yet again.

Perhaps there will be a groundswell of Americans finally ready to repeal the charter of the Federal Reserve and thus a demand to return to sound money.  If not, there is always that tree, and it seems more and more to be in need of a serious refreshment.

Source(s): ¹ Central banking functions of the United States Treasury, 1789-1941 published: 1943- ² World Gold Council - ³The American Presidency Project/University of California - ⁴The Depression in the United States–An Overview/University of Illinois - ⁵Commanding Heights by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, Published 1997 - “Purchasing Power of Federal Reserve Notes”/Consumer Price Index/Bureau of Labor Statistics

Mandy Hyndman

I have, since her nomination as running-mate to John McCain, made no bones about criticizing Sarah Palin at every turn. She has shown no evidence whatsoever of understanding life outside of her home state of Alaska, and let’s be frank, life in Alaska is wholly dissimilar to life in the rest of the United States. She has stumbled embarrassingly through the very few interviews she has deigned to accept, and her cookie-cutter acceptance speech (written a week prior to her nomination for whomever may have been chosen, then tailored to fit Palin’s biography) for the Republican National Convention left me nauseous.

That being said, after last night’s Vice Presidential debates, I find myself for the first time impressed with Sarah Palin’s performance. Aside from mistaking the long dead civil war general McClellan for the (probably very offended) General McKiernan, and her overuse of the words “Maverick”, “Alaska”, “Main Street”, and “Shoring up” not to mention her offensive insinuation that she is just like any other middle class American (who lives in a mansion), Palin at least seemed to be quick with her responses. This is not to suggest that I am impressed as I would be by the invention of the cure for cancer, or by the government allotting my constitutional civil rights to me as a homosexual, but more impressed the way I was when my 3 year-old niece learned to use the grown-up potty for the first time. Yes, Mrs. Palin, you did do it all by yourself! Good job! Sure I’ll wipe for you, you can’t be bothered with such difficult things at an exciting time like this!

As quickly responsive and focused as Sarah Palin was last night she by no means convinced me that she would be qualified to hold the venerable position of Vice President of the United States or, God forbid, President. She summed it up herself, “I’m a Washington outsider and someone just not used to the way you guys operate.” Is that supposed to be comforting? I sincerely hope that I can have faith in my fellow Americans to avoid the catastrophe that would be a McCain-Palin administration.

Oh and, Mrs Palin, it’s pronounced nu-clee-er not nu-cue-ler. Pass that on to your God-King Bush, would you?

Kelly

Did Sarah Palin’s tutors instruct their female pupil to use “the wink” during tonight’s Vice Presidential debate? Or did she pull that out of an old Alaskan etiquette book? Was it Sarah just being Sarah? Maybe, it was a Carol Burnett, tug of the ear? Did she think she made a funny, or was she proud of herself for remembering the answer to the question?

For all of the lowered expectations going in to this thing, she winked did okay. When she forgot to mention something from her cliff notes, she found a place to insert the McCain talking points. Those talking points mostly consisted of John McCain being a ”Maverick”, and Sarah Palin being from the great oil-filled state of Alaska. But, for the time in between the words “Maverick” and Alaska, there was such little substance, that I can hardly recall an answer she gave that had any real moose meat to it whatsoever. She was tough, and ready to speak, but lost at the same time.

And then, just when I thought Sarah Palin’s entertainment value couldn’t go any higher-she winked, right in to the camera as though she were winking at the American people. I found it odd to say the least. But also, seemingly gender biased. It seems to me that Sean Hannity and the ties that bind aren’t likely to mention this on air during their fair and balanced debate commentary. However, I’m certain that if Senator Joe Biden had looked into the camera and winked to the viewers at home, a continuous loop of that one wink would overwhelm the Fox News airwaves.

Watch the wink for yourself.