The Porter Bureau

Given the failure of the Bush Administration’s signature domestic policy achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act, it is perhaps not surprising that they would look to revise their approach to education. While some may find the administration’s new direction in education short sighted and self defeating, it’s clear that they are simply speaking truth to power… which in this case is themselves.

Ralph Nader announced that he is again running for president of the United States. Oh, man. So what is a conscientious, idealistic, anti-corporate takeover of America, third party advocate supposed to do? My much delayed (due to an overly-long trip to Michigan) “Why Obama, Part II” must now be completely rethought. You see, the main reason I support Obama is that things happen in the US only when a President can build a broad base of popular support. Think of the accomplishments of JFK and Reagan. Those presidents were able to rally so much popular support that the entrenched powers in Washington were forced to either get on board with their respective agendas or face an electorate who would support someone who did. I still recall watching the 1984 election results and feeling sorry for Mondale and his one state versus all the rest of the US going for Reagan. True, I had no idea what either candidate stood for at the time, but even then I could tell that Reagan was going to get done what he wanted to. Obama represents that kind of sea change–one that can compel others to support his agenda whether they like it or not. So from that perspective, Obama really could change things in Washington. But on the other hand he still represents the two party system and he doesn’t support a single payer healthcare system, which Nader does.

So what do I do? Continue to vote Nader, or maintain my support for Obama? So far, neither candidate has called to elicit the endorsement of The Porter Bureau, but I’m sure their campaign staffs are presently scheduling just such a call. In the interim, I must take some time to consider whether I make a statement, or ride the wave.

On a more positive note, “Falling Slowly” from the amazingly good film, “Once,” won for Best Song at the Oscars tonight. Brilliant film. Go see it/rent it, if you haven’t already.

I’m taking a page from Mester and writing a travel log. I’m now in a bus driving across the great state of Michigan, towards East Lansing. I would marvel at the WiFi technology that allows me to add this entry while I cruise down the interstate, but I feel like waxing poetical instead (sans poetry, don’t worry).

 I’ve had the chance to live outside of Utah on several occasions, but every time I go to places without mountains I am constantly aware of their absence. Looking across the now red and orange hued sky, something is clearly missing. The trees, in their hubris, presume to occlude the horizon. Don’t they know their place? How they live in a strata perpetually below the granite and limestone?  Apparently not.

 I don’t know if I’d describe my feeling as agrophobia. It’s not that I have any fear of the expansive horizon. It’s just that something I expect to be there isn’t. It’s like when you go to close the car door, but gravity has pushed it shut for you without you noticing. You reach behind you, perhaps eyes on your destination and a bag full of groceries in one hand, and you push where you thought there was a door only to find nothing, empty space, vacuum. You’re off balance momentarily, not physically, you probably didn’t swing that hard, but what you expected to be there wasn’t. That’s the moment that looking at my vacated horizon reminds me of… I’ll savor it. The common place will surely rush in to steal my discomfort, and I’ll kick my metaphorical door closed as I spend my days with eyes to the ground, eventually forgetting that there was ever anything taller than the trees to be seen when I cast my glance up.

In the interest of fairness and to avoid being labeled a member of the “liberal media elite,” I have posted this important message from Senator McCain’s supporters.

Speaking of McCain, the AP reported today that McCain attacked Senator Obama, accusing him of offering America “hollow platitudes” instead of real leadership. Said McCain, “My friends, we need someone in the White House who has been in the military. We need someone who is, [chuckle] a maverick, willing to fight for what’s right, not just what’s popular. We need someone who will talk straight with the American people. And most importantly we need someone who has cut porkbarrel spending in the Senate. And frankly, simply repeating the same sound bites or slogans over and over isn’t enough. We need real change in Washington, and as my 25 years in congress indicate, I’m just the kind of outsider we need to get THINGS done! So please, my friends, don’t be lured away by popular messages or rock star rallies. In fact, it would probably be better if you didn’t listen to Senator Obama at all… ever.”
Subtext: McCain criticizes Obama for using platitudes while laying out his own, frequently ironic, list of slogans and hollow rhetoric.

In an unrelated matter, the McCain campaign and the Huckabee campaign continue to workout details in the “celebrity deathmatch” between McCain supporter, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Huckabee supporter, Chuck Norris. Both campaigns are promoting the event as a way to bring “real substance to the political debate,” and promise a “rigorous, thoughtful and serious evaluation of the problems that face our nation… and blood, lots and lots of blood.” HBO has already “donated” several million dollars to each campaign for the PPV rights.

Subtext: McCain and others criticize Obama for being all style and lining up celebrity endorsements, all while courting popular opinion by latching onto (mostly fading) stars of their own.

