THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNE

Many have wondered over the past month or so whether or not I still consider myself to be pro-life. I find this remarkable, if for no other reason than that I have taken pro-life to its logical end. At any rate, my support of various public policies that would minimize the number of abortions as well as my opposition to those things I consider to undermine that effort would most certainly place me within the pro-life fold. Of this there should be no doubt.

The point of contention, though, rests with my having been critical of the so-called pro-life community. In all fairness, referring to my treatment of the movement as “critical” would be an understatement. I have pointed out how they generally oppose measures that would, in my estimation, minimize the number of medical abortions, which now amounts to just over 1.6 million per annum. These measures would include, but are not limited to, legislation concerning the Living Wage, accessible healthcare to all (especially pre-natal care for the poor), assuring and/or extending paid pregnancy leave, and even putting in place economic incentives for large families and stay-at-home mothers.

In recent weeks the debate has turned nasty on account of my advocating an additional measure that I consider as absolutely essential to the pro-life movement. That measure would be the banning of all abortifacient contraceptives. This would include oral contraceptives (OCs), intrauterine devices (IUDs), Depo-Provera and others. These contraceptives, unlike various other methods of birth control, have breakthrough ovulation rates which, for those sexually active, range anywhere from two percent on the low end to ten percent on the high end. Using even the lowest rates for possible instances of conception, this results in anywhere from 7,905,000 to 13,025,000 contraceptive abortions per annum. These numbers dwarf the just over 1.6 percent of medical abortions taking place per annum.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am by no means wishing to minimize the murder of 1.6 million babies through medical abortion procedures. Rather, my goal has been to bring to light the inconsistency of pro-life advocates ignoring or even minimizing the issue of abortifacient contraceptives. I have attempted to explain why I think it is horrifically unfortunate that so-called pro-life advocates would pursue pie-in-the-sky policies such as a constitutional amendment while ignoring policies that carry a much greater potential of success. Furthermore, and possibly most important, has been my denunciation of any and all pro-life organizations, religious leaders, and Republican pundits who insist that any and all pro-life advocated must use their grossly inconsistent definition of what it means to be pro-life when deciding between various people running for political office. The fact that they treat this as a litmus test makes it all that much more deplorable.

One will then say to me, “So shall we vote? For who is consistently pro-life?” This will be the topic of my next post…

The first televised debate between John McCain and Barack Obama was about as exciting as watching molasses run down the pine in mid-winter. It was loaded with sloppy sloganeering, pre-scripted wisecracks, and a seemingly endless number of awkward smiles from John McCain after having been called a liar, albeit in a manner that sounded more like a pillow fight than a smack across the face.

But while there were few (and let me stress few) real disagreements hashed out in the debate, what stuck out to me was just how much the two of them have in common. This is particularly true regarding the notion of American imperialism and the country’s divine right to play the part of Globo-Cop. The theatre of combat may change, at least in so far as emphasis is concerned, but the philosophical underpinnings of military interventionism is no less a reality in Obama than McCain.

Viewers were given the pleasure of taking an ideological trip on the War Hawk Express. Whether it concerned Russia’s so-called unprovoked and illegal aggression, the need to incorporate Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, the need to extend U.S. militarization, or the necessity of America playing the part of the sole global superpower, both of these men saw eye-to-eye. Imperialists through-and-through, neither wished to return to a humble foreign policy, or even a moderately arrogant foreign policy. The goal isn’t change in philosophy, but window dressing.

I presume that mastering the art of reading what isn’t there would be required to see those subtle differences they claim to be so very clear. This apparently leaves those of us who see things as they are in a constant sense of bewilderment, scratching our head in confusion as to why we simply cannot see what ought to be so evident. It may be much like those pictures requiring one to cross their eyes in order to see a hidden image. My fear, though, would be that the hidden image is even worse than the two donkephants rambling on about disagreements they simply don’t have.

The Republican election hustlers are pulling out all the stops this time around. McCain has gone from being a Goldwater-style antagonist towards the religious right to being, according to Eric Moore, director of Americans for Faith, a man led by his “quiet faith” all throughout his life, and particularly when considering public policy. Is Moore talking about the same fellow that said Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell were to the right what Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton are to the left? Was he referring to the McCain that compared James Dobson to head-strong union bosses who put their interests above those who they work for? Does he wish to imply that this is the same senator who, just as the Straight Talk Express got rolling, changed his tune on intelligent design, secularism, and the separation of church and state?  Surely this can’t be the same McCain that blew off endorsements from Protestant heroes such as John Hagee and Rod Parsley! If so, then Moore has gone beyond giving McCain a political makeover; he has given history a thorough whitewashing.

NOTE: I would agree with the old McCain’s remarks concerning the likes of Dobson, Robertson, and the late Falwell. In fact, my criticism of their masochistic tendency to hook themselves out to the GOP every election year makes McCain’s remarks look as harsh as a Larry King movie review. My beef  here is with so-called “people of faith” leaving their conscience at the door every election year in order to propagate mythical creatures like the “God-fearing John McCain.” Lying to yourself is one thing, but lying to others is quite another. Vote this year, but do so with your head hung in shame.

“I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.”

President George W. Bush, Interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Setp. 24, 2006.

I’m not who I am, at least last time I checked. Looking through rose glasses would be better than the shattered mirror I’m gazing into. Walking away, only to forget what you look like… but you can only forget those things you once knew.

Names blur into faces, and faces meld into a mass of anonymous cameos. Nothing but shadowy figures, each going their own way, wishing only that you remember their name. Like smudged pastel on a weathered canvas, the names and faces have streaked across the horizon of my memory, leaving nothing but a haze.

What is a name? Sounds to go with a face.

