This week signals the end of the teaching period here in Australia. As such for lecturers, especially in fields as diverse as politics, it gives us a bit of a chance to try and sum up the course, the content and perhaps even take stock of where we think the world is today. I raised this with a colleague who's immediate thought was to suggest talking about how the world is a complete mess, where as my own ended with a signal of optimism. Now of our two styles, I have no doubt that my friends approach will better serve her for getting a Academic job and well received publications. Pessimism sells. It is indeed one of the great benefits of the academic and political commentariate that we point out the flaws and mistakes of society, so they can be properly addressed. But I also think it ends up presenting a slightly warped and intellectually dishonest picture. By focusing only on the negatives, we are missing part of the story. It was with these thoughts in mind that I came across an article by one of my favourite bloggers the conservative Daniel Larison:

it has been optimism, which includes the belief that growth and progress are essentially limitless, that every problem has a solution and that the structures of our existence can be bent and changed according to our desires, that lies at the heart of our greatest difficulties. And it is optimism that prevents us from coping with the consequences of unrealistic expectations.

Perhaps helping to prove my point, Larison currently works for the American Conservative magazine, and is getting published at the usually excellent Culture 11 conservative publication. Pessimism sells.

However I think here he, (like my colleague) mistakes optimism for recklessness and indifference. To be optimistic is not to ignore the challenges and risks, to be optimistic is not to fall for utopianism, to falsely believe the solution to every problem will be easy and achievable now. To fall for a mirage. Instead, to borrow a phrase, there is nothing false about hope.

I'm sometimes asked why I identify as a Liberal, not a lefty, and the reason is my optimism in progress. Now perhaps this is just a character flaw, but I think intellectually history backs this up.

In 1900 there were around a dozen functioning democracies, today there are over 90. The average life expectancy in the first world was in the 40's, today in the developing world its well into the 70's, with the elite of the first world looking to clock 80+. We have brought women into our political, economic and educational institutions, we have abandoned the idea of a racial superiority and in doing so scrubbed our systems free of its subverting prejudice. We have developed the technology to talk to anyone in the world in real time, to explore space, to search for the moment of the universes creation, to re-engineer the human body to overcome so much that the natural world has tried to throw at us, in its unceasing war on our species.

We may falter at all of these tasks from time to time, we have not yet extended these benefits as universally as we must, but and perhaps most importantly we are aware of our failings. We know when there is a genocide, a racist betrayal, an abuse of rights, a hungry child.

Perhaps that is why Academics should be rewarded for their naturally negative tendencies, they are part of the great effort pushing our society to not only be aware, but to act on these faults and flaws. But like a night time janitor who see's only the mess left behind in the empty stadium, what they all seem to miss is the thriving, passionate and engaged life which filled the rafters with cheers and joy just hours before.

Contra Larison, It was optimism that led mankind to first gather together, to build, to shape and try to craft out a safe harbor against nature's unrelenting efforts to kill us. It has led us to double our lifespan, educate our minds, challenge racism and bigotry, and expand beyond our tiny planet into the stars above. We couldn't have done any of this without optimism, it is a necessary element of every single significant human achievement, from the pursuit of an individual towards their ideal partner, to our greatest collective works.

It was not optimism but blind faith that led us astray in Iraq and in our markets. Optimism is not the problem, blind faith is. Faith leads us to trust the sun will rise again tomorrow. Optimism demands we do everything we can to take advantage of that opportunity should it arise. Faith tells us that our desired outcome will come through regardless, optimism that we can achieve it if we try.

In 6 days the US will elect its first africa-american president. For a nation with optimism practically enshrined in its constitution, its hard to see this as not the perfect and timely example of optimisms critical importance.

Know hope.

The real impact

Blogging has been unacceptably low of late, due to the chaos of end of term marking and administration. I'm also beginning to organise the new and real home of this site and blog.

Until then, heres a story that didn't get a lot of coverage in the press. I wasn't one who went to the barricades in 2001 over immigration, but when you read a story like this you cant help but wonder if the legal term manslaughter ought not better apply to our governments actions

It's Hell for Afghans

Mr Rajabi, a member of the persecuted Hazara ethnic group in Afghanistan, arrived on Nauru in late 2001, where his claim for asylum was rejected and he was given no right of appeal.

He tells Mr Glendenning, whose search for rejected asylum seekers is at the heart of the program, that Immigration officials told him it was safe to go back. They offered to give him $2000 to return "voluntarily", or face indefinite detention. "They told us that even if we stayed there for 10 years we would never be accepted."

