Ugly Is As Ugly Does

It is a grim reflection on American democracy that the McCain campaign has only begun to ignite after abandoning Sen. McCain's own values.

The choice of America Ferrara as his running mate was a bizarre step away from the moderate conservatism that has marked much of McCain's political life, and particularly from his resistance to the Religious Right and his principled contention that the religious views of political leaders are and ought to remain private.  (This saddened us, as it was the thing we had liked best about him.)

The campaign has begun spreading, and defending, a series of ever-more offensive lies.  These begin with misrepresentations of Gov. Palin's record -- claiming that she never sought earmarks, when as mayor she hired a lobbyist to pursue them, and as governor she sought $200 million worth; insisting that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, when in fact she supported it until the stage at which it was a dead idea anyway.

It escalated dramatically with a witless attack on Sen. Obama, claiming that his use of the folksy  expression "you can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig" was somehow directed at Palin.  Even the most casual listener, hearing the remark in context, can hear that he is speaking of McCain's somewhat specious offer of "change" from the Bush Administration, made while supporting most of its policies.  McCain himself has often used the same expression, notably in reference to Sen. Clinton's proposed health-care reforms.

Challenged about this on The View, McCain's response was worth noting.  He claimed (a) "they're not lies," which is simply another lie; and added that (b) "Senator Obama chooses his words very carefully."  He considered this idea so important that he repeated it.  Why?

Obviously, (1) he wants us to believe that Obama was speaking in a sort of subliminal sexist code, which could only be heard by the sexist Democrats in his audience -- until McCain cracked the code.  This is nonsense.  McCain may have been (2) attempting some sort of jujitsu move, in an effort to use Obama's superior communication skills against him.  After all, one might infer, if the remark were offensive -- which it patently is not, in this context -- Obama clearly intended it to be so, because he is so articulate; but McCain's own use must be forgiveable, either because he is  so woefully inarticulate or because he is a doddering old man this close to losing his marbles.

(Those last charges things are not true, of course.  But they are the sort of charges to which this foolish strategy leaves McCain exposed, if Obama lowers himself to them.  But of course, if acolytes of Rove who are obviously running McCain's operation now can really piss Obama off, they will have struck gold.  After all, there's nothing easier to run against than an angry black man.) 

It's getting worse.  McCain HQ is now spewing filth like a pressure hose.  The most reprehensible of today's lies (and we know there will be more tomorrow) is the accusation that piece of Illinois legislation Obama sponsored to protect children from sexual predators was really about forcing sex ed on kindergarteners.   Here's a video review, along with Andrew Sullivan's commentary.

Sullivan suggests that McCain has "checked out," leaving campaign strategy to his strategists, even when they tell him to do stupid, evil things. This may be true. Sullivan also proposes that McCain "has mis-timed his lies," swinging right as the country goes left, and dirty as the country yearns for clean. We pray that this is so. But even if neither of these proves true, there is one claim upon which we agree with Sullivan entirely: "John McCain is now for ever a despicable and dishonest and dishonorable man. He has destroyed his reputation."

Swift-Boating McCain

In a striking display of cowardice, the McCain campaign has declined to comment on a current book by Jerome Corsi, which regurgitates the familiar anti-Obama smears (drug addict, Muslim, etc.).  This would be unremarkable in politics, had not Senator McCain, in his earlier and more honorable phase, taken a firm position against such nonsense.  Does he even remember calling for a "politics of civility" and scolding some of the early bad-mouthers?

For that display of courtesy, the candidate received a public tongue-lashing from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, and so now, it appears, he has chickened out.  He will stand by, helplessly, while others do on his behalf work which he positively knows to be dirty.  So much for guts.

This saddens us, for many reasons.  We are sad to see McCain's good instincts, which are many, fall victim to cynicism and lust for power.  We are sad because, whether he wins or loses the presidency, McCain will have permanently surrendered the reputation for (comparative) honesty and integrity which made him an appealing and effective across-the-aisle legislator.

Beyond our sadness, though, we are a little surprised that McCain would put up with this, when it so clearly poses a risk to his own aspirations.  The bottom-feeders of American politics, those ultrapartisan hacks who seemingly have nothing better to do with their lives than spew slander, hoping that it will slowly be passed upward along the food-chain, pose an equal threat to candidates of both parties. 

For a demonstration, click the link up top to see the website of "Vietnam Veteran Against John McCain."  Its self-proclaimed mission is to "dispel the myth of  [the] straight talkin’, principled, maverick war hero," and to argue that McCain is unfit for the presidency.  It labels him "the Manchurian Candidate," and argues that his entire military career (and possibly the political career which followed) was the result of special favors from secret backers.  It accuses him of belittling the families of PWs and MIAs, of "collaborating with the Communists."   

As with the best lies, there is an element of truth to most of this.  As the son and grandson of admirals, McCain never lacked protective cover for his many youthful screw-ups.  Like some 9/11 families, some families of soldiers lost in Viet Nam went on to demand more from the government -- including especially sympathetic listeners like McCain -- than it was able to provide, and eventually earned a certain measure of firm treatment.  As for "collaboration," he has often admitted that he broke down under interrogation.

But even those who don't support McCain's candidacy will see at a glance that the website as a whole is the work of crazy people -- and not sweet cuddly, crazy people, either.  It is crazy, mean-spirited and more than a little paranoid.  No surprise, since the guy behind it all -- an former Green Beret named Ted Sampley -- has a track record of crazy, mean and paranoid.

If the name of the crew sounds familiar, it is because a similarly-named organization launched a bitter attack on John Kerry, which may well have cost him the presidency.  Sampley was behind that, too, although he was greatly assisted by donations from oil gazillionaire T. Boone Pickens. Together they spread what appear to be utter and complete lies about Kerry's military service, which to this day Pickens refuses to acknowledge as lies.

So here's our point:  These crazies can cost a candidate the election.  If McCain thinks that he is playing it safe by letting Jerome Corsi's slander go uncondemned, he had best watch his own six, because Ted Sampley is closing fast.

Veep Debate

Whew.  Thought there would be an ad break or two.  For those who missed it, here is a quick rundown, typed while it happened.

9:02 -- She really is pretty.  "Hey, can I call you Joe?"  Hell, she can call me Joe.

:03-- Worst or best of DC?

Biden:  Blames Bush for economic policies.  Fair enough by us.  OTOH, Congress hasn't exactly been "put in a tough spot."  Makes Obama sound like an MBA for minute.  Beats an ideologue.

Palin:  Soccer moms!  Apparently, they've figured out that we're in trouble.  Canaries in the coal mine.  Blames "Federal Government," claims McCain was out ahead on this with Freddie/Fannie "reform bill."  Praises him for "suspending".

