The Chocolate Dog

As corporate media coverage of the presidential race becomes even more notably stingy with intrepid journalism, the mainstream press enthusiasm for "The Daily Show" seems more cloying than ever. I personally LOVE it.

The pattern is now a routine feature of the media landscape: "The Daily Show" gets laudatory attention from major news organizations, where countless journalists watch like shackled prisoners in awe of Superman.

Look -- up in the media sky -- it's a bird, it's a plane, it's Jon Stewart!

While news accounts note how many viewers hold faux "news anchor" Stewart in higher esteem as a journalist than the "real" ones at the top of the media pack, there's a sheepish quality to much of the coverage about "The Daily Show."

After all, many big-name journalists have earned their keep by describing and analyzing the embroideries of the emperor's new clothes. It blows their conformist minds to see a network program that regularly exposes right-wing rulers without a stitch. This is something both the Doonesbury and Bloom County comic strip ( among many others) have been doing (or did) for some time.

Last month, a Sunday edition of the New York Times devoted more than two full broadsheet pages to "The Daily Show," starting with a color photo of Stewart that filled nearly half the cover page of the newspaper's "Arts & Leisure" section. The program "has earned a devoted following that regards the broadcast as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news," eminent Times critic Michiko Kakutani wrote.

Consider the subtexts of this passage in the story: "Mr. Stewart ... and his writers have energetically tackled the big issues of the day -- 'the stuff we find most interesting,' as he said in an interview at the show's Midtown Manhattan offices, the stuff that gives them the most 'agita,' the sometimes somber stories he refers to as his 'morning cup of sadness.' And they've done so in ways that straight news programs cannot: speaking truth to power in blunt, sometimes profane language, while using satire and playful looniness to ensure that their political analysis never becomes solemn or pretentious."

Well, OK. That says a lot about "The Daily Show." But what does it say about the "real" news media -- and especially about the most important and self-important huge media outlets that dispense news with enormous ripple effects across the media terrain?

If -- as the New York Times soberly reported in the article -- "straight news programs cannot" tackle the "big issues of the day" while "speaking truth to power," we should ask a key question: Why not?

But this is not a question that media outlets like the Times seem interested in pursuing to any depth.

Contrasts with the overwhelming bulk of corporate media are primarily drawn to underscore the uniqueness and extraordinary qualities of "The Daily Show." It's exceptional as an exception. Comedy Central's most famous program is in the spotlight, and the vast expanses of the corporate media are the arrays of darkness that make it so conspicuous. What sheds light is punched up by what blocks it.

Absent from the fawning media coverage of "The Daily Show" is evident self-awareness that the elaborate praise is a tacit form of convoluted self-loathing -- in professional terms anyway -- among the likes of, say, Times journalists. Their own media institution is so circumscribed and so lumbering in its daily incarnation that they're apt to be amazed and envious at the incisively documented presentations on "The Daily Show."

That's the way it goes in medialand. What isn't conspicuous is apt to be insidious. The tick-tock of U.S. media hypnosis may be passably good at looking back -- reexamining some aspects of propaganda for the Iraq invasion, for instance, years after it occurs -- while now helping to mesmerize the country into escalation of the war in Afghanistan. But let's not quibble. Everybody has a job to do.

Despite the media feeding frenzy, we still may be asking ourselves, "Just who exactly is Sarah Palin?" Mixed in with the Davy-Crockett-meets-SuperMom vignettes -- all those moose hunting, ice fishing, snowmobiling, baby-juggling, and hockey-momming (The twin sister of the socce-mom) moments -- we've also learned that she doesn't care much for her former brother-in-law and wasn't afraid to use her office to go after his job as a state trooper; that she was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it; that she's against earmarks unless they benefit her constituents; that she can deliver a snappy wisecracking speech, thinks banning books in libraries is okay( a very personal grieviance to myself personally), considers herself a pit bull with lipstick, and above all else, wants to drill the ever-lovin' daylights out of every corner of her home state (which John McCain's handlers have somehow translated into being against Big Oil, since she insisted on a marginally bigger cut of the profits for Alaskans). One last peeve I have against her and this is just a personal one is that my other wise fairly reasonable friend Mike thinks she is hot. I have no idea why that bothers me.