Curled in the corner of a circular cell is doing me little good. The memories can’t escape the fog, and the names are stranded on the tip of my tongue. All these faces, all those places, lost within the abyss of an abysmal past. Fight though you want, Jeremiah, they are lost. Love made is love lost, and past lives now clutter the graveyard of things you shouldn’t let go but just can’t remember….

I originally wrote this on MySpace. I may be submitting similar material to the Garfield Lake Review.

Endorsing a candidate has become commonplace amongst those in the media. This hasn’t always been so. There was a time when, for the sake of at least appearing to be impartial, the main newsmakers would leave such judgments to the readers. Doing so also saved them from being marred as partisan, accused of being little more than a megaphone in the hands of the party establishment. So was the way of yesteryear.

At any rate, the media have decided to scrap the wisdom of their forefathers, wandering away from the trails blazed by those social critics who at least wished to be non-partisan. The media are now entrenched in partisanship. Whether it is the so-called “drive-bys” in the “mainstream media,” the gawking heads and policy wonks on talk-radio, or the henchmen in advocacy journals and ideologically partisan magazines, endorsements are commonplace. The worst part of the entire affair is that these endorsements rarely come as a surprise, being as predictable as the sunrise.

With all of this having been said, I am left wondering whether or not it would be in my personal interest to jump on the endorsement bandwagon or, for the sake of at least attempting to be impartial, I should stay on the non-partisan sidelines. A day rarely passes without emails or phone calls from friends and foes wishing to know who I am pulling the lever for in November. Some of them just assume, given my track-record, that I will be voting for similar candidates this time around. The former are asking too much, and the latter are grossly simplifying my thought process. In the end, both are left without an answer, being told that I am not sure whether I wish to publicly announce my choices.

It would be most reasonable to presume that the reason for this hesitance is my wishing to remain non-partisan, but this is not entirely true. While I am most certainly an independent, my rationale thus far has been, in large part, based upon my underlying presuppositions as a traditionalist Catholic. Issues aren’t so black-and-white anymore, and single-issue-voting is out of the question. But it would be the means by which to achieve the ends desired that most plagues me. Agreeing with a candidate on ends is cheap if the candidates means have little hope of bringing us there. On the other hand, a candidate who may not see eye-to-eye with you on ends may propose means that would bring us closer to achieving the ends longed for than the aforementioned candidate who does see eye-to-eye on ends. This process involves more than lip-service and sound bites; it requires the diligent discipline of discernment.

So let us get back to the question at hand. Should I publicly endorse candidates? Should I do so on my blog and my radio program? Should I send out, as I have for the past four years, another voter’s guide for listeners, friends, and family to use when going to the polls? Or should I stay on the sidelines, providing information to people I believe to be bright enough to make the difficult choices inherent within the democratic process? I presume that this, as with other personal decision, will require a decent amount of diligent discipline in the realm of discernment.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that everyone has had an “Oops, I spoke too soon” moment. This is especially true with political commentators. They are, too some degree, duty-bound to play the role of the forecaster. This often places them in the same vulnerable position as the weatherman, always open to the criticisms of those who have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight.

Srdja Trifkovic, an editor of Chronicles Magazine, provides us with a case-in-point. Following the lead of the magazine’s other editors, Trifkovic submitted his two cents worth on the “Palin Problem.” What had been dubbed “The Editor’s Roundtable” focused on the pros and cons of Senator John McCain’s choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. There appeared to be a general consensus of pessimism amongst the editors. That is, until Trifkovic joined in.

This particular editor was more optimistic. He compared Ms. Palin’s foreign policy with those positions held by Senators Obama, Biden, and McCain. Then, being a realist of realists, he used statistics from insurance agencies and the Social Security Administration in order to demonstrate that a possible McCain death while in office would give Ms. Palin a whole new role in the White House. Once he had shown (statistically) that McCain has a 33-40% chance of dying during his first term in office, he concluded that Ms. Palin may be, when compared to the three aforementioned men, the best of all options.

According to Trifkovic, her positions couldn’t be any worse than theirs. He insisted that she was a tough nut to crack, making the neoconservative task of wooing or manipulating her more difficult than with former presidents. In fact, he went so far as to say that there was a 50-50 chance of her being a foreign policy realist.

Enter foot-in-mouth forecasting. Ms. Palin’s interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson demonstrated not only that he was a tad off, but that he was in a different ballpark altogether.

One could, and should, argue that her position is horrifically worse than any of the aforementioned men. Her belief that geographical proximity to Russia provides a level of experience in foreign affairs is as absurd as saying that people who have been to the top of Cedar Point’s Magnum rollercoaster gives them foreign policy experience with Canada on account of the fact that you can see the country landscape on a clear day. Ms. Palin’s inability to define the Bush Doctrine – she said it was “his world view” – and then, once having it clarified for her, going off on a scripted rant about people “hell-bent on destroying our nation” should cause even the most cultic “McCainiac” to wince. Admitting that she is generally ignorant of foreign policy 101 is an understatement.

If only she stopped here. Then she may have saved some face. But she went on to talk about Israel, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia. We aren’t to “second guess” Israel’s decisions, even if they have major economic and military ramifications for the United States. Iran is not only a threat to the region, but poses a threat to “the entire world.” The US shouldn’t take off the table the possibility of crossing over the border of Pakistan border without the approval of the Pakistani government, regardless of the fact that they are (at least at the moment) our allies. And, the worst of the worst, America should fight for the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, regardless of the fact that this would jump-start Cold War II. When asked about whether or not we should go to war with Russia over Georgia, she replied, “Perhaps so.”

The remarks of Ms. Palin are grossly naïve and, were we to be honest, absolutely terrifying. This is not realism; this is a nightmare.

What does this say of Trifkovic’s forecasting? Not much, other than that he has a big, fat “F” on this particular prediction. No worry, it happens to the best of them.