:07 -- Can Veep reduce polarization?

Biden says he's been doing it whole career.  But ... it's gotten worse during his whole career.  So he goes back to beating up McCain on economy.

Her response is to defend mcCain on "fundamentals."  Team of mavericks, claims she's known for putting partisanship aside -- ummm, how?  Then a dig at Biden's "years in senate."  And !@#$% "maverick" again.

09 -- Ifill calls non-responsive, moves on to mortgage crisis.  Promises to come back to it.  Never does.

Palin: blames predatory lenders, corruption on Wall Street.  Is corruption per se really the issue?  As in lawbreaking?

Biden: blames deregulation, and talks about McCain's experience w/ same.  Great bit about desire to deregulate healthcare on banking model -- is it true?  Palin wants to turn it into  a meaningless discussion of taxes, but  does make one interesting point -- McCain has also been pretty involved in regulation, which is why so many conservatives hate him.  But she's just silly on that 2-yr-old procedural thing that McCain dragged out last time, and Biden swats her down.  Gently.

The baby cries, and I lose the ability to keep time.  Hey, it's live internet.

"I may not answer the questions the way the moderator or you want to hear" -- what the hell does that mean?  Ah, she cut taxes, and wants to brag, even though its off-point.  (Did she?)

So on to taxes:  Why isn't Obama's plan class warfare, McCain's dumping on poor?

Biden:  Bush tax cuts are going to the rich, Obama's to the middle class.  Worth repeating, and it is simple fairness, isn't it?  "This is not punitive" -- even though that's how most people seem to see all taxation.  Nice bit about doing just as well as they did under Reagan.

Palin:  Less job creation!  Taxes aren't patriotic -- see?  Government is the problem!  (Why won't people who think that stay out of government?  They stink at it).  But has to be reminded to talk about the health-care plan, which is a lame-o $5000 credit.  (Tell that to your oncologist or surgeon, who charge as much for one procedure).  Oh, and misrepresents Obama's plan.

Biden:  Reminds us that the really small businesses don't get tax increases.  Then great argument about McCain's tax deduction -- is a tax on the insured that is paid directly to insurance companies.  (Can that possibly be true?  What a lousy plan, if it is. A "Bridge to nowhere" -- nice dig.)

Next:  Promises you'll have to break?

Biden:  Foreign assistance won't double.  Then, weirdly, says he won't support McCain's policies.  Uh, yeah.  We thought that already.  Then, like Obama, talks about all the stuff he won't change on.  Um, yeah.  Non-responsive.  

Palin:  McCain has character!  (Tell his first wife).  Obama voted for tax breaks for oil companies, and she claims that she -- what?  Rescinded them?  Who knows.  She broke up a monopoly?  Which one -- only McCain is old enough to remember Standard Oil.  (What precisely is she saying she did?  What precisely does this have to do with the question?)

Ifill:  "So ... nothing?"  Palin says that's right, because I haven't promised anything yet.  Complete waste of airtime.

Biden:  Okay, back to taxes.  Alternative energy; and hey, about McCain's budget -- why is he cutting oil company taxes more?  But he knows what she actually did in Alaska -- windfall profits tax that she imposed and McCain opposes.  Nice maneuver -- using the facts.

Next:  Making bankruptcy harder.  McCain supported it -- do you?  Oh, and Biden did, Obama didn't.

Palin:  Yes, but, ahem, um, it was different 2 years ago, and McCain warned us.  (Which is meaningless.  He still wants to punish the bankrupt.)

Biden:  Obama and I disagreed.  And Obama knew about the crisis 2 years ago!  We've done this already.  But he wants bankruptcy courts to have the power to change your debt principal -- holy cow, that's intense.  Anyway, claims McCain and Palin oppose it.

Ifill:  Is that so?

Palin:  That is not so.  Now let's talk about something else -- energy!  We need energy independence!  My God, the terrorists are selling us oil!

Next:  Energy and climate change.

Palin:  Hey, we've got that.  Did you know I'm from Alaska? But Man may have done some of the damage, and then some damage is "cyclical," and I don't care about the causes. Let's just talk about what we can do to clean it up.  (Um, yeah.  Without understanding the cause?)  Hey -- if we were energy independent, that would somehow keep China from polluting with all the cheaper oil ... what was I saying again?

Biden:  It's manmade.  Clearly manmade.  "If you don't understand the cause, it's impossible to come up with a solution."  So he cites some facts.  We like facts.  More alternative energy, then export the tech to China to clean them up.  (Could that have been what Palin meant?  Or was she just blathering?)

Next:  Cap and trade, clean coal.

Palin:  Drill, baby drill.  (So ... not so big into alternative energy, just alternative wells?)  Says the Dems have said no to everything, called drilling "raping the continental shelf."  Oh, okay, she does want alternatives, like "nuke-you-lar."  And she supports cap and trade.

Biden:  Hard targets on clean coal for 20 years, something abut China.  So why does McCain keep voting against funding alternative energy?  (Repeat)

Same-sex benefits to couples -- like Alaska?

Biden:  Yup.  Gives examples, but answer is clear and unambiguous.

Palin:  No.  It might redefine marriage.  But she is tolerant.  Umm ... so?  She won't prohibit certain rights, but wants to make it about ....  (Wait.  she's the governor of Alaska.  Shouldn't she support her own state's policy?  My head hurts.)

Same-sex marriage?

Biden:  No.  let your own damn church decide.  But as to rights under law, Palin agrees with me.

Palin:  No.  (But again avoids some details of question.)

Iraq exit strategy?

Palin:  We've got one!  The surge!  Petraueus and McCain invented it -- Note to Self:  remember not to mention POTUS.  Oooh -- reminds Biden that he argued with Obama about this.  Anyway, we've got to win in Iraq in order to win in Afghanistan.  Hey, she knows who the Shi'ia are.

Biden:  Shift responsibility and draw down troops over 16 months, just like Bush is starting to say but McCain won't.  And, yet again, he knows more about the details of the vote she's talking about.  "We will end this war -- for John M., there is no end in sight."

Palin:  Calls him chicken.  We'll stand down when they stand up.  Never mind the ongoing negotiations and express will of the Iraqi government. Reminds him of some more times he and Obama disagreed.

Biden:  McCain also voted to cut off funding for the troops -- specifically a lot of $ for M-RAPS.  Brings up McCain and Cheney and the absurd idea that the war would be fast and cheap.

Nuclear Iran and unstable Pakistan:  Which is worse?