So in late 2002 Mr Rajabi went back. Four months later he was at home with his family in a town outside Kabul when an explosion ripped through the walls and windows of his house. He describes in the documentary how first there was one bang, then another. Shrapnel tore through the window, killing his daughter Yalda. Rowna, his youngest daughter, died a few minutes later.

It was a grenade attack, believed to be by the Taliban who, according to local medical authorities and newspaper reports, targeted the family.

Mr Rajabi drops his head into his hands and breaks down, unable to go on.

SBS will be screening the documentary A Well-Founded Fear next month, looking at the lives of those sent back.

No doubt most who voted for this vile program in 2001 wont have the stomach to see the effects of their actions. Democracy grants people not only the opportunity to get involved in government, but also a responsibility for its outcomes.

This is one such outcome.

The modern world

In the life of a teacher you get some interesting questions at times. Things out of left field, so i had to stammer some-what when a student from Afghanistan who's sitting in on some of my classes asked me post-lecture "what is modernity?"

Now i'd used the term a few times already in the lecture, and rolled out some phrases about the enlightenment, western ethnocentricism to define westernism as modernism, and the rise of rationalism. But as I walked away, it made me wonder what does really define the modern world. What is it that truly separates traditional civilization from the modern, western, developed world ?

The answer i think is : Individualism.

This is perhaps a history unwritten, but a vital one. As Aristotle noted way back 300 years before christ, man is a political animal, one who needs and places society before and as a requirement for his own individual basis and identity.

Yet our two greatest civilizational developments, the savior of mankind's soul (Religion) and mankind's body (the welfare state) came through the assertion of the social over the individual. But in the worst societies around the world, it is the demand of the social over the individual that is used to justify the excesses of genocide, human rights abuse, poor governance etc.

Of course this represents a fundamental shift, the well being of the individual vs the wellbeing and the society. But even fundamentalist Islamist's in their concern for social morality still idealise the sacrifice of the individual (ie suicide bombers) despite their desire for a pre-modern interpretation of the world.

It seems to me wherever mankind achieves the benefit of its species(rather than merely intends), it comes through the advancement of individual rights. Liberalism in seeking individual rights, democracy in seeking individual participation in government, capitalism in utilizing the self-interest of individuals, has created wealth, opportunity and prosperity beyond our imagination.

And yet the rot of individualism lies at the core of modern problems. Those who see the world as without value, those who abuse their bodies, minds and lives because "whats the point, the continual divide between those who so stridently attach to the old values and those who want to seek out on the path to something new.

This is the modern problem, but precisely what defines us. It is a story un-written. One where our laws recognise and defend our individual right to protection, that creates structures to protect ourselves from the actions and flows of our fellow man.
And yet, without societies embracing tradition, the only basis for our values and meaning are now defined within ourselves. A challenge so many of our society are entirely unwilling to undertake.

Individualism may offer us freedom, but however much we may value it, do we actually want it ?

Watching the Watchers

I've not had a lot to say on the Economic crisis, if only because I doubt my own ability to predict the future currents, and so could offer little beyond a recap of the daily news for my readers. In light of that, this backgrounder by Niall Ferguson, seems a useful read

We are living through the end of a phenomenon that Moritz Schularick of Berlin's Free University and I christened "Chimerica." In this view, the most important thing to understand about the world economy over the past 10 years has been the relationship between China and America. If you think of it as one economy called Chimerica, that relationship accounts for around 13 percent of the world's land surface, a quarter of its population, about a third of its gross domestic product and somewhere more than half of global economic growth in the past six years.

For a time, this symbiotic relationship seemed almost perfect: One half did the saving, and the other half did the spending

I'm not really sure why Ferguson is classed as a Historian, given his current world focus, (I assume it lends gravitas to ones claims) but he certainly is a figure worth watching and reading regularlly, even if his friendship with McCain does tend to lead him to follow a historical loser down a no ends path.

If nothing else, it pays to keep an eye on the competition. Certainly his industriousness forces one to be honest and forthright in their acts.

Creators and their creations

With apologies to the excellent XKCD I think this pretty much sums up my view of Thomas Friedmans new book 'Hot, Flat, and Crowded'



Friedman's book is about 1/3 too long, in large part because he has this ingrating desire to be the first to coin a new term, to tag and bag the changes in world politics and so (with dreams of historical recognition beckoning) creates many new words, subverts words "the green peril" even time periods like "ECE" or Energy Climate Era.

