A Drumroll That Grew Louder

Okay. I finished the bomb book. It was okay. My expectations for it were tepid and limp, at best. It met it. Then another book. And so forth.1

Highlighted from a book:

Somewhere a drummer began a drumroll that grew louder, rough-ins overlapping faster and faster as the fuse burned every shorter – Lew, in the grandstand, was far enough away to see the box begin to explode a split-second before he heard the blast, time enough to think maybe nothing would happen after all, and then the front of that compression wave hit. It was the end of something – if not his innocence, at least of his faith that things would always happen gradually enough to afford time to do something about it in.2

Which knocked my socks off. Beautifully constructed. And for me, instructive, provocative, loaded, etc. Partly, the premise that a split-second, even then, and by the dude who set the explosive and sees the denotation no less, is sufficient time to think nothing would happen, or in essence, anything could happen. Partly, the premise that a split-second may not be enough time for nothing to happen, or obviously, for anything to happen. And then, is it innocence or faith to hold that belief? Is holding such belief good or bad? If a split-second would not afford enough time, then a second? a day? a year? etc.

Implied is even with traditionally regarded longer period of time, things may not happen at a pace to afford time to do something about it in. To do something about it in: it - love? reconcile? forgive? whatever? Then suggesting, perhaps, an imperative (instead of innocence or faith) to step up and act sooner, rather than see whether time can heal some wounds? Anyway, I'm sockless.

Moving on.

Do I hate Barack because he's gay? It really does suck that my feelings toward Barack teeters at or about hate. Part of it is that he crushed the presidential hopes of my dream girl. Another part of it is that discovering Barack more has lead to, overall and more, disappointment. On Barack's site, you know what is not really highlighted much/at all? - his position on gay marriage and the death penalty.3

I'll lay it out there that I'm against the death penalty and any candidate that does not speak in direct or substantial opposition to it has to otherwise re-win my vote. I should add that Hillary don't mind death penalty too much.4

Which still does mean Barack likes lethal injections, or however the s.t.a.t.e. prefers to institutionalize murder. In his audacious book about his audacious life and audacious ideas, Barack comes down to saying (and let's half ignore his own understanding that the death penalty does little to deter crimes) that a limited range of heinous crimes deserves it, such as mass murder or the rape and murder of a child.5 You know, that bad shit that gets folks so riled up that they just gots to kill someone back.6 Anyway, the buzz not too long ago was that the super-est court in the whole super country, the SCOTUS, handed down a narrow decision blocking the execution of a child rapist.7 Barack comments that he sides with the four bad Justices (Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia).8 Which, even while he understands that the death penalty does not deter crimes, and the crime in question does not fit in the heinous death penalty worthy crimes list he previously described (common theme: a prerequisite is homicide), and he understands that capital punishment cases often are rife with errors, questionable police tactics, racial bias (Patrick O. Kennedy is a black dude), and shoddy lawyering (and generally, sexual assault are often the toughest because it relies on circumstantial evidence and shaky testimony, which is not meant to speak to Kennedy's actual guilt or innocence), Barack, in collision with the progress to limit - if not eliminate - the death penalty, speaks in support to broaden the state murder apparatus.9 Holy fuck!

A turning point moment, folks claim and perhaps believe, was Dukakis' poor response to a death penalty question asked in a debate.10 Dukakis had a long anti death penalty stance. Anyway, the famous part was that the question asked was probably over the line, based on the hypothetical rape and murder of his wife. My preferred reply would be, "Dude, if one of my family member raped and murdered someone in your beautiful family, absolutely, I would not want you to seek the death penalty." However, the other famous part was Dukakis' actual reply, described as more or less dispassionately stating he would not seek the death penalty and that his opposition was a life long thing. Famously resulting in a long line of chickenhearted Dems fearing to speak against the death penalty. It's purely a political thing for them now, based on a perceived necessary to demonstrate that they must blindly, irrationally and mercilessly hate evil and crime doers (oppose to actually, like you know, doing something about it). And I have to be resigned to the sad fact that a majority of my (national) political hero/ine likely will be severely compromised individuals from the get go.11