Never mind.

Oh, and -- not that this is very important to Americans or the planet -- she now thinks that global warming might possibly be human-made sort of though she didn't before, despite the fact that the state she governs is on the frontline of climate change. And, of course, she's a classic right-wing, fundamentalist Christian: against abortion (Even in cases of rape and incest) -- check; against same-sex marriage -- check; against stem-cell research -- check; against fuzzy bunnies--check; favors teaching Creationism in public schools.

It's that last item, her willingness to put Creationism up against the teaching of evolutionary science in the classroom on a he-says-she-says basis, that's far more revealing of just who our new Republican vice presidential candidate is than we generally assume. It deserves the long, hard look that it hasn't yet gotten. Most Democrats and progressives tend to think of the teaching of Creationism as a mere sidebar item on their agenda of political don't-likes, but it's not. Sarah Palin's bias towards Creationism is a window into her political soul and a measure of John McCain's hypocrisy. Not to mention a testament to ignorance and stupidity. If we run with the philosophy that creationism (It is not a science by any interpretation of the term) we might as well introduce a course of study concerning the sociology of fairies and gnomes. It would be equally based in reality.

It's possible that the public has been fooled into thinking of McCain as a "maverick" when it comes to his party's abysmal record on the environment, but his selection of Palin as his running mate sends quite a different message. In fact, he's potentially put future generations on a "bridge to nowhere" (or perhaps to the fourteenth century). Whether we know it or not, we should now be duly warned: The Palin nomination is the equivalent of launching a "surge strategy" in the Republican war on the environment.
The Republican Holy War on Nature

For the past eight years, the Bush administration's assault on environmental quality has been so deliberate, destructive, and hostile that the usual explanations -- while not wrong -- are hardly adequate. Yes, Republican animosity to government regulation is long-standing. Yes, they believe in the power of an unrestricted marketplace to shape our collective behaviors. And yes, they emphasize property rights over notions of the commons (Despite their support of emanate domain) and have often been comfortable sacrificing wildlife, air, and water quality in the pursuit of profits. In addition, despite recent claims, they are indeed the party of Big Oil. But none of this quite explains the Bush administration's shameful record on the environment. In the final analysis, the only explanation that fits the nightmare of the last eight years is this: It has been on a holy war against nature -- and the nomination of Sarah Palin is essentially an insurance policy taken out on its continuation.

The idea that the environment matters is ingrained in Americans, even those who don't think of themselves as environmentally inclined. Democrats and Republicans alike have learned the hard way that the decisions we make about what we allow into our air, water, and soil gets translated into our skin, blood, and bones. We now sense that we all live downwind and downstream from one another, and that it is prudent to practice restraint and take precautions when making environmental decisions.

This unspoken consensus is one of the great accomplishments of the modern environmental movement. The policies of the Bush regime have been shocking and shameful exactly because they fly in the face of these shared values and beliefs. Only when we grasp that the narrow Republican base both Bush and McCain pander to no longer shares these basic values and beliefs, does their war on the natural world make sense.

If you believe that a look-alike God made the world for you to dominate and use, that you are among God's chosen few, and that He will provide for you no matter what you do to your surroundings, then you are likely to see yourself as above the natural order. If you believe that the world will be ending soon anyway, that you will be "raptured" while non-believers are "left behind" (as fundamentalist Tim LeHay so vividly describes the process in his bestselling novels), then precaution and restraint are moot. Remember, more than 60% of the nation's 60 million evangelicals believe that the Bible is literally true, every last word of it, and more than a third believe the end of the world will occur in their lifetime. A belief that has dominated Christian thought for a little over 1,000 years.