I can understand the desire to be the one who coins the new term, that offers certain power in how the topic is defined (climate change and global warming being two obvious, non-value-netural recent terms). But for all the benefits of the book, in examining how his conclusions from his last book The World Is Flat will be save or doom the effort to fix the climate, its hard to take it seriously when theres so much excess "look at me" effort spattered throughout what is supposed to be a serious book by a serious thinker. His style has always had a journalistic, folksy style, and thats a good thing, it makes the world is flat and the lexus and the olive tree very readable. And whilst he created dozens of terms in both those books, placing them along side hundreads of little anacdotes, this time the forumla feels forced and clumsy. You can let your eyes blur and wander down the page regularly whilst reading and usually never miss a single important point.

Borrow a copy off a friend, its readable, and for those like me who arn't particularly interested in climate change, but recognise its importance it offers some good insights and facts. But instead of being fun, his general style and desire to be 'the one' to tag and identify everything first ends up making the book a bit of a slog.

(Ohh yeah, and why does the UK/Australian cover feature a particularly lush and green earth ? Not all environmental books need to be green.

The God Botherers

From a Prayer invocation at a McCain Rally

"I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons," [Pastor] Conrad said.
"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day,"

I've always been struck by the way the religious use the unknowable nature of god as a defense of questions from his existence to the nature of evil, and then spend so much time portraying and treating god as if he were a man (from the fanaticism around the person of Jesus or the prophets ie the word made explicitly human flesh) to this pastors weird concern that the omnipotent, almight god may be slightly jealous if the Christian Barack Obama wins, simply because people of other faiths may have prayed for it.

Either way welcome to the modern Republican Party.

A Philosophical Journey

This fascinating blog post has been bouncing around the web, describing one young girls move from generic rational liberalism, through Nietzsche and T.S Eliot to conservatism:

Eventually, though, I realized that my two intellectual priorities led neatly into conservatism: first, I was concerned with creating meaning through community and human connection, as I saw in Eliot and Arendt; second, I felt strongly about human virtue.
We need a set of values that makes us feel guilty about wanting to do the things we should not do; we need a culture that sanctifies those urges and channels them into something beautiful.
Like many conservatives - and by this point I included myself - he was troubled by the decay of the traditional institutions that gave us meaning. The results were just as Arendt had diagnosed: alienation, isolation, susceptibility to totalitarianism. “The historic emphasis on the individual,” Nisbet wrote, “has been at the expense of the associative and symbolic relationships that must in fact uphold the individual’s sense of integrity.”

Clearly here is a serious person intellectually engaged, reading widely and most important someone who is developing their own thought a process of critical importance for true thought and character creation.

But what I don't understand is why these new values identified of community and virtue lead to conservatism? Her references to Burke in this regard make the most sense, but he was a wig from a very different era to anything like conservatism as a modern intellectual movement.

In fact more so, I dont get how one can read Nietzsche or Kierkegaard and come to identify virtue as co-habitable with community? Other than taking a turn like Arendt with a longing wistful look back to ancient communities, scrubbed free of their imperfections through histories passage, such writers most clearly identify that individual virtue can only come through self-creation, almost exactly as demonstrated in this young girls own experience. She has engaged in an act of self-creation towards a virtuous character in spite of her community! Just as her rebellion against her parents views was a necessary first step of this journey, so too must all community institutions, especially those that permit no real change in power relationships (family, church etc) necessarily deny and prevent this act towards individual creation of a virtuous character.
This conclusion however is only challenged if you hold the assumption that non-state communities can create and shape the virtue of their citizens far better than individuals can, and that they ought to have the power to do so, whether or not the individual wants them to have it. For to endorse such structures, many will be merely dragged along, forced by society into pre-set roles and acts. Intellectuals such as the young girl at the heart of our story might be smart enough to recognise this and change it, but for everyone one who can escape a conservative society to self-create independent of the community structures, dozens if not hundreds will simply be left prostrate before it.

Yet why would the author be willing to grant such sweeping powers to society to have control over individuals, in ways that few individuals can ever respond, yet take such a negative view of that other traditional creation of society: Government

State intervention is dangerous not because it’s “coercion” (I don’t mind coercion), but because of its inhumanity. The more we depend on government, the less connection we have with one another. My burning hatred for both major Presidential candidates is due entirely to their New Deal liberalism, their conviction that if something is wrong it must be the government’s job to fix it, their utter disregard for limited government.