But Barack's view, and his recent criticism on the Supreme Court, is flat out vile. There is shaky or little evidence that the death penalty deters crime, Barack understands and accepts it. He endorses the death penalty primarily as a tool for revenge. In a debate, and to a question on whether the death penalty is a deterrence, GW Bush stated: "I do, that's the only reason to be for it. I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives."12 Rather, in a sort of flip flop fashion, in criticizing the recent Supreme Court decision, Barack championed expanding its (barbaric and fault-ridden) application beyond the narrow range of crime he formerly found to deserve the death penalty. Ok. Whatever, I do not mean to labor through a death penalty discussion. But Barack's position speaks multi-volumes of him as a candidate.

Barack, as far as I know, and aside from what it imports for his family I would otherwise not care one way or another, is not a homosexual. I asked anyway because would my "hate" be justified for his stance against gay marriage if he was gay as evidence of, I don't know, some sort of self loathing? Convoluted and strained? Eh, whatever. He's against gay marriage. That said, so is Hillary (ditto Kerry).13 That said, a devastating civil rights abuse and violation is effectively off the table.

Instead, do I hate Barack because he's black? Or differently, should, or do, I hold Barack to a higher/different standard because he's very, very, very not pale? What does skin color have to do with understanding the fundamental inequality in denying certain people marital status? Something? Nothing? How about John Barrow?

Georgia Congressperson John Barrow is one of those Blue Dog Dems type who despite party affiliation kneels over to suck GW Bush's Texan cock, regularly; he's been described as one of Bush's worst enablers in Congress.14 Anyhoo, this year, his seat was challenged by a legitimately progressive Democrat, Regina Thomas. Barack, in a slightly unusual move - due to the rarity of a presidential candidate endorsing anyone in the primary, let alone in a surefire Democratic district - did a Barrow ad recently, in effect against Thomas. Quick and dirty, black Barack sides with white sleaze Barrow over black queen Thomas: is there a black question? should there be? For that matter, a gay question: based on his own voting record and endorsements of Lieberman and Barrow, when it comes to GW, does Barack swallow?

I have no problems, by the way, with flip flops despite guiltily and sensationally dropping that phrase to describe Barack's death penalty thing. Folks learn and evolve, and change, and so forth. Maybe it is what they flip flop to/from that matters more. Maybe. That's a different, and not to be delved into, matter. More precisely, it wouldn't be fair to say Barack flip flopped because his death penalty worthy offense list certainly wasn't exhaustive or definitive; even though, at the same time, I would pretty much say that homicide seem to be a requisite component. His different position now, if different, and how the change should matter to voters, if it matters at all, I'll leave up to the voters. But flip flop wise, there is more, and more Barrow.

I first took Barack's endorsement of Barrow as fair indication that he is not the "change" candidate some folks probably believe or hope him to be, rather more of the same staid status quo, professional politicking that folks rail against. It hardly seems to me that you can speak authoritatively as the get-us-the-fuck-outta-Iraq candidate when you endorse a pro war, Bush rubber-stamping candidate; does/should not action speak more than rhetoric? I guess, in some circles, the endorsement, among other things, has raised enough eyebrows to start a fuller reassessment of the Obama phenomena; of which, it's about fucking time.

Yet, while Regina Thomas, one would think, matches Barack's (supposed or perceived) platform better, she ran a crappy campaign.15 Or, let's say, she should and could have ran a more robust campaign, versus whatever grassroots pipe dream she lit. Barrow burned over $500,000 of a $1.5 million plus war chest for his Barack-aided primary win July 15.16 Uh, Thomas topped out her entire contribution intake below $30,000. Sure, let's assume that it's a fairly strong Democratic district, even super mega strong, but is a candidate who raises a mere $30,000 a viable candidate? Donna Edwards over in crab state Maryland scored a Democratic primary victory over long incumbent Albert Wynn earlier in Feb this year.17 Donna is fairly regarded as a legitimate progressive candidate, and she neck-to-necked Wynn in fund raising.18 You got to have ciz-ash if you want to be taken serious, kind of, no? Do I hate Barack because he's black and to my knowledge has not endorsed any black candidates, but continues to, and loudly so, endorsed shitty white Congresspersons like Lieberman and Barrow? Flip flopping-like, I cannot fault too badly Barack's maneuvers, on a pragmatic level at least. Hopefully Thomas pulls her shit together next election cycle, and otherwise keeps on keeping on with what she is doing in the Georgia state legislature.