Biden:  Both bad.  Pakistan has nukes; Iran isn't close.  Both are "game-changers."  And hey -- McCain still thinks an attack will come from Iraq, but we all know it will really come from the Pakistani-Afghan border.  We need to get our tails in there and (a) build schools, (b) kill OBL.

Palin:  No, no, no -- Petraeus and the Iraqis say it's Iraq, so it must be Iraq.  She can pronounce "Ahmadinejad," and considers him "neither sane nor stable."  (Does McCain really want to launch a preemptive strike on those guys? And how badly?)  Anyway, on to negotiating without preconditions.  Again.

Secretaries of State who all want us to engage with enemies.

Palin:  I met Kissinger!  He likes diplomacy!  But not with dictators who hate our freedoms and our respect for women's rights.  

Biden:  You misrepresent Obama.  And you guys do know Ahmedinejad doesn't control the security apparatus, right?  And you know that our friends and allies, the ones you want to drag along into a  negotiation, have been begging us to negotiate?  Picks on McCain for not negotiating with Spain.  (What WAS that Spain thing about?)

Israel/Palestine:  What have we done, done wrong, and is 2-state the way to go?

Palin:  Yes.  2-state.  But no 2nd Holocaust.  (Well.  That's revolutionary).

Biden:  I love Israel!  So does Obama!  But you asked about this administration -- "an abject failure."  Gives examples.  We like facts.  Especially all the "we-told-you-sos."  And we don't like Iran either, and I know more about it than she does.

Ifill:  Abject failure?

Palin:  No!  Bush Administration has made huge blunders, but shouldn't be blamed.  All this talk about the past makes us wonder if you care about the future.  (Wtf?  Can she name anything Bush did right?  She certainly isn't trying.)

Biden:  Will McCain's policy be different than Bush's?  I haven't heard ... (Long list of things he hasn't heard McCain differentiate from Bush.  He memorized this stuff way in advance.  Still, it sounds good.)

Interventionism and Nukes:  When do we push the button?

Palin:  Our enemies should never have the chance.  We have a deterrent, and that's "safe and stable."  Sure.  Again, she doesn't answer the question.  And then moves on to Afghanistan -- where McCain promises to be different from Bush because he'll implement ... a surge.

Biden:  1.  Afghanistan:  the commander said today that the surge principles used in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan.  We need more troops, more $ on infrastructure.  (Not sure about difference.)  2.  Back to nukes -- we need a test-ban treaty, and McCain voted against it.  Obamam and Lugar worked on it,

Palin:  McClellan did not say that!  Did not!  (Yes, she calls him McClellan, which was actually a Civil War general.)

Biden:  Yes he did.  (So, let's check this later, shall we?)  Anyway, McCain considered Afghanistan over and done with 2 years ago, and wouldn't let us spend money on it.

Interventionism.  Can the public stomach it?

Biden:  If we succeed.  (Hey -- he saw the first ten minutes of "Patton.")  Bosnia was  limited success; I voted for Iraq b/c Bush told me it was about giving sanctions teeth.  And we need to intervene in Darfur.

Palin:  I'm an outsider, silly.  You flip-flopped on the war -- for it before you were against it.  And you've gone soft since you got into the Veep race.  We agree on Darfur.  Hey, I'm the governor of Alaska -- we divested from Sudan.  That's like a war, right?  Except it hasn't passed yet.

Ifill:  So what's the line?  For when we go in?

Biden:  Can we win?  And how bad are they -- like genocide?  Then more about Iraq, and how Cheney screwed it up and mcCain supported Cheney.

Palin:  You're a liar.  McCain knows how to win a war (And again we ask:  How?  And why won't he tell us before we elect him?)  She says it again.

Next:  How would you govern if you had to, given differences from principles?

Biden:  God forbid.  But I would carry out his policies -- break for middle class, health, tax, college, energy, Iraq.  And on and on.  "In essence I agree with every major initiative."

Palin:  Team of mavericks!  Push him on ANWR.  He wants debate to make good policy.  But, ahem, I would continue his good work, especially fighting greed and corruption on Wall St., make it more like Wasilla Main St.  "Government, get out of my way!"

Biden:  I go to Home Depot.  And everybody I know is poorer than they were 8 years ago.  So where does McCain differ from Bush?  Go to my old neighborhood.  Or Scranton.

Palin:  You're talking about the past again!  Let's tell people what we want to do.  Ramp up the schools -- with funding.  Love the 3rd graders.  So let's "increase the standards," but "emphasize the profession of teaching."

Next:  One of you didn't know what the Veep did, the other didn't want it.

Palin:  My "jke" didnt work.  Neither did yours, Joe.  Constitution would permit a bit MORE authority given to Veep "in working with the Senate."  What???  Special needs children, just like the Constitution says.

Biden:  Hey, about education --  John doesn't support it.  Back to the Veepship:  Point person for initiatives in Congress; no portfolio; but give advice on major decisions.

Ifill:  Palin, what branch is the Veep in?

Palin:  Well, it's flexible.  We'll do what's best for the people in ushering an agenda.  "So, um, yeah, I do agree with [Cheney]...."  Oh, and did I mention I'm an executive?  <--- SCARIEST PART OF THE WHOLE DEBATE.   She agrees about Cheney's insane theory.

Biden:  Cheney is the most dangerous Veep in history.  He doesn't read the Constitution.  "Bizarre notion ... invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power."

What are your weak spots?

Palin:  I have experience as an executive!  Energy independence!  Heartland of America.  Once, I didn't have health coverage.  "And that world-view I share with John McCain."  (Um, those are your weaknesses?)  We're a good team.

Biden:  I have plenty of Achilles' heels.  And I won't change.  Wrote some good laws.  I'm a single parent -- my wife and daughter died.  My Dad went bust.  I'm doing great (even though I'm the poorest Senator).  (Again, these aren't really weaknesses ....)

Palin:  McCain is a maverick!  Why, even other Republicans like him -- Giuliani, Romney, me.  And partisanship is bad.

Biden:  Maverick my pasty behind.  Voted for Bush's deficit budget.  Voted against expanding health care.  Education, tax cuts, war -- "virtually anything that generally affects the things people talk about around the kitchen table."

Finally:  Single issue  on which you changed your view to fit circumstances?

Biden:  Yes.  Issue of basis upon which to approve or reject federal judges.  More than just moral turpitude -- ideology counts.

Palin:  Budgets I did not veto -- "I caved."  Didn't cut taxes enough.  But on principle, No.  Oh, and did I mention that I'm from Alaska?

Ifill: How do you change the tone in DC?

Biden:  Work across the aisle, the way Mike Mansfield taught me -- remember that Jesse Helms adopted a child; don't question your colleagues' motives.  Earn their respect.  (Not sure how that qualifies as "change.")