Yet government, especially now as we move into the democratic era (one strongly resisted by conservatives old and new alike) is the only institution of power in our society which gives individuals a real chance to participate, change and challenge the relationship between this institution and society. Government is an easy target due to its size and slothfulness, but unlike the churches or million little family units, this one permits even encourages participation and dissent. Not as well as it can have, but the option is there.

And if the option is there, so is the responsibility. The state is no more inhuman than the church or your family unit. Its of people, by people, and if its not for people (and no church ever has been) then the fault and responsibility is our own.

Virtue ? That is your responsibility, whilst it may be nice to think of the spartans whipping virtue into the young, wishing you too could have the rest of modern society from its crack addicts to perverts to slothful today tonight watchers pushed towards a life of virtue, to do that is to deny their humanity, deny their choice and ultimately deny that they have any possibility of a virtuous life. For virtue can not simply be external behaviour rote learned. It has to be valued and sought after by the individual, not simply a pattern of behaviour forced upon an individual if they are to survive and participate in the community.

We may not be a virtuous society today, and many individuals may not express such a character. But for the first time in human history it is at least possible and an option. One built on a real foundation of respect towards us as humans who can choose individual achievement towards nobility, not a forced behaviour as if mere pet dogs trained to beg and bark on command.

You can seek community, or you can seek virtue. Not both, and likely neither with modern conservatism.

The US election calls to a close

The superstitious amongst the Obama hopers wont like this, and no sensible political analyst would declare an election over, but folks this one has pretty much run its course. Obama should win, and should win comfortably. But when the media get to picking why, i think two issues might get overshadowed (esp if the economy keeps tanking): Making Obama a safe choice, and Obama's superior ground game.

Number One - The election was always going to be a referendum on Obama. He is the most talented and interesting new politician in a generation if not the last 50 years. He has a lot to attract people to him, but there was always that sense of otherness and difference that made Americans wary. (And led some to start calling him a terrorist if not just a n**ger –not sure if your work will censor/care about your emails-) . He has done more than enough (although its taken a long time to show) people that he is calm, confident and not a risky choice. Rudd had to do the same thing in OZ, Obama had to do it whilst being the first black man, with a funny name, a foreign background and only a few years in the public spotlight. But especially with the Presidential debates which are natural equalisers putting both candidates on the same stage, letting people look from one to the other, he has held his ground and proven his character. He’s pandered a bit, might not be as progressive as some of us would like, but he is a genuinely inspiring candidate and offers a fantastic potential for America to change its path and direction. The simple fact of a black man winning the US presidency will do absolute wonders to the USA’s standing in the world. Only 9% of Americans think the US is going in the right direction as a country (the lowest in polling history). Obama is far and away the best candidate to bring change. (Which has been his slogan from the very beginning well over a year ago. He’s so good and right even McCain has tried to recently pick up the tag of ‘change’ in his adds – Though dropped it and swapped slogans constantly, indicating the lack of a clear argument for why McCain wants to be president other than the fact he thinks he is entitled.


Number Two Obama’s ground game – This hasn’t got much attention, and probably wont in the pundits final analysis of why Obama won. (Esp from the craptacular Australian pundits who’s work is always 48 hours behind the US cycle and usually of a very very poor quality. You should ask your Margaret why that is. I’m genuinely puzzled given the interest in Australia why they cant do better than any kid with an internet connection and a handful of blog/news sites bookmarked) Anyway, Obama began work as a community organiser. He like Rudd doesn’t care so much about being seen to ‘win’ the daily news cycle, but he does care about organising offices, volunteers and voter registration drives (along with turnout on the day). He’s been doing this not only in close states but many that were safe republican (look for Virginia or Indiana, either could fall to him in the election). His campaign has been able to talk to a remarkable 40%+ of the early voters. He has thousands more offices around the country than mccain, all calling people, door knocking, working out how to drive old mrs simmons down to the polling booth on the day. (us has voluntary voting). He has simply outorganised McCain. (Bush had a good organisation in 2004, prepared years in advance, which is a large reason he beat Kerry, McCain doesn’t have much support in the republican party normally (which is why he had to choose the farce of Sarah Palin to keep the evangelicals happy), and he didn’t get around to organising his state by state operations till late (nor does he have as much money as Obama). As such, McCain can get on national TV each day and dominate the story, and Obama will still kick his ass comfortably by having his campaign talk to as many voters as possible. Like the ‘otherness’ factor, this is a very slow burn process, that has taken time to see an impact, but the economy tanking has helped crystallise both factors for Obama. So much so that you get amazing quotes like this one turning up : “An Obama supporter, who canvassed for the candidate in the working-class, white Philadelphia neighborhood of Fishtown recently, sends over an account that, in various forms, I've heard a lot in recent weeks. "What's crazy is this," he writes. "I was blown away by the outright racism, but these folks are f***ing undecided. They would call him a n----r and mention how they don't know what to do because of the economy."