That's why a pro-Creationist stand is no sideline issue, but the litmus test that reveals whether a politician shares the religious right's ideology -- a literal interpretation of the Bible, a disparaging attitude towards science, belief in mankind's unfettered dominion over the natural world, and a willingness to impose its religious doctrines on others.

Both of Sarah Palin's churches -- the Wasilla Assembly of God where her faith was shaped as a child and the Wasilla Bible Church that she attends today -- believe in just such a literal interpretation of the Bible. From Biblical study, Creationists have calculated that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. That this is contradicted by the fossil record matters not to these folks (Maybe fossils are gods way of messing with us by placing false evidence? Wouldn’t that make him more of a Loki figure than one of divine benevolence?). They also think Revelations is a reasonable guide to foreign policy in the twenty-first century. Asked during her run for governor if Creationism should be taught in the public schools, Palin responded that the theory of evolution and Creationism should be taught side by side, and then "the students could debate" which is true. Well if we are going to that why not teach astrology and astronomy side by side or math and numerology? Bull shit and fact side by side?

Why Evolution Matters
When many Americans think "evolution," they probably recall that illustration of an ape, then a Neanderthal, then a hairy caveman, and finally, a modern homo sapiens walking in a line and growing ever more upright as they proceed. That illustration crudely highlights the aspect of evolutionary theory that pinches the nerves of Christian zealots who prefer a creation scenario like the one painted on the roof of the Sistine Chapel -- God tagging Man with life, finger to finger. (Though any one with an art education or an eye for the subtle will relive that god in the painting sits within a stylized “brain” delivering the message that intellect is the seed and gift of “creation”. Look at it for yourself). Anyway, the human common ancestry with primates is just a fraction of what evolutionary theory is all about. Neither Darwin nor any other credible scientist ever made the claim we evolved from apes rather that men and apes have a common ancestor.

Evolution is largely about connection and interaction -- the linear connection of one species evolving into another (speciation), but also how species fill niches created by one another, how they interact, exchanging energy and information, how they compete as well as cooperate, and how all of them -- from microbial soils to migrating birds -- form dynamic communities that, in turn, are also woven together, web within web within web. Pull one thread of that living tapestry and you tug at so many others, which is why precaution is so wise.

Evolutionary theory does not preclude God. It uncovers the how of life, but leaves the why of it quite open. Many devout Jews and Christians, even evangelicals, believe in evolution, just not Biblical literalists. I have my own personal beliefs on the topic but they are irrelevant for the purpose of this essay.

Evolutionary theory shapes and informs the ecological sciences that are the very basis for our environmental laws and policies. The emerging, European-led global movement -- so far lacking U.S. participation -- that aims to deal with global climate chaos and restore the earth's vital operating systems is premised on understandings gained through the evolutionary sciences. Cast doubt on those sciences and you undermine the basis for changes that are urgently needed.

The Creationist campaign means to dumb-down and confuse our kids by pushing the evolutionary sciences off the educational stage. America's Taliban want to make room for Creationism's dull sister, Intelligent Design, in order to undermine the emerging environmental consensus that is our best hope for a sustainable future. According to that consensus, we humans are embedded in natural systems that are in crisis; our well-being, even our survival, depends on the vitality of those systems.

Kiss the Polar Bear Goodbye
So how does all this translate into actual behavior? As governor, Sarah Palin recently sued the Interior Department to keep the polar bear -- the iconic symbol of her state -- from being listed as a threatened species under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Additional protections, she argued, might inhibit oil and gas drilling and pipeline construction in the region.

The Endangered Species Act is a favorite target of the religious right since they are convinced it elevates lowly creatures to, or above, the status of human beings. They see "charismatic carnivores" and other protected species as the means used by conservationists to pursue broader protections for whole ecosystems. And that's true enough, in that "keystone species" like the polar bear regulate a wide network of relationships within a whole ecosystem. Those bears, for example, keep a lid on seal populations that could otherwise devastate fish populations and skew the arctic food web. Numerous animal and bird species depend on scavenging bear kills for food. But without reference to ecological science, the role of a keystone species and the value of biodiversity itself are hard to appreciate.