Palin:  Appoint people without regard for party.  (Good answer. Easily her best of the night.  Question:  Does her track record reflect this?).  Hey -- did you know I support jobs and energy and stuff?

Closing Statements

Palin:  We will fight for America, including the middle class (that we intend to use to pay for the tax cuts on the rich).  Quotes Ronald Reagan!  From memory!

Biden:   Economy tanking, so is credibility abroad.  We don't measure progress by CEO pay or corporate success -- but by how families are doing.  Dignity and respect in my old neighborhood.  "When you get knocked down, then get up."  I'm a working class guy.

McCain is a Leftist

And he's not the only one.

Let's be clear:  columnist George Will is an utter ass, further proof of our oft-made case that men who wear bowties are normally snickering twerps.  (Except with a tux, of course, when they are James Bond).

That said, Will has endeared himself to us, over the years, on precisely three occasions:  

(1) In or around 1987, when a bunch of Sunday-morning-talking-heads stopped debating Reagan long enough to take turns predicting the outcome of that day's Superbowl.  When the camera turned to Will, he screwed up his face like a prune and said, in effect, "You're all missing the real story.  Who cares about some ... super-thingie?  Spring training begins this week."

(2)  With his repeated claim (the truth of which we cannot verify) that when asked why he doesn't write a novel, his usual response is, "Well, you see, I've read Middlemarch, so I know how it's supposed to be done." 

(3)  Just lately, with his scathing denunciations of both John McCain and Sarah Palin.  Will has left readers with no doubt that he considers both halves of the Republican ticket to be incompetent, if for different reasons.  Palin, in his opinion, is just what everybody figures:  a dim, shallow opportunist with neither the knowledge nor the skills to handle a job of any magnitude.  But his argument against McCain, as revealed in a recent column, is far more creative.  It takes the usual conservative argument ("McCain is a Republican in Name Only") and ratchets up the intensity.  To Will, McCain is basically Lenin without the facial hair.

Referring to McCain personally, Will argues his many recent blunders, particularly regarding the Wall Street mess, have left him "looking like a flustered rookie playing in a league way to high."  In other words, he doesn't really know what he's talking about, a point McCain has proven pretty routinely throughout the campaign, on matters of the military and foreign affairs as well as finance.  Also, he has "a dismaying temperament," meaning he's a hot-headed moralist.

But then Will does something tricky, and not entirely fair.  Apropos of the pending bailout, he writes that:

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? 

Pause right there, and read that last sentence again.  The rest is anticlimax:  

The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?

See what he did there?  The column is about McCain.  But of course, McCain didn't come up with the bailout idea; his party did. Will has just accused Bernanke and Paulson in particular, and Republicans in general, of Socialism.  McCain, because his objections to their plan have thus far been matters of detail rather than principle, is also a Socialist.  

Fair enough, except that calling this "McCain's party" is a gratuitous slur.  Neither McCain nor his advisors came up with the plan.  It was Bush's advisors.  So if it is indeed time for some back-to-school Red-baiting, logic would suggest looking at the incumbent rather than the candidate.  What Will meant, but did not say, is that George Bush and his pals are a bunch of Commies. 

Dobson Flip-Flops

Dr. James Dobson, the geriatric family psychologist who has long told conservative Christians how to vote, is not himself a candidate for office.  Therefore, we suppose, he does not need to fear being slapped with the dreaded label "Flip-Flopper."  Like other non-candidates, he is not only free to change his mind based upon new evidence, but even -- like those in swing states -- encouraged to do so by those seeking his vote.

Still, we are somewhat amused by his recent show of lukewarm support for John McCain.  In January, you may recall, Dobson made some minor waves by announcing that he "would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances."  The main issues seemed to be that Dobson disagreed with McCain's stand on stem cells and gay marriage, as well as the McCain-Feingold bill, which in addition to limiting the power of lobbyists to corrupt legislators, also required organizations like Dobson's own Focus on the Family to report their own attempts to sway voters.

Remarkably, McCain has not (yet) changed his position on any of those issues, although we expect he will eventually.  Nonetheless, Dobson has begun to say that he will probably vote for McCain, and may even endorse him.

Clearly, a flip-flop.  But why?  Maybe it's just old-age solidarity.  Or maybe it's not about mcCain so much as his opponent.  In an interview with Newsweek, a FotF lobbyist named Jim Daly explained that Dobson has just gotten around to reading Obama's 2006 speech on religion and politics, and concluded that it is "too radical."  McCain is therefore, to Dobson, the lesser of two evils.  This raises any number of questions for us.

First off, as the interviewer points out, this speech was made in June of 2006 -- it isn't exactly breaking news.  Daly says that Focus on the Family "didn't know about it."  So our first question is:  How stupid are these people?  They do all this political wheeling and dealing in the name of religion, but don't pay attention when a serious presidential candidate makes a major speech on the very subject?

Second, we wonder:  Why vote for the lesser of two evils?  Evangelicals have a long tradition of staying aloof from electoral politics, in part because they could not bear the inevitable compromises it entails.  Does Dobson really want to support a candidate whose positions he considers evil?  In the interview, Daly seems uncomfortable with this idea himself.  He talks about leaving ballots blank or write-in votes, concluding that "People should vote their conscience; if they object to both candidates, they don't have to vote in that category."

And third, we have to ask:  Did Dobson read the same speech we did?  The one in which Obama talks about his own adult conversion experience -- being born again?  In which Obama chides himself and other Democrats for their failure to take seriously the role that religion plays in American public life?  Calls Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes his friends?  The one which ends with something rare in  Democratic speechmaking, a reflection on his own prayerful recognition that political opponents, even on something as emotional as abortion, are not necessarily ideologues and fanatics?  Because this speech, it seems to us, is a far cry from radicalism; it is on the contrary an attempt to understand and interpret conventional Democratic policies from the position of religious faith.  

So.  Why the flip-flop, Dr. D?  Perhaps it isn't senility, ignorance, or a newfound willingness to support evil.  Perhaps it is simply this:  You liked politics better the old way, when the GOP=God and the Dems=Soviet Atheism.   You like your opponents to think of you as you think of them, in purely ideological terms, without any recognition of the human capacity for nuance or reflection.  And Obama, who is so evidently capable of these things, scares the Depends off of you.

NOT Swift-Boating McCain

Below, we talked a bit about a crazy, mean and paranoid critique of John McCain, based in part upon his military career.  Bad stuff, you'll agree.

But click the link for reasonable, friendly and balanced version of the same thing.  It's an online essay by Philip Butler, who lived across the hall from McCain at Annapolis, and was a POW for considerably longer than McCain.