A month ago McCain was 4 points ahead nationally, and everyone was saying Palin was going to win the election for him. Today she’s mocked and disliked by most people in America, and Obama is between 6-10 points ahead nationally and in key states. (Indeed if it were held today he could lose every state polling closely and still comfortably win the election). So a month is a fucking long time in politics. But there are too many fundamentals in place that have just about locked most voters into place, and the factors like Obama being seen as a safe pick, and his ground game will only get better and better with each passing day.

Recyling the news

I think all bloggers secretely want to be weekly columnists (or openly - Hire me Fairfax, News Ltd!), from the outside it seems a great life, one column a week, only 700 words, everyone reads and complains about what you say, and if your Gerard Henderson it seems, just recyle last weeks news from the US.

This time its not even worth the outrage. Here's his latest weeks work in short:

"the roots of today's mortgage-based financial crisis can be traced back to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977".

Put simply, three decades ago the Democrat administration responded to the demands of anti-poverty activists that banks should not discriminate against low-income earning minorities.

This was the story last week in the US, and whilst it served as a temporary talking point for the flailing McCain campaign, it has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.

For gods sake, the thing was passed in 1977. Is he seriously claiming that was the cause of troubles occuring in 2008? Conservatives revere the past, they shouldn't try to live in it.

Hire me SMH, or any of the hundread best Aussie political bloggers. They'll be sure to give you better, and more honest pieces. Its the least your readers deserve.

This American Life

Like many on the centre-left I've always been interested in America and its story. In some ways it represents the ideal. A constitutional democracy founded on key liberal principles like free speech, with a spirit of independence and resilience. But whenever abstract theory is drawn down into the man made flesh of the state, it inevitably gets grubbier, loses some of that shrine, shadows some of its principles or even takes routes through the dark side in its efforts to maintain its balance.

George W. Bush for this reason has always interested and intrigued me as a uniquely American figure. He seems to represent it all, old school elite family, ivy league education, (limited) military service, a love of texas and ranchers, careers in oil and baseball, alcoholism and born again teetotalism.

Most critically of all however, I believe he is a good man who is attempting to achieve these principles through the flesh of the state, and failing badly.

I've tried to read everything I can on the man(And i'm certainly hanging out for Oliver Stones movie W), my honours thesis in part was based around attempting to understand how he envisaged the idea of freedom a word you find in just about every speech he's given as president since 9/11. I've read all the biographies, supportive and critical, and all the major books on his administration, from supportive former staffers to outraged journalists. His story is America writ large. Good values, betrayed through its hubris and the reality of this messy thing called life.

All that serves as a somewhat long-winded observation that I really dont care about Sarah Palin. If you are interested Jonathan Raban has the single best detailed story of her rise and character. But I cant identify her as a story I want to understand. Bush is a puzzle, one critical to figure out due to his proximity to the critical forces in the world today. Palins story however seems an a ugly shallow picture of a mindless nobody who merely does what she does because its all that she knows. Bush believes in America because it stands for freedom and opportunity for the globe, Palin believes in America because she is an American. Its all she knows, and had she grown up German, she'd be a proud German as imbued in its traditions as the peasants Heidegger idolised (Does that count as a goodwin award?). Such ugliness is unbecoming of the nation she so desperately pretends to represent. She does not. Her's is not an American story. Maybe thats why she's not interesting, she could be anyone from anywhere and the core facts of her life, her complete embrace of local views and desire to grubbily get onto of those around her could occur in any small town in any city in the world.

Bush's is the story of someone who legitimately made something of themselves. He had a lot of help, but his path was never certain or due to the choices of others or even necessarily his environment. His fall from grace with alcoholism, and recognition he might be doomed to live in his -war her, CIA director, US President- fathers shadow drove him to change and challenge his circumstances. That shows real character, to make something of oneself.