Palin, of course, also wants to drill for oil in the ecologically fragile Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and has expressed her hope that she can convince McCain to abandon his opposition to it. She is an active promoter of Alaska's aerial hunting program where wolves and bears (again, keystone species) are shot from the air or chased until exhausted, after which the pilot lands the plane and a gunner can shoot them point blank. She tried to raise the bounty on wolves to encourage more killing (I though that bullshit died with the old west) and strongly opposed a ballot initiative to end the aerial hunting program. In the Lower 48, we learned the hard way that eliminating top predators upsets a chain of relationships in their ecosystems. No wolves in Yellowstone meant big, lazy herds of elk trashing streams, driving away beavers, and thus eliminating the wetlands that beavers create -- a cascade of unintended, harmful consequences. That's why naturalists are reintroducing wolves in parts of the West, and health is returning to the land with them. Under Palin, Alaska is going to relive our old mistakes at a time when Alaskans -- and humanity -- can ill afford it.

The Carbon Queen
Even in Alaska, known oil reserves are dropping. You know it does not matter how you look at it, we have a limited supply of oil on this planet and IT WILL RUN OUT the time to find solutions is NOW. Nonetheless, Palin is determined above all else to keep the current flow of energy moving, explore and develop new oil fields, and ramp up natural gas and coal production. She gave special permission to Chevron to triple the toxic waste it can pour into the waters of the Cook Inlet, despite scientific research concluding that the Beluga whale population there is endangered not to mention what it does to the salmon population (Which Alaska and most of the North West depend on heavily) . She has refused to pressure Exxon to pay-up for damages caused by the infamous Exxon-Valdez oil spill. She has supported virtually every mining proposal that has landed on her desk, including one for a vast gold mine in the Bristol Bay watershed that would risk the world's largest run of sockeye salmon. She favors open-cast mining for coal in the pristine Brooks Range. She has refused to enhance safety measures for trans-Pacific shipping along the Alaskan coast. All that and she's been governor for barely two years!

Her deplorable environmental record was such common knowledge that John McCain couldn't have missed it, even if he napped through his vetting committee's report.

So if the McCain/Palin ticket is elected, you should know what to expect. Although John McCain may once have openly refused to subscribe to the beliefs of the Republican Party's religious right (Believe it or not I at one time supported him and rather thought well of him though that was a long time ago), famously describing them as "agents of intolerance," his selection of Sarah Palin is a message (and not just to the Party's fundamentalist right): If you thought that he understands the need to kick our fossil-fuel addiction and address global warming, if you believed his promises to build a green economy, forget about it. A McCain/Palin administration, just like the one before it, will continue -- and this is the best-case scenario – to pull a “Nero” and fiddle while the planet burns.

Driving Into the Future Without a Map
Ed Kalnins is Sarah Palin's former pastor at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church which she attended for 26 years. He sees powerful signs that the end of the world is drawing nigh and assured a London Times reporter that Biblical scripture specifically mentions shortages of oil and wars for its control as well as an open rebellion of mad reindeer somewhere near Norway. When the end comes, he expects to be "raptured" with other righteous Christians and spared the suffering of those of us who will be left behind. He believes the apocalyptic destruction of our planet will happen in his own lifetime; in fact, that is exactly the future he hopes for. He has urged his congregation to make ready a "refuge" for good Christians fleeing northward in "the Last Days." Though why this would be necessary I don’t understand…wouldn’t they all be safely “raptured away from harm already? Although Kalnin's orientation may seem -- to be polite -- extreme, it is typical enough of those who push a Creationist agenda. And it's a perspective Sarah Palin knows well, having spent a lifetime in Kalnin's Pentecostal church, and even now, she is in no hurry to disown it.

We need environmental science in our schools more than ever. An ecologically illiterate generation of students will be ill-prepared to meet our real, less than rapturous future. They won't have a clue about what's happening around them or how to deal with the damage we've done. They won't be able to create new technologies that mimic nature's models for recycling waste and energy. They will drive blindly into the future, burning fossil fuels, without a map they can read. They may even let the Ed Kalnins of our world take the wheel.