Butler says many things that are worth remembering, such as: John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity.  But he also reminds us that this is no special qualification for being President of the United States.  (We remind our readers that when General Clark said the same thing, he was nearly torn to shreds.  That doesn't make him wrong.)  And he reminds us of the sad truth that former POWs were malnourished and abused for years on end, which as they age has meant that they have begun dying earlier than the general population.

But finally, Butler makes one point about McCain which is well known, and critically important to an evaluation of his C-in-C potential, but which nonetheless is not mentioned much these days:   

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

None of this is the sort of slanderous half-truth that the crazies deal in.  It is a sober assessment by a peer, based in part upon personal experience.  And it is worth taking seriously.

Palin: "My Opponent is a Secret Jew"

When Sarah Palin was running to unseat the incumbent, John Stein, her campaign claimed that if elected she would be "Wasilla's first Christian mayor."  

Stein is described by Salon's David Talbot as "a Protestant Christian from a Pennsylvania Dutch background."  Stein's own rather charitable interpretation is that "they were redefining Christianity to mean born-agains."  Some of his supporters interpreted it as a none-too-subtle attempt to suggest that he was Jewish.  Y'know, with a name like Stein and all. 

The anecdote raises a lot of issues, primarily around what it means to be "a Christian."  For some people (say, Pope Pius IX), it means nothing more than to have been baptized -- that was his rationale for kidnaping a child who would otherwise have ben raised Jewish.  For others, it means professing Christian beliefs, or -- and this is not the same thing -- participating regularly in Christian worship.  And yes, for many Christians, especially among what we Lutherans call the Schwaermer, it means sharing the peculiar beliefs of one particular sect.  (So that, for example, the members of Third Holiness Kingdom of Mercy, a storefront church in Detroit, pray weekly for the day when Roman Catholics and Presbyterians will see the light and become "Christians.")

Obviously, this story makes us wonder about the level of tacit anti-Semitism in Wasilla.

It also raises significant questions about Gov. Palin herself.  Stein, a fellow Republican, had been one of her political mentors, and their families were apparently friendly.  So Palin surely knew something about their religious views.  She also, surely, knew that Stein and his wife were legally married, despite the rumors to the contrary that her campaign launched.  It seems that cozying up to more powerful men before turning on them is a recurring theme in Palin's history, a fact which ought to keep Sen. McCain on his toes).  

She may also have realized that, despite their emotional appeal to some voters, the hot-button issues of "God, guns and abortion" had little to do with the work of a small-town mayor, even as she injected them into the race.  That's another recurring theme -- or perhaps you didn't hear her speech at the convention?

But it also raises questions about bigger things than own Alaska's All About Eve.  It points to a difference between two kinds of politics, and two kinds of politicians.  There are the earnest types, who think that the issues which matter are the ones directly pertaining to their office, and the rabble-rousers, who think that any words which will excite a voter's passion can legitimately be considered "issues."  The first type -- let's call them "statesmen" -- talk about sewers, highways, and (at more elevated levels) fiscal policy.   The second type -- let's call them "demagogues" -- prefer to let an election hang on Darwin, gay people and the Second Amendment.  

For many years, John McCain was a good example of the first type; after his primary defeat by the second type, in 2000, he went over to the Dark Side. 

And this brings us to Sen. Obama.  It seems unlikely that Palin ever sat down with McCain or his flunkies and said, "Hey, y'know what works great when you're running against somebody who knows more about the issues than you do?  Calling him a Jew.  Or a Muslim."  There is no evidence that McCain had ever met Palin, or for that matter heard her name, when the slurs against Obama began to fly.  It seems, instead, that the campaign against Obama has been demagogic nearly from the start, to roughly the degree that his has been statesmanlike.  And the fact that Palin had once run a  similar campaign against her friend and mentor is just a happy coincidence.

In a sense, then. McCain may be right hen he claims that Palin is his "soul mate."  In the sense that neither has much of a soul.

McCain Wants Soul Back; Devil Says "Too Late"

In today's papers, there are several reports that John McCain has taken to rebuking supporters when they shout from the bleachers that Barack Obama is a "traitor" or a "terrorist."  It is right for him to do so, of course.  

But let's be clear.  This isn't human decency, this is transparent hypocrisy.  The McCain team is speaking from both sides of its mouth.  After all, it is his own running mate who has made headlines lately with her (obviously scripted) attacks on Sen. Obama's character, and who shows no inclination to stop now.  So McCain tries to make himself look honorable by opposing the foulest prejudices and misinformation about his opponent, while his own campaign continues to spew the stuff like lawn fertilizer.  

It is a comment on just how effective his slime tactics have been that his own supporters booed McCain in Minneapolis for saying that Obama is "a decent person."

This supposed new direction is no testament to McCain's character.  It is a reminder of just how little character he has demonstrated over the past few weeks.

McCain Threatens to Destroy Economy

Asked about his plans to balance the federal budget, John McCain told a Connecticut audience that he would emulate Ronald Reagan.  Heaven help us if he does.

As the Times reporter points out, Reagan actually tripled the deficit, by cutting revenue while raising expenses.  (No matter what they tell you, balancing a budget is simple:  take in more than you spend.  Period.  There's no other way to do it.  And no matter how you try to pretend military spending isn't really "spending," those tanks still cost money.)

But it gets better.  Here's what McCain actually said:  "When Ronald Reagan came into office, we had 10 percent unemployment, 20 percent interest rates, and 10 percent inflation, if I've got those numbers right.  And so what did we do?  We didn't raise taxes, and we didn't cut entitlements.  What we did was we cut taxes and we put in governmental reductions in regulations ...."

Well.  Where to begin?  How about "if I've got those numbers right."  Which he doesn't.  To his credit, McCain is about right on interest rates.  He's somewhat fuzzy on inflation, which peaked in the Carter administration, but never exceeded 14%.  It was declining fast when Reagan took office, so let's call it 11%. 

Where McCain blows it is employment.  When Reagan took his oath of office, civilian unemployment was 7.5%; within a year, it was 8.6%, and within two years it was 10.8%.  In other words, Reagan quickly helped push unemployment up to its postwar high.

Reagan didn't cut entitlements.  Which is strange, really.  The soi-disant "conservatives" like him, even though he tacitly continued the welfare state they used to complain about.  Meanwhile, conservatives can't quit bitching about Clinton, who actually did enact massive welfare reform.  All of which suggests that the people who call themselves conservatives in this country either (a) don't actually believe anything they say, or (b) can't count.

