Resonance

Another In A Long List Of Palinoscopies

And the pundits comment. I find it amazing that Sarah Palin was able to get away with calling Obama a man who "pals around" with domestic terrorists. Especially when the guy in question, William Ayers, has, since his association with the Weather Underground, changed his life and become a respected member of his community. Focusing on education and social justice. I firmly believe that this line of attack is not only the result of a losing candidate, I think that it's unconscionable that Palin would not address the facts of this comment. Of course, if Palin really did read ALL the media, she might have been able to find the same information on Wikipedia that I, and many others, did. Here's the vid.

Sarah Palin, Miss Teen South Carolina, Tina Fey

So, I have been hitting up youtube since Palin's horrifying appearance with Katie Couric merely because I noticed a certain resemblance between her "interview" and another interview that I once had the horror of watching. So, I found them and here they are. Plus, an added bonus of Tina Fey re-enacting (with the help of Amy Poehler as Couric) the event.

The key for this one is to forward to 1:46 and watch the response to the question:

This one is Miss Teen South Carolina, the VERY FIRST thing that I thought of:

And here we have last night's "SNL" version of the interview. Scary, really, how accurate Tina Fey's portrayal is. Not to mention the wonderful stylings of Amy Poehler as Couric.

Make up your own minds, but this makes me feel very, very afraid.

It Takes a Texan

Molly Ivins, (not a native Texan, but she moved there young enough to pretty much qualify) a voice of reason and an amazing storyteller, who reported on politics in Texas for decades, died last month after her battle with breast cancer. She will be missed.

However, this video, regarding the Texas fight against immorality, reminds us that even in this time when our politicians play fast and loose with the truth, our system is still one of the greatest shows on Earth.

I wonder what people do when flying out of Texas with their "Educational" devices? "Oh, no, i'm a safe-sex educator, this woman is my "assistant" and this is merely a Gucci leather belt."

Listen for Miss Ivins' last line. It might be the best part.

Green Rainbow

No, it's not a seasonal Lucky Charms, nor is it a faction of the Rainbow Coalition. It's a legitimate political  movement here in Massachusetts. Sure, it's a name that someone a little more thoughtful might have refused to second, but no matter, it's here now and there's nothing that we can do to make the name more attractive and less likely to encourage jokes.

Which brings me to the point of this post. Jokes about politicians. Seems that a local radio personality (A.M., for the record), one John DePetro, made a thoughtless and cruel remark about the Green Rainbow party's candidate for Governor, Grace Ross. While on-air, DePetro made a derogatory comment regarding Ross' weight and sexuality.

Yes, she's overweight. She's also openly gay. However, what does that have to do with her candidacy? In what way does that play into her platform and plans for change for the Commonwealth? The answer is, it doesn't. Unless, of course, one is worried that she might actually legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts. Oh, wait, it already is.

Not that this really matters, as odds are neither she nor Christy Mihos stand a chance according to the polls. This race is about Deval and Healy.

Fortunately for all of us, this announcer was summarily fired for this statement. Getting fired from A.M. radio. Wonder what he'll end up doing next? Oh, I know, trying to supersize your order.   

Attack Ads

Okay, i'm done with this entire "win at all costs" campaigning that has been the hallmark of most political campaigns since I was in college. Back then, it was regarding the now infamous "White Hands" ad run by Jesse Helms. A horrific abuse of racial fears that focused attention on affirmative action. There was also the amazing lack of ethical clarity that allowed the "Willie Horton" ad to ensure that then Democratic candidate for President, Michael Dukakis, was rendered a soft on crime candidate. Never mind the fact that the furlough program that allowed Horton to leave the prison was actually introduced by a Republican.

Now, we have been forced to sit through ads that call all Democrats "cut and run" wimps who can't keep the country safe from terrorism and the Dems are calling Republicans "war-mongers" who use the war on terror to take away basic civil liberties that are ours by right. Sure, there is perhaps some modicum of truth in both of these statements. However, the reality is that most of the time, there is no real way to easily tell the difference between any of the candidates for elected public office.

"Studies have shown the impact of negative messages is five times more powerful than positive ones," Brown said. "It sticks with people and is retained longer." (Eagle Tribune, Oct 12, 2006. Speaker, Rob Brown, Salem State College)

This is because we are lazy Americans. We count on advertising to inform our political decisions. Ask any person on the street about what they think of when they hear the name Deval Patrick, and most likely, one will hear the response "He's the candidate who got a cop-killer off and defended his brother-in-law when he was accused of raping his wife, right?" Yes, if one uses the television advertising as their primary source of information. Dig a little deeper, and different stories start to emerge.

On one side, there is the definite fact that Deval did, indeed, garner a stay of execution for convicted cop-killer Carl Ray Songer. Now, i'm not one for felons, especially murders, getting reduced sentences. What the ad failed to point out was that the reduced sentence was from death row to life in prison. Not really getting off scott-free. As well, at the time, Patrick was an attorney for the NAACP. Part of his focus was representing people who were on death row. Condemning a man for doing his job, however wrong he may have been, is absurd. If there were no lawyers willing to defend those who are accused of such heinous crimes, then many innocent people would be put to death. The issue here isn't that the guy was guilty, it's that Patrick was working within the framework of his career choice and doing a damned good job at it. As well, the convicted rapist, Benjamin LaGuer, convinced many of his innocence in the brutal rape of a 59 year-old woman in 1983. The fact that Patrick was one of those who were taken in, (among them Jon Silber of Boston University fame. The same man who remains staunchly anti-gay even though his own son died of AIDS as well as once claiming that female students who were worried about sexual assault should reconsider their clothing choices.) says nothing of his ability to make informed decisions regarding the effective running of the Commonwealth. As a matter of fact, his financial aid in the DNA test that ended up proving LaGuer was guilty was a good thing.

Today, someone leaked the fact that Patrick's brother-in-law, Bernard Sigh, was convicted in 1993 in California for the rape of Sigh's wife, Patrick's sister. This came to light after Sigh was forced to register in Massachusetts as a sex offender. The fact that the two are reconciled and now counsel other couples in crisis notwithstanding. The Healey camp claims no knowledge of the event and the Patrick side vows to take off the kid gloves for the remainder of the campaign.

This means, folks, that we lose. It doesn't matter who wins the election. The voters lose when all we get to know about a candidate is how "bad" they are. I want to know, and we should expect to be told, exactly where these people stand on issues that matter to us. What about the rising costs of living in Boston? What about the outrageous amount of taxes we are expected to pay and the lack of infra-structure or public programs to show for it? What about the expected increase in T fares? How about that report that they want to raise gas taxes and add to the state's toll roads? Oh, and that issue of lack of competition for insurers in the state as well as the horrific conditions of the roads? Where do these issues fall in the debate? I want to know what these people plan to do to address these and other issues. I want to know that my vote means something.

What I don't want is to vote for one person because they seem less scary than the other. That won't make me sleep better. What will is knowing that the money I pay into the state I live in is well-used and that there is some concrete and viable plan for making this great Commonwealth even better.

The fact that someone did his or her job 20 years ago means nothing to me. Except that, if I vote for that candidate, the job might just get done.