The Evolution vs. Creationism debate appears to be an argument over the distant past. But it's actually about the future. It's about, in fact, who will define the cultural mindset that will generate that future. Let us “pray” it is not defined by a pit bull with lipstick who thinks she is "tasked by God" to drill for oil.

In the midst of our ever-deepening economic crisis, John "the fundamentals of our economy our strong" McCain unveiled his most ridiculous economic plan yet: sell more gas guzzlers.

McCain unveiled a new ad yesterday called "Michigan Jobs." The ad is so full of lies, deceptions, and failed approaches to our most pressing problems, it's hard to know where to even begin. His simple-minded pandering is an insult to the intelligence of Michiganders (and all Americans). I'll get to the gas guzzlers bit in a minute, but let's run through the ad's other distortions.

First, McCain trumpets his support for loans to help the auto industry. What he doesn't tell you is that he was opposed to helping the automakers until just last month when he looked at his standing in the polls start to slide.

The Sierra Club knows times are tough in Michigan and supports helping the automakers, so long as they are serious about using the loans to retool in order to make real improvements in fleet-wide fuel economy.)

McCain also trumpets his $5,000 tax credit for hybrid cars. Too bad Obama's is $7,000.

Barack Obama's plan: $150 billion investment in clean energy technologies, including giving automakers the help they need to double fuel economy and build the next generation of fuel-efficient vehicles right here in the U.S.

McCain's plan: run the economy like a game show, offering gimmicks like a $300 million prize for car batteries and a gas tax holiday ridiculed by over 230 leading economists.

Which brings us to his latest gambit: more gas guzzlers. The ad says "more offshore drilling to lower gas prices to spur truck sales." Too bad his plan won't do a thing to lower gas prices or solve Detroit's long-term problems.

This is the second McCain ad just this week to repeat the completely discredited claim that offshore drilling will lower gas prices. Even McCain himself has admitted that his drilling plan would merely offer "psychological relief."

He really needs to get his head checked if he thinks selling more gas guzzlers is the way forward. Autoworkers and auto execs alike understand that relying too heavily on gas guzzling trucks and SUVs is what got the auto industry into this mess in the first place. That's why they want help building the next generation of vehicles, not the vehicles of the 1990s.

The only thing more gas guzzlers would guarantee is higher gas bills for consumers and more oil dependence for America. This is just another sorry example of how John McCain just doesn't get it. All he has to offer is last year's solutions to today's problems.

This is not all I have to say on this topic. If you wish to read more and or check my sources please continue on to the http://www.squidovelords.org/ .

So, I pretty much hated John McCain's speech.

It was boring as all fuck, not just because McCain is a miserable orator who never manages to hit any kind of compelling rhythm, but because it was the same damn speech I've heard at every GOP convention for my entire life injected with a shot of POW, the potency of which had been thoroughly undermined by every other convention speaker having taken possession of McCain's history during their speeches. Even the video package introducing McCain talked about his being a POW. There's a not-particularly-fine line between marketing relevant and evocative personal experience and Tragedy Branding. This convention sailed over that line into farce.

It gives me no joy to say that. And it doesn't change one iota the fact that McCain's service was intrinsically brave and honorable. I'm just really mystified by the decision to use something as intimate and distressing as the details of imprisonment and torture as the primary selling point of a candidate. Which is not to suggest McCain shouldn't have talked about it himself—but doling it out to everyone else to discuss onstage on his behalf had the twofold effect of diluting its effectiveness and disconnecting McCain from his own highly personal experience.

It certainly wasn't a good design for people tuned in to lots of the convention, at minimum.

I won't pick apart much of the actual content, because, quite frankly, it's too dry and dull to require it. There are two passages I wanted to mention, though.

ONE:

I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need.