As for deregulation .... Hmm.  Oh, yeah, Reagan deregulated like crazy.  And how did that work out in the long run?  Ask the airlines.  Since the Reagan era, they have gone from flying comfortable jets and making a comfortable profit, down to bankrupt economic jokes flying airborne hellholes.  Oh, make that terrifyingly unsafe airborne hellholes, since just yesterday, they had to ground big portions of the fleet.  It turns out the FAA hasn't been making them inspect their planes.  And are all struggling to stay in business.  All told, we sort of like some regulation on our industries.

So McCain wants to take Reagan as his economic mentor?  Get ready for him to double our present 5% unemployment rate, and cripple a few more of our industries.  But hey, it won't all be bad news -- at least we'll get the dole back.

McCain Sells Out Yet Again

During the 2008 presidential campaign, we said some pretty harsh things about Senator John McCain. (Typical header: "McCain Wants Soul Back; Devil Says 'TooLate' ").

Since then, we have often wondered whether we were a bit too harsh. After all, McCain was a man we had admired or many years. He had served his country with astonishing courage during Viet Nam, and often sided with what was left of the good old "common sense" Republican Party, to which we still pledge our allegiance in the event that it ever returns.

More often than you might expect, we wake up at night in a cold sweat, staring at the ceiling and whispering, "Did we do wrong by old Jack?"

Here's the short answer: No.

As the brief Gawker post, linked above, reminds us, McCain would sell out his grandmother for one more moment of political power. He is a man of no convictions, except perhaps the mistaken one that he remains fit for public service.

John McCain is a Real American

Because he has started whining.  

Apparently, the candidate who used to joke that the media was his base is now running ads complaining that those fickle mediacrats are "in love" with Obama.  Now, to some readers this may look sort of (hmmm, what's the word?  Oh yeah) babyish, on the order of "Mommy, Mommy, Chris Matthews used to be my bes' frien' and now he says he's bes' fren's with Barry -- Mommy, make him stop."  

Unseemly, right?  You just want to scream, "You're a big boy now, so suck it up."  Right?

Wrong.  We at the Egg see what Sen. McCain is up to.  He's showing us that he's a Real American, just like you and me -- a regular guy, despite the rich wife and the confusion about Google.  The key is Phil Gramm, the sensitive soul who until recently served as one of McCain's economic advisors, and whose analysis of our present financial situation was that it was a mental recession, created by a nation of whiners.

Get it?  We're a nation of whiners.  So when McCain whines like a little baby, he's just showing that he's one of us.

McCain's Pants On Fire

As in "liar, liar" and so forth.  

During these last weeks of the campaign, with his poll numbers slipping, McCain is getting desperate.  A brief Times blog (click up top) fact-checks some of his recent misrepresentations, both of his own positions and of Obama's.  

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is rehashing the whole argument that Obama, because he knows an ex-Weatherman socially and professionally, is somehow soft on terrorism.  This is a truly bad idea.  Does anybody really want to be considered guilty of the worst thing ever done by somebody they have worked with?  Because John McCain was in Vietnam, which means he has probably worked with some war criminals (hell, he has claimed to be one himself. Literally) .  He has spent decades in the Senate, which certainly means he has worked with crooks -- think Randy Cunningham, or the rest of the Keating Five.  He hugged George Bush.  Oh, and his wife is a thieving drug addict.

Nope.  Both outright lies and desperate attempts at guilt by association are infra dig, or should be, for somebody seeking our highest office.  And anyway, he doesn't have to panic this way.  Or didn't anybody explain to him that the voting machines are all rigged?

Hooray! We're the Elite!

Brian Williams asked John McCain and Sarah Palin to define "elite," and here's what they came up with:  a mistake and two zip codes.

Palin's answer, which she repeated several times in the midst of some unrelated bluster, was "anybody who thinks they're better than everybody else."  McCain's answer was "I know where some of them live ... the nation's capital and New York City."

Among the customary definitions of the word, the first is this: "the best or most skilled members of a given social group."  That one, obviously, has to do with actual ability, not self-esteem.  This is an important distinction, and we are concerned that Palin cannot make it.  She is, after all, a woman who gives the distinct impression of limited ability, but who nonetheless believes she could stand in as President were she called to do so.  By her own definition, then, she is part of the elite; fortunately, the dictionary lets her off the hook.

So, once again, we ar eleft wondering the same old thing about Gov. Palin: does she genuinely not know the answer, or is she purposefully avoiding it?

A second definition, by the way, is "a  narrow and powerful clique."  Like, I don't know -- the Senate?  American governors?

As for McCain, well -- we are thrilled to know that the Egg, with its world headquarters in New York, is part of the media elite.  We'll be sure to tell our pals on the Trilateral Commission.

It does strike us as odd that a man with $500 Ferragamo loafers and more homes than he can count would have a problem with us elites, but what can we say?  It's a puzzle, which we'll consider more seriously as we stir this arugula smoothie with a Marc Jacobs swizzle stick, and chase it with a triple-caf-pure-cream-chai-caccino-latte.

Stick a Fork in Edwards

'Cuz he's done.

That seems to be the consensus among the media chatterati.  Probably correctly, too -- John Edwards looks to go the way of Gary Hart, slinking off into the sunset, only to reappear years later as an unelectable elder statesman, distinguished primarily by writing op-ed pieces.  Morally, this seems only fitting.  Both men committed high-profile adultery, which is (need we remind our readers?)  one of God's top ten no-nos.  

Hart's press-baiting was more egregious, but on Edwards' affair was more profoundly wretched, if only because he cheated on Elizabeth.  We love that woman.  And his snarky non-defense -- "first of all, she was in remission" -- makes our gorge rise.  So, yeah, we at the Egg are disappointed by Edwards, and don't think he has much of a future in politics.  (And for crying out loud, don't pity the man:  He's still young, rich and good-looking.)

HuffPo blogger Cenk Uygur fights the tide of received opinion, and complains that it shouldn't oughtta be this way.  He makes a few points worth considering:  

Does John Edwards care less about poor people today than he did yesterday? Would his affair lead him to change his position on NAFTA? How would it alter his policy on Iran? ... 

Some will claim, as they did with Bill Clinton, that it's not the affair but the lies that went along with it. Really? ... Every man that has ever cheated on his wife has lied (and so has every woman who has ever cheated). It is part and parcel of the affair.

True enough, but not convincing.  More interesting is Uygur's observation that John McCain's multiple adulteries don't seem to have ended his political career -- and yes, he's fairly open about them now, decades after the fact.  But was he then?  And Uygur doesn't mention a certain former mayor of New York, but we will, at the drop of a hat.  Why has time rehabilitated these men, but not Hart or, as we are given to predict, Edwards?

