The Porter Bureau

.

Christmas is, among other things, a time to indulge. Some indulge in family fun, others in excessive eating, and perhaps most commonly, many indulge in rampant and unapologetic commercial/consumer-ism. While I subscribe to all of those Christmas indulgences, one particular excess defines my Christmas celebration.

Yes, I am a closet “Do They Know it’s Christmas Time” fan. Every December 15th I sneak over to Youtube.com, shut the door, put on my headphones, and do a search for “pointless yet well meaning big haired 80s pop supergroup.” I smile a little as George Michael’s mullet fills the screen.

Well this year no more. I shall push my indulgence just a little further and subject any foolish enough to click on my blog to share my revelry of big hair and hammy singers.

Enjoy the video. Look below for my top five moments.

1. How is it possible that in a room full of dated trendified poplets, Sting still manages to look cool as ice? The look on his face says, ” in 6 years you all will look like a bunch of fools, but I’ll still look gooood.”

2. Bono doing his  Bobcat Goldthwait impression (both visually and vocally)

3. Phil Collins just workin those drums

4. I SWEAR that Simon LaBon looks exactly like my friend Cam did in high school

5. The best line ever written in pop music: “There won’t be snow in Africa this Christmas.” You know, it’s too bad that Band Aid didn’t work. As far as I know, it still doesn’t snow in Africa. (Kilimanjaro doesn’t count)

There’s no sedative like grading freshman English 101 papers.

I went in to have a conference with one of my professors a few days ago. While we were discussing my final paper, I noticed that she had a picture of the Salt Lake temple on her bulletin board.  So when we were done I said rather inquisitively, “you have a picture of the Mormon temple on your board.” To which my professor responded, “yeah, I guess I had better take it down now.”

I was taken aback. Why would my professor assume that she needed to remove this picture of the Mormon temple? The answer, of course, came to me quickly: my professor immediately assumed that with my observation came an implicit critique of the now infamous “Proposition 8,” California’s recent constitutional ban on gay marriage, and that like her I was upset with the Mormon involvement in that vote. I hurried to explain myself, “well, you don’t necessarily have to take it down… I ask because I’m a Mormon… I’m from Utah. I was just curious why you might have the picture there.” After an awkward moment where both of us wondered if in our misunderstanding we had seriously offended the other, she told me that her mother was one of the writers on PBS’s production of The Mormons, a production that was generally well received by people of the LDS faith and thought to be both insightful and honest.

So here was a woman who as far as I could tell was not religious, certainly not a Mormon, but who had enough pride in her mother’s work that she had bothered to pin this flier to her board. And if I interpret our conversation correctly, she at one time felt an affinity for the Mormon faith because it is so misunderstood. The Mormons, she might have said six months ago, really aren’t all that different, and they’re clearly making an effort to not be seen as insular or “odd.” Now, however, when reminded of this Mormon symbol in her office,  her first thought was to take it down, despite the fact that for her it was a symbol filial pride and not religion.

This is what Mormons have lost–the cost of their funding of proposition 8. Here was someone who was more than willing to approach Mormon culture with an open mind, and while I doubt she’d ever consider the religion, she felt a sympathy for the Mormon faith, a faith that has been unfairly reduced to HBO specials and punch lines on South Park. She wanted to give Mormons what every religious, ethnic, political, and social group wants: to be considered in all of their complexity–warts and all, yes, but at least with the possibility that open-minded people will see the good in the “all” as well.

Some of my Mormon friends might say, so what? She’s a liberal professor in a liberal field teaching at a liberal university. Why would we expect any reaction other than a kneejerk condemnation of Mormons after proposition 8 and the gay/lesbian reaction to its passage? To which I would respond by pointing out just how much is lost when a liberal professor in a liberal field at a liberal university changes her attitude about the Mormon faith and culture from empathetic to antagonistic. Scholars in the humanities, and literature in particular, are at best suspicious of religion and at worst openly hostile towards it. Despite the sometimes thinly veiled antagonism I have felt because I believe in a fundamentalist Christian faith (”fundamentalist” is an adjective in this case, not a noun), I have never apologized for my beliefs–which for a graduate of the University of Utah is hard to do. That the Mormon faith and culture had an ally in such a liberal environment is not something to be scoffed at. But now that ally is gone.

I don’t know what the answer is to the conflict between homosexuality and the Mormon faith. I’m fine with my religion dictating theological and moral principles, but I get nervous when any organized religion, my own included, extends their influence into civil matters. In this case, the Mormon faith seems to have crossed the line between “we do not” to “thou shalt not,” and I have to wonder what the consequences will be for Mormons who are more than willing to follow the leadership of the church on spiritual matters, but not on civic ones.

Despite her sincere invitation to return and talk more about religion and my paper, I haven’t gone back to see if my professor took down her picture of the Salt Lake temple. I would, but I’m just not sure how to go about apologizing for my beliefs.

I’m proud to be an American. Sure, we have to hope that President Obama is as effective as Candidate Obama, but man, what a day, what a spirit. Zeitgeist indeed. More thoughts as soon as I finish grading this stack of horribly written freshman papers.

….