In order to explain why I support Brarak Obama, I must give some background on my personal political philosophy. In the last two presidential elections I voted for Ralph Nader. Why “throw away” your vote, you ask? Well, I believe that the United States is held hostage by the two party system. In a word of far ranging possibilities, we are given only those possible solutions to political problems that fit within the narrow spectrum of what the Republicans and Democrats will consider. I liken American politics to a football field. The entire range of possible political action would be the full 100 yards of the field. However, the entrenched powers of the Democratic and Republican parties will only ever play between, because American is a right-leaning country, the conservative 20 yard line to the liberal 40 yard line. On either side of these political positions are a range of possible solutions that will not be considered because there is no apparatus in the two party system to bring these ideas into the public discourse. It has been my position that the only vote that actually counted was a vote to oppose the current Republican/Democrat hegemony that controls power in this country. Consider, for example, that neither party is ever “out of power,” they only shift footings regarding which party has slightly more power than the other. We are lead to believe that the presumably hard fought battles between democrats and republicans prove that they are bitter rivals, and on some level perhaps they are. But one thing they absolutely agree on is that the two party system must remain intact. They have a lock on power, they know it, and they will do anything they can to keep it that way (i.e. in 2004, the Democratic party paid the Green party not to nominate Ralph Nader again, thereby marginalizing both the party and the candidate).

I have argued, while supporting my votes for Nader, that the two major US political parties are so similar that any difference between them is insignificant. Over the last eight years, President Bush has worked hard to disabuse me of this notion. Think what you will of Al Gore, but no one could reasonably suggest that we would be mired in Iraq right now if Gore had won in 2000. Bush I and Clinton were essentially the same presidency (Clinton passed NAFTA of all things), but Bush II is so radically conservative and hawkish that I must acknowledge that there is a difference between the parties. The real problem, however, is that there was no one to stand up to Bush when he went into Iraq. There was no one, as one might see in the British Parliament, to shout down the notion of war and force the country to really consider the implications of a “preemptive war” (how evangelical Christians reconcile their beliefs and the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is beyond me). In a nation that was perhaps a little too eager to punch someone in the mouth to prove just how tough it still was, the democrats rolled over and, despite revisionist histories by both Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave Bush the power to go to war.

So what does this all have to do with Obama? Well, the Bush II presidency has been so disastrous for the US that the democrats are basically assured of winning the presidency. An unpopular and costly war, a burgeoning deficit, the mortgage crisis, spiraling healthcare costs even for those lucky enough to have insurance—the country is not in good shape, and one needn’t be a partisan to see it. The catastrophe of the Bush presidency allows the Democratic party to nominate someone that is not a centrist in the stripe of Clinton, but instead nominate a candidate with truly progressive ideas (maybe even getting to the liberal 30 yard line?). But who would this nominee be? John Edwards was one of the most unabashedly liberal of the major democratic candidates, but he’s dropped out. Hillary Clinton, until her recent conversion to the true liberal cause, has been a staunch moderate. Despite popular opinion of her she has long been a centrist democrat. In fact, she is a member of the Democratic Leadership Conference, a centrist group within the democratic party (Joe Liberman is also a member of the DLC). That leaves us with Barak Obama, a unashamedly progressive candidate who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. And while others were off making money by cutting back labor costs, he was using his law degree to help community activists in Chicago try to improve their city. The choice for anyone leaning left, is clear: Barak Obama represents a chance to shift the powerbase in Washington in a way similar to how a third party might. In a political landscape covered with presumptive nominees, 96% incumbent reelections, and political dynasties, Obama is the proverbial monkey wrench that might just get us out of, not the mythological Washington gridlock, but the status quo where both major parties shrug off lost elections because they know, without a doubt, that they’ll be back in 4 to 8 years. But would I advocate electing someone to such a critical office just to be a token of discontent? No, of course not. In my next post I’ll detail why I believe Obama isn’t only the best choice to challenged entrenched Washington politics, but is in fact the best candidate for the office of President of the United States.

Yes, this video amounts to little more than a celebrity endorsement (please, no matter what your political persuasion, don’t vote for a candidate because your favorite TV actor says so). However, as someone interested in rhetoric of all kinds, I found this to be a pretty powerful piece of creative argumentation.

What a game. I tend to root for the underdog, so I really wanted the Giants to win. I don’t have anything against the Patriots, but it was their game, their moment, they needed to earn it. I just didn’t want a blow out victory. You know, the kind that prompt an entire season of comments like the one above. I know announcers are tasked with filling up the air waves, but come on. 35 seconds is 35 seconds no matter who you are–especially if you’ve only scored twice all game long. That comment ranks right up there with some of the Madden greats (none of which come to mind), and a comment Bill Walton made when the Utah Jazz were in the NBA finals. Right before a break the camera moved to an outside shot of the mountains behind Salt Lake City. Walton waxed poetical and praised the “beautiful view of the snow capped Wasatch mountains.” Only problem was, that the finals are played in June… there was no snow in the shot. But meh, what are details to your iconic sports hero turned color commentator?

I thought Belichick’s early exit was among the most classless moves I’ve ever seen in sports, period. It’s right up there with the dads who get in fights over their sons’ little league games. Forget the fact that you have disdain for the rest of the world, Mr. Belichick. Those are your players out there on the field. That you couldn’t be bothered to spend that last second with them in defeat speaks more about you than either your past wins or your current villification for “Spygate.” For my money, it’s the people who stand by you when you’re losing who you remember, not the person you hugged in the thrill of victory. As Captain Hook might say, “bad form, sir. Very bad form.”