Frankly, we are inclined to suspect a difference in partisan groupthink.  To put it as bluntly as possible, Democrats are slow to forgive a man for cheating on his wife with another woman; Republicans are slow to forgive a man for cheating on his wife with another man.  

If true, this is the result of their respective party bases.  Democrats skew feminist and pro-gay, Republicans skew macho and anti-gay.  So, once a member of the party faithful gets over his or her initial reaction to a scandal, there comes a time when the various cliches are repeated into his or her ear.  Man cheats with a woman, Democrats mutter "How could that SOB do such a thing to his loving, smart, accomplished wife?" while Republicans grunt "Hey, men have urges, y'know?"  Man cheats with a man, it's "Poor guy, forced to deny the truth about his nature all those years" versus "Another damn pervert, like Roy Cohn, Edgar Hoover, Bob Allen, Mark Foley, Jeff Gannon and Larry Craig."

Oh, sure, this is too simple.  There are exceptions and qualifiers.  Most Dems continued to support Bill Clinton during the impeachment -- but he was an embattled president, and to abandon him was effectively to abandon your own party and all its causes.  (Note that in the Spitzer case, even the embattled-executive impulse couldn't trump the "his loving wife".)  We'd be surprised if the GOP ever runs David Vittner for anything again, although in his case the rage may come less from adultery or lies than from paying for it.

But, even with some exceptions, we think we're onto something.

A Disturbing Thought

If all those conservative Republicans (as opposed to the other kind, who these days call themselves "of no party or clique") hated McCain before he chose Tina Fey to be his running mate ....

And if the Vice President's job is actually what the Constitution says (break ties in the Senate, check on the President's health) ....

Does that mean that conservative Republicans all over America, many of them ostensibly Christians, are prepared to vote their party line this November only in the hope that John McCain will die in office?

"I Don't Care About the Economy."

Some months ago, as we have already mentioned, Father Anonymous spent a leisurely afternoon in the country, which included a long conversation about politics with a career military officer.  As these things will, the conversation got a bit testy, and both parties probably said things to which they would not want to be held later.

Nonetheless, we have chosen to forget our own rhetorical excesses, and focus on his.

In a conversation about the presidential candidates, the officer declared that his only criteria for choosing a president were military matters and foreign affairs, areas in which he considered John McCain to be by far the better choice.  He argued that Obama offered no serious foreign-policy ideas, and that the idea of talking to Iran without preconditions was dangerous.  

Among the many things that he said which struck us at the time, one particular seems relevant these days.  Concerning his choice of candidates, he said, "I don't care about the economy."

We suspect that this idea -- a president doesn't need to have deal with economic matters -- may be fairly common, especially on the right.  (Or friend Father Ron has said much the same thing on occasion.)  And why not?  That certainly does seem to be the thrust of the Constitution.  Art 2, sec. 2 is all about the military, treaties and ambassadors.  

But then there is that pesky remark about "principal officers of the [otherwise undefined] executive departments," or what we call a Cabinet.  And as our government has put flesh and muscle over the bare-bones outline devised by the Founders, those "executive departments" and their principal officers have come to be very important indeed.

Consider, for example, Henry Paulson, our Secretary of the Treasury.  Or the Office of Management and Budget, headed by Jim Nussle.  Or the governors of the Federal Reserve, who -- like ambassadors or justices -- are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  Not to mention the economic impact of the various regulatory agencies -- FDA, OSHA, EPA -- controlled by the chief executive. 

All told, it seems obvious that in reality (as opposed to Ron-Paul-style fantasies about a different government based on the same Constitution), the President of the United States plays a very significant role in the economic life of the nation.  Therefore, factoring sound judgment in economic matters out of a presidential campaign is short-sighted.  As recent events have demonstrated, it is almost suicidally so.

A president with a philosophical commitment to deregulation, or passive-aggressive non-enforcement of existing regulations, is probably not the best choice for steering us out of a disaster caused, in large part, by regulatory failure.  Nor can we place much hope in a president who has shown measured support for regulation (like, say, the McCain-Feingold law) but also needs to placate a party base that distrusts him for just that reason.

Nor can we trust the cabinet secretaries and bank governors who is notorious for his impulsive decisions (like, say, choosing a running mate he has barely met).

Just thought we'd mention this.

Huckabee Loses Gut Check

Stumping in South Carolina, Mike Huckabee has taken to embracing another nation's flag. A nation, now defunct, that existed for the sole purpose of perpetuating slavery. Yes, folks, it's Neo-Confederate time on the campaign trail.

"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag. ... If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole. That's what we'd do," he declared to applause at a campaign rally in Myrtle Beach Thursday, according to Thomas Edsall at the HuffPo site.

This is pure politics. Just as the Huckster came out with this new trick, John McCain was attacked by something called Americans for the Preservation of American Culture, with ads that accuse him of calling the Confederate flag a racist symbol. I don't know if he has done this or not, but if he hasn't let me do it for him. It is. And as for APAC, it is run by Mike Crane, who periodically seeks office on the "Southern Party" ticket. Let those with ears, hear.

South Carolinians use the shibboleth "states' rights" (and sometimes "Southern heritage") to defend waving the flag of their defeated insurgency. They never actually say "segregation" or "slavery" (or "lynch mobs" or keeping the you-know-whos in their place"), but those ideas are never far from the debate. Nobody with a commitment to the United States as presently constituted can seriously treat the display of the Confederate flag as a neutral matter.

On the other hand, it is just a flag -- a symbol and nothing more. A politician truly committed to freedom of expression can certainly argue along the lines of "I loathe your flag, but defend your right to display it." Same argument applies to burning Old Glory in protest, because this is really a very similar action.

But for Huckabee, this new direction marks a failure of nerve. He has been running on the basis of his gentle Evangelicalism, summed up by phrases like "I love the Bible but I'm not angry about it." While solidly clinging to Christianist pieties about, say, abortion, he has also appealed to moderates and liberals with his apparent concern for the poor and oppressed. After seven years of Bush, there is some desperation out there for leadership with an a priori commitment to human decency. For a while, it looked as though Huckabee might be that man.

Instead, he has sold his soul to the idea of electability, of "motivating the base," and so forth. McCain made the same devil's bargain in 2000, and has since repented -- whence the APAC ads. Frankly, for those of us who actually like the USA, and are glad it won the Civil War, that pretty much doomed his candidacy at the time. With any luck, this will doom Hickabee's.

How Badly Damaged is Joe Miller?

We've already noted that the most Tea Partyish of the Alaska senatorial candidates has refused to answer questions about his "background," meaning a series of apparent ethical lapses.

From Wonkette, we learn that he is also refusing to answer questions about the military benefits he receives from the government, and the disability for which he receives them.