Immediately after the speech, Spudsy and I were on the phone talking about it, and he said he thought that was a nasty jab at Obama. Reading other reactions to the speech around the blogosphere, I see that other people had a similar reaction.

When I heard it, I thought it was a jab at Bush.

Possibly this is because I've never heard Obama say anything close to what could legitimately be described as a belief he is blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed him to save our country in its hour of need.

Possibly it's because I've heard Bush and his myriad devotees say that shit about a bazillion times.

(Although, it tends to be less about history anointing him than God anointing him. Or sending him war plans, as the case may be.)

"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."—George W. Bush

"He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge. I thank God that on September 11th, we had a president who didn't wring his hands and wonder what America had done wrong to deserve this attack. I thank God we had a president who understood that America was attacked, not for what we had done wrong, but for what we did right."—Former NY Gov. George Pataki

"I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility."—Former Deputy Director of the Office of Public Liaison Tim Goeglein

"If I'd won that election in 1992, my oldest son would not be president of the United States of America. I think the Lord works in mysterious ways."—George H.W. Bush

Et cetera.

Given the perception that McCain essentially used this speech to throw his own party under the bus, along with the Republican National Convention treating "Republican" like a dirty word and Bush like a pariah, I'm not convinced that he wasn't pointing that particular weapon in Bush's general direction.

Possibly, the line was designed as a double-edged blade—which would make it quite certainly the best line in the whole speech.

Especially because Johnny Boy evidently needs to put some real distance between himself and the Dauphin of Dipshittery.

Tom Brokaw: But the fact is, Governor, that you've had eight years of a Bush administration and a lot of Republicans in Congress for the last eight years, so why wouldn't the American people say, "Look, they had their shot; we're gonna change"?

Tom Ridge: Uh, because, uh, John Bush—because, uh, John McCain is very much his own man.

You sure about that, Tom?

TWO:

My friends, I've been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. But I've been her servant first, last, and always. And I've never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I didn't thank God for the privilege. … I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency, for its faith in the wisdom, justice, and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again; I wasn't my own man anymore; I was my country's.

Ezra notes, quite rightly, what's wrong with the passages like this one in McCain's speech: "Such public declarations of patriotism are not about why John McCain loves this country. They are about why this country should love John McCain."

That's right. We should love him because he is humble (despite what you may have heard about his being a belligerent fuckwit), and because he is decent (despite what you may have heard about his calling his wife a cunt), and because he has hard-won and tightly-held principles (despite what you may have heard about his caving on our country's torture policy and lots of other stuff), and because he is his country's eternal, unwavering servant (despite what you may have heard about his ties to lobbyists hired by corporations whose patriotism is only as strong as the dollar).

And we should vote for him because he is humble and decent and principled and devoted, too.

He's earned it, goddammit.

As I watched him tick off all the things he's done to deserve to be president, sneering: "My friends, I have that record and the scars to prove it. Senator Obama does not," I realized that McCain was trying to manipulate his way into the Oval Office using the same strategies as a Nice Guy^TM uses to try to manipulate his way into a woman's knickers.

Don't you know what a good person I am? What—are you one of those people who likes Mr. Popular the Arugula-Chomper? Fine, whatever. You voters always complain that there are no good candidates, but here's one right in front of you, and you're still going to choose celebrity over substance. No—wait, wait. I didn't mean it. Did you know that I was a POW? It was really horrible. Please vote for me. PLEASE. No? Well, screw you then!

I'm not sure if McCain wants a vote or a pity fuck.

The biggest applause line in the whole speech was when he introduced (again) his veep pick Sarah Palin, and—considered within the context of his 1) running against his own party and 2) desperate stumbling toward a finish line just out of his reach—it was a pitiful moment for McCain, as he seemed to be simultaneously passing the torch within and resigning from a Republican Party that doesn't really want him, even on the night he's been anointed its ostensible leader.

Awwwwwkwarrrrd!

But not even awkward enough to make it interesting. Dire speech. Dreadful convention. I can think of nothing more perfect for Candidate McCain.