Palin to me, however much we should respect her obvious talents and skills, however seems to be entirely a product of her surroundings. She is what her environment made her, with no sign that there was any conscious choice in her path. A product of the ideological programming of her time and place. Some call this authenticity, her handlers certainly would, but that's part of the problem. She is only on the ticket as a result of the scheming ideas of rich old white men, being no more worthy to them than the cocktail waitress who just brought over the latest round of drinks. She's a political pet to men and nature, unconsciously spitting out her lines about being a proud American and how evil her opponent is because that's what she's to do. When you see her speak you realise she could do no other.

Bush always represented to me a uniquely American Story. A puzzle to try and figure out. A tragic tale unfolding before our eyes. Palin's story is simple farce. Hers is not an American Story. America's real story is one of self-creation. Of making and remaking onself, that is why the opportunity, freedom, and independence matter. Because they allow for people to make and remake something of themselves in spite the circumstances. Bush did, Palin never has and probably never will. Hers is not an American story

Im outraged

Todays Daily Outrage

The Prime Minister, federal Opposition Leader, parents, school groups say they are outraged at news a primary school principal let controversial artist Bill Henson scour the playground for child models.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he would be disgusted if a principal had let controversial photographer Bill Henson into a primary school to search for suitable subjects for his controversial artwork.

"If the report is accurate, I am disgusted by it," Mr Rudd told reporters in Sydney today.

"I think parents would be revolted and horrified if this were true."

I too am outraged that a photographer sought to find models to photograph. Likewise I am outraged that Mechanics like to look at cars (thats weird right?) and the proctologist really does want to look at your butt.

There is of course a process issue there, but every single person who drives a car by the side of a school sees exactly the same, and had Henson gone to the school without first getting the principals permission, people would have been outraged and wondered if he was a a pedophile. But do it formally and for art, and somehow again everyone is outraged. If the police dont think he has a case to argue, and even the family of the child are still 'strong supporters' of Henson's, can we all stop pretending we have a role in this issue.

No one has been harmed in this case, the government and our politicians has no role to play here.

A tale of two positions

CBS Interview with Palin and Biden: "What do you think is the best and worst thing that Dick Cheney has done as vice president?"

The Serious Answer:

BIDEN: I think he's done more harm than any other single elected official in memory in terms of shredding the constitution. You know — condoning torture. Pushing torture as a policy. This idea of a unitary executive. Meaning the Congress and the people have no power in a time of war. And the president controls everything. I don't have any animus toward Dick Cheney, but I really do think his attitude about the Constitution and the prosecution of this war has been absolutely wrong.

The unserious answer:

PALIN: Worst thing, I guess that would have been the duck hunting accident — where, you know, that was an accident. And I think that was made into a caricature of him. And that was kind of unfortunate.

Agree or disagree with Cheney on the US right to torture, choosing something entirely unrelated to his 8 years as VP in such a time is pretty telling that you havn't thought about it a lot. Its not even as if she has to defend Cheney, her running mate McCain has attacked him, and made ending torture a key point in the first presidential debate.(And note her "worst thing Dick Cheney has done" is more a complaint about the media having a laugh at his expense". Talk about being in the bubble.

And with that I'm off to watch the VP debate. Shame its on so early here in Australia, watchers may need a stiff drink if Palin really lets loose. But my prediction: She will annoy liberals and conservatives who have already pulled away, due to nonsense shallow talking points, but wont make any major gaffes and be declared to have beaten expectations simply by not making a giant fool of herself. Media will wonder if this is her second coming, and then forget her tomorrow by the time the House votes on the Financial Crisis bill.

Outsourcing Democracy

I'm sure this has happened many times before on both sides of the isle (union groups spring to mind) but disturbing none the less

Huff Post

In an email obtained by the Huffington Post, Vets for Freedom field staffer Laura Meyer offered a fraternity at St. Louis University a "sizable donation" - plus free lunch - if it could use their pledges to demonstrate outside the VP debate.

"I was emailing you today," wrote Meyer, "because I am trying to find people who would be willing to hold up signs for a few hours in the afternoon this Thursday outside the VP debate site. It's only for a few hours and you can gain a lot from it.... first off, lunch for any guys who agree to volunteer will be on me. Secondly, they will get lots of media attention! My organization did a similar thing in Mississippi last week and a ton of them were on TV".

Who said capitalism is dying in America ?