Despite a litany of conservative commentators criticizing the McCain campaign for fallaciously trying to link Senator Obama to terrorism, some in the Republican party still hold to the notion that McCain is the victim of left leaning spin. They argue that what we see in the media is not reality, but a “narrative” outlined by the left to convince Americans that, for example, Gov. Palin is wholly unqualified for the office of Vice President of the United States. I disagree with this counter narrative, and would point out that my criticism of Palin has always been tied to her own words and her own actions, not spin from the left. Sarah Palin, in my opinion, needs help from no one to demonstrate that she is unfit for national public office.

Republicans have hidden behind accusations of media bias for at least as long as I have followed politics, and it would be silly to think that they’ll stop now. However, today General Colin Powell, a Republican who served in both Bush presidencies, announced that he would support Barak Obama for president. In his explanation of why he is supporting Obama, Powell listed many of the same items that I have observed here on TPB: 1) Sarah Palin is unqualified for VP; 2) the McCain campaign’s recent negative personal attack ads and campaign speeches are reprehensible; and 3) the Republican party’s far right-wing ideology is bankrupt. 

Given the discussion above, I think Powell’s comments are very important. This is not David Brooks, a token conservative for a liberal rag, this is Colin freakin Powell, once future of the Republican party. Powell’s comments are not a liberal narrative and they are not spin; they express what is really happening in the truly ugly campaign McCain has run. Perhaps McCain and other conservatives will consider the criticisms of General Powell out of respect for the source. I won’t hold my breath, but I hope that Powell’s comments will at least give them pause before they dismiss future criticism as leftist story telling. 

a

a

With one fell swoop, or stoop (as in low), the McCain campaign has set a new low for American politics. In a time when our country stands at the brink of economic catastrophe, McCain has chosen this moment to link Barack Obama to terrorists. The ruse is painfully transparent, and I doubt anyone really believes that Obama has some ’splanin to do, but McCain is counting on the allusion to terrorism to scare people into not voting for Obama.

A few months back, Obama was criticized for making the following statement:

We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? He’s got a feisty wife.

“We know the strategy because they’ve already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn’t moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us.

I would call him prophetic, but no one who was paying attention to the 2000 or 2004 elections should be surprised by the way the Republicans like to campaign. “Swift boat” is now a verb, after all. The real problem with McCain and Palin’s farcical linking of Obama to terrorism is that it will have a negative effect on Obama. He may still win the election, but those people at the Palin rallies who are now shouting racial epithets and chanting “kill him” are going to be around long after Palin has retired to her moose hunting lodge. Nor will those feelings of hatred and animosity simply disappear when the other team wins. McCain and Palin have gone beyond campaigning for a single election, they have poisoned the well. Knowing that they have no chance to win on ideas, they are now ratcheting up feelings long dormant that are better left that way, and our national character will be diminished because of it. To quote the conservative columnist George Will, “Are you [McCain] going to get any better or is this it?” Sadly, this is likely to be McCain’s swan song, and it will be one that belies his very real history of putting his country first. It’s hard to argue that anyone who would reignite such viciousness and hate could be concerned about anyone, or any thing, other than himself.

Here’s a little upbeatness to counter the hate of the angry right. The Obamas are the American dream. I hope people will be able to see past race and party and recognize that once (if) Obama is elected president. While conservatives can take no credit for the Obamas’ success, they can still take a measure of pride in it. At least I hope they will.

Such is the editorial power of The Porter Bureau. I haven’t had a chance to watch the interview yet, but it should prover interesting. I’ll be interested to read people’s reactions.

Umm, ouch. It’s fitting, really. Sarah Palin now completes the trifecta of “undercutting every campaign message of John McCain.”
Uno
McCain pre Palin: Experience is everything!
McCain post Palin: Experience? meh, overrated.
Dos
McCain pre Palin: I’m a maverick, a M-A-V-E-R-I-K (I’m so maverick I even spell it my own way)
McCain post Palin: I’m all about the evangelical base! Always was! We’re the party of assault weapons and paternal rights for rapists, don’t ya know.
Tres
McCain pre Palin: Sure, anyone can give a “speech,” but it’s the ability to turn off the teleprompter and speak to the American people directly that shows true character and leadership.
McCain post Palin: Do they make White Out for life? I’d like a do-over.

So the great Palin saga continues in America, though overshadowed by a mere complete collapse of the US financial system. Now, in discussions here and in other places, Palinites have defended her tooth and nail. They have argued that the liberals just can’t admit that someone who didn’t go to an Ivy League school and opposes abortion even in the case of rape could posses a shred of intellect. In their partisan furor, however, they seem to overlook the fact that we as Americans have nothing to judge Palin’s intellect, political savvy, potential capacity as a commander-in-chief, or economic acumen on other than the constantly repackaged stump speech that she gave at the RNC Convention. Her one interview drew mixed reviews, so her handlers quickly placed her back in the cellophane wrapper–safe from those deference challenged liberals and all their pesky questions about irrelevant things, like her stand on the major political issues of the day.

So to the Palinites, I say be bold! Don’t let that old curmudgeon, John McCain, sequester Sarah Palin behind phony Sean Hannity interviews. Prove her detractors wrong. Do away with the infomercial-as-interviews and let her answer a question and prove her political chops. Do that, and if she’s half of what the right claims she is, I will be the first to stand up and say she’s qualified to be president of the United States. But if you let the McCain campaign continue to treat her like the red-headed stepchild hidden in the attic, then I will brook no more whining about how the MSM doesn’t show her proper deference.