Archive for July 7, 2008

Rove’s Law, or, Why Wesley Clark Was Right, But Oh So Wrong

Even when you’re right, you just don’t question the experience of a war hero.  The distinction between attacking the honor of an individual’s wartime service as a footsoldier, and questioning the bearing that honorable service has on one’s executive qualifications, is a fine distinction likely to be lost when one’s words are strategically reduced for the 24-hour news cycle.

One of the sacrifices modern democracy has forced us to make, in return for cheap and quick information, is that we can no longer discuss any political issue that can’t be reduced to a sound byte three seconds or less.  This gives rise to what I call Rove’s Law.  Like Brannigan’s Law, this one is hard and fast: “if you can’t express a complex political issue without using a string of words that, reduced to a three-second byte, sounds unpatriotic or otherwise inapt, don’t express it at all.”  Questioning the relationship between McCain’s service record and McCain’s ability to be a good commanding officer was as clear a violation of Rove’s law as I’ve ever seen – right up there with the awful, but accurate, “I voted for it before I voted against it.”

In case you’re one of the three people on Earth that haven’t heard of General Clark’s error, he said, “I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”  Ugh.  Video below:

[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kag0bBJVkIw]

As I’ve said, General Wesley Clark’s point was spot on.  Though McCain is a war hero – and one of America’s greatest war heroes, to boot – that fact merely symbolically suggests, and does not logically prove, that McCain possesses the judgment, knowledge, or intelligence to command the nation’s army, much less the nation.  Not so long ago, back when the polity’s main job was to kill invaders and subdue tributary territories, a citizen would be a fool not to vote for a war hero.  That man (inevitably a man) would be the one to lead the state into battle.  But we’re long beyond that.  Ideally, America need not entangle herself in any more wars, and may indeed be on the brink of extracting herself from this last one.  A war hero may not only be unnecessary, but downright a bad choice.

Of course, as a politician, you should never say that.  At most, you should suggest it through intermediaries… and only then if you’re a Republican.

Tim Update

As you may know, my friend Tim Brady is a co-author on this blog, but lately he’s been a little tied up with other things… for one, you see, he’s in Iraq for the next month filming for his nonprofit group, the Soulbird Music Project.

But, good news, everyone! Apparently, Iraq has gchat, and I’m happy to report that Tim is alive and well (setting aside some food-related unpleasantness; hope you get better!). I’m looking forward to some great insights from him on the situation over there when he’s able, but in the meantime, read more about his projects at Soulbird.org.

While You Were Sleeping

I hope everyone enjoyed the Fourth of July break! I definitely did.

It turns out that no-one reads the internets over the long weekends (and, in fact, I barely wrote on this site). Nevertheless, the world kept turning, and call it a shameless plug of old entries if you must, but I’d like to revisit some big things that happened:

• Jesse Helms (D-N.C.) died.
• Exciting discoveries in early Christian history were made.
• And, we looked at the subtly suggestive Democratic primary-era color choices of Electoral-Vote.com.

Enjoy the looooooooong Monday!

Taxes, Rebates, and What to Do With Them

Whenever we pay our taxes, we curse the government for taking “our money.” But is it really our money? I think, no, not entirely.

Paying taxes is all about expectations. Salaries and hourly wages are not paid in a vacuum. Your employer gives you a salary, or a wage, based on the knowledge that the tax bracket your paycheck puts you in will require you to relinquish a portion of what you’ve taken home back to the government. Your employer expects you to remit a portion of your paycheck to the government, and compensates you accordingly: if there were no taxes, you’d probably be paid less, and if taxes were hiked, you’d (hopefully) be paid more. Given the incorporation of the expectation of taxes into every American’s paycheck, the expectation that you, as a taxpayer, get to keep 100% of your paycheck is entirely unreasonable. In the sense that the government is taking “your” money, it’s not money that was given to you for your own spending in the first place: it’s money you get to keep until the inevitable tax form comes. Uncle Sam isn’t stealing any more from you than your employer expects to be stolen.

That said, almost no-one thinks that deeply into the issue, and the emotional reaction is unavoidable: it’s painful having to give up a ton of the money you’ve kept in your bank account (or under your mattress), even if you thought ahead enough to know that you wouldn’t have it for long. Thus, of course, tax breaks are popular not just because we as citizens get more money, but because we as citizens viscerally – if inaccurately – feel less ripped off.

And the Republicans know it. Maybe it’s the cynic in me talking, but why do you think this little $300-$600 “stimulus” rebate is coming before, rather than after, the general election? It’s like Bush is saying, “Look, heh, you know we need this money (have you seen our debt, and the cost of this war?), but frankly, I care more about you feeling nice & fuzzy about the Republican Party in November than I do about America’s future.” Even regardless of its timing, though, this little rebate is an attempt to convince us to sell out our future, and smile while doing it. I say, no.

That $300 check is, for me at least, tainted by the knowledge of the hell we as a country will have to go through to recover from the debt incurred by George W. Bush, and therefore it ought to be spent to offset the damage done to the country by its disbursement. But how best to do that?

Give your check to Barack Obama. At this point in my life, as a poor law student, I could probably use that $300. But I can also live without it (I’ll just have 75 fewer $4.00 iced chai lattes from Starbucks… ack, that’s a lot!), and if we keep propelling ourselves so recklessly into debt, America may not be able to live without it. Electing a good candidate, someone who won’t put political gain over the economic health of our childrens’ America, is as good a use of $300 as I can imagine, and the irony of turning Bush’s stimulus package against him is just the icing on the cake!

If you can afford to do it, then, I urge you to take this chance to donate your check to Barack Obama. If you can’t, please use the check in good health.