Briefly, candidate Joe Miller is West Point class of 1989, who ought normally to have served five years of active duty but instead served three years and three months. The available paperwork only lists his release as having been for "miscellaneous" reasons, and Miller is offering no more information. Here's a summary:

Miller boasts of his military record in his radio and teevee ads, yet refuses to discuss the nature or the degree of his service-connected disabilities; he receives monthly tax-free payments for life as compensation. If Miller is classified as 30% or more disabled, he receives additional payments for each of his nine dependents. This Veterans Administration benefits chart shows that Miller could conceivably be bringing in over $4,000 a month, tax free, depending on his disability rating. He needn’t report or declare this income.

So: crippled or crazy? We apologize for putting it so crudely, but the difference really is important.

Look, we admire military service, and so do most Americans. JFK, John Kerry, even the first Bush, are not our favorite politicos, judged purely on policy; but we are moved to admiration by their wartime heroics. Bob Dole and John McCain have service records of extraordinary valor, and over the years their physical limitations have been a constant reminder of those records. And sure, there are some wounds you don't like to talk about -- Jake Barnes' disease, and all that. If Miller lost the use of an organ and doesn't want to talk about it, that's one thing, and we feel sad that the circumstances require us to intrude upon his privacy.

But they do. Because if he suffered, or is suffering, from PTSD or some other form of psychological impairment, it strikes us that United States Senate is probably not the best place for him to work.

Annals of Humanity

Two related tidbits about America's obsession with "toughness."

First, the Rockefeller drug laws will apparently be changed soon.  Passed in 1973, these New York State laws -- in essence, mandatory sentencing guidelines -- have since become symbolic of everything misguided about the US justice system.  They have put first-time, non-violent offenders into prison, often for the possession of comparatively small amounts.  By doing so, they have helped to sextuple the prison population.  Keeping all these people in prison has a social cost, as well as the obvious personal costs.  It also has a financial cost:

Since 1989 the yearly budget for the State University of New York (SUNY) has dropped from a little more than $1.3 billion to around $800 million. In the same period, annual spending on prisons in New York has increased from a little less than $1 billion to $1.7 billion.

The mandatory sentences tie judges hands so severely that murder, in its various forms, is sometimes punished less harshly than the possession of drugs.  This is one of the reasons that conservatives, including William F. Buckley, have criticized the laws.  It is also argued that the enforcement of these laws has been racially discriminatory, which has helped spur criticism from the left, and especially from civil-rights groups.

At last, state leaders seem ready to redirect treatment and rehabilitation over simply throwing people in jail.  A deal is said to be near.  But it will not be done without a fight.  Consider, for example, State Sen. Dale Volker, R-Depew, in Erie County, who is quoted by Gannett calling the reported agreement is "a 'get out of jail free card'" as well as "shortsighted and a dangerous precedent that will destroy communities, harm families and lead to the decriminalization of illegal narcotics."  Apparently, Volker likes spending money on prisons and taking it away from colleges, especially if it means keeping black people off the street.

And second, the "Supermax" system.  In the New Yorker, Atul Gawande has a fascinating piece of the surge in solitary confinement.  You probably know the starter facts already:  the US "has five per cent of the world’s population, [and] twenty-five per cent of its prisoners...." But you may not know the kicker: "... and probably the vast majority of prisoners who are in long-term solitary confinement."

Solitary is serious business. People who have been held captive and abused ruthlessly -- Terry Anderson in Lebanon, John McCain in Vietnam -- routinely agree that isolation from other human beings is more devastating than even the worst beatings. There is a significant body of research to back this up. Prisoners held in solitary are, often, damaged psychologically in ways from which they may never recover. Solitary confinement is torture, and arguably the worst sort.

This agrees with Christian theology. As it happens, Father Anonymous preached twice last week on the same text from Genesis -- "it is not good for the man to be alone."  As he said, this is far more than the rationale for marriage to which it is routinely reduced these days by theologians in search of a prooftext.  It is the rationale for all human society.  The whole creation is declared "good," except for loneliness -- which is "not good" in God's eyes.  In the Old Testament, the remedies are family, tribe and covenant -- those things which bind people together with each other and with God.  In the New Testament, the remedy is clearly meant to be the the the Church, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ -- the community beside which, as Jesus repeatedly says, other claims, and especially those of kinship, pale. 

Well, that's theology.  You don't have to agree with those ideas to accept the discovery that human beings are neurologically adapted to require companionship, and that without it we are at terrible risk.

But here's the scary part:

In the past thirty years, the United States has quadrupled its incarceration rate but not its prison space. Work and education programs have been cancelled, out of a belief that the pursuit of rehabilitation is pointless. The result has been unprecedented overcrowding, along with unprecedented idleness—a nice formula for violence.

So how do you cut down prison violence?  Segregate the worst offenders.  Put them in a box where they can't hamr anybody else.  And, in practice, a warden may find it convenient to put other people in boxes, too:  not just the violent, but the escape-prone, or those who routinely break the rules.

There has always been a little of this -- remember "the Cooler" in Hogan's Heroes?  And it has always been considered stern to the point of inhumanity; Gawande cites legal arguments from 1890 to that effect.  What we were shocked to know is that in the past twenyy years alone, the use of solitary confinement has

... risen to extraordinary levels. America now holds at least twenty-five thousand inmates in isolation in supermax prisons. An additional fifty to eighty thousand are kept in restrictive segregation units, many of them in isolation, too, although the government does not release these figures. By 1999, the practice had grown to the point that Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Virginia kept between five and eight per cent of their prison population in isolation, and, by 2003, New York had joined them as well. Mississippi alone held eighteen hundred prisoners in supermax—twelve per cent of its prisoners over all.

Tens of thousands of American citizens are being tortured, in other words.  It is a legally-sanctioned form of torture, and it will harm some of them more than others (especially those with cognitive deficits like ADD).  But it is torture -- a violation of God's law, if not yet of human law.

Petraeus Backs Gitmo Closure

Gen. David Petraeus, anointed by the former Republican Congress as Allied Supreme Commander of Everything and Lord of All Our Future Political Aspirations, is personally committed to interrogation techniques consistent with the Geneva Conventions, and with closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Colin Powell is already on record as saying similar things.  So has Wesley Clark.  So did John McCain, before his recent (and typically dishonorable) flip-flop.

Do you see a pattern here?  Actual military officers -- the experts on effective conduct of war -- say torture is bad strategy and Gitmo has long since become counterproductive.  Meanwhile, chickenhawk draft-dodgers like Dick Cheney strut around saying the opposite, with (in Cheney's case) an ever-increasing air of desperation.