Barrow had been an adamant supporter of a recent controversial piece of legislation, namely, FISA, and within it, an extra controversial issue: retroactive civil immunity for telecom companies. You have to look up about FISA yourself - shouldn't be too difficult - and why it represents another damn betrayal from Barack.19 I didn't intend to go into the de/merits of death penalty, gay marriage, privacy rights, etc., because, well, do I matter? And I don't care too much about swaying the views of others. If someone wants to be stoopid and favor, or callously be indifferent about, government sanctioned murder, then that someone can freely be stoopid. Nobody's perfect. Whatever. And I don't know, what does it mean that I think the death penalty is outdated concept? I hate Barack but adore child rapists? Well, I don't hate child rapists. I was raised in the Catholic Church and the Cub/Boy Scouts, twin institutions that explain it's more a function of good and bad timing than anything else.20

The immediate thing with FISA is that at first blush the obvious and traditional Democrat position is clear, no way in hell. It attacks constitutional/4th Amendment rights, and legitimizes Bush administration's 1/2 decade long plus of violations. Barack voted for FISA.21

The other thing about FISA, disregarding the legislation's pervasive ugliness, is that Barack explicitly stated he would filibuster against retroactive immunity provision. That did not happen. I would not say Barack flip flopped, because that would be a disservice to the meaning of flip flop. Barack mislead or broke his word, plain and simple; neither of which can, or should be seen as, a good thing.

Before continuing, I should add one more thing, the Congress had been controlled by the Democrats for the past two years. Barack had stated prior that his pathetic legislative record was ham strung by a Republican dominated legislature, what the fuck about the past two years? Where had the "change" been, where had the "leadership" been? Rather, the past two years had seen capitulation by Barack, and the Democrats generally, on a series of bad legislation, Republican favored legislation, specifically Bush favored legislation, as exemplified by FISA, and, otherwise, omissions (not to load this down more than necessary but since it is a hot topic, non oversight on the Anthrax investigation, though I prefer non Bush/Cheney impeachment proceedings).22 Fair enough, why the singling out of Barack Obama?

What does Barack's reversal of his stated filibustering of retroactive immunity mean? Does it reward your trust? Does it encourages you to entrust more? Should it be, should it be the end of something, if not innocence, then some type of faith? You decide for yourself.

Surprisingly, I found out that I still have the ability to surprise (certain) folks. Or at least my threat of /interest in supporting/voting for a third party candidate over the presumed Democratic candidate was unexpected, to some. 2000 and 2004 were heart breaking. And still I don't blame Nader, my third party candidate of choice now. The president wins an election, and the candidate that loses does not win the votes. I didn't vote Nader in 2000 because I thought Al Gore was decent enough, though I wouldn't hesitate to say Gore was mainly a party line vote for me at that time. I didn't vote Nader in 2004 because I found Kerry to be a good candidate. But even then, during both national election cycles, Nader brought something vital to the table that the main party candidates could or dare not. In 2000 and 2004, I don't lament that I/we/Americans did not hand over our votes to the Democratic candidate. I lament that Gore and Kerry did not win the votes, or, to be precise, did not win votes sufficiently to clear Supreme Court misdealings.23

I don't hate child rapists because I hate not-quite-yet babies? Fine, Barack will presumably safeguard abortion rights, a profoundly big position Barack seems to be sort of clear on. I don't want to minimize the abortion fight by saying that it's mainly a state issue, a legislative issue, and any resulting new administrative driven policy/initiative likely will be short lived and term in office based, because, on the federal level, the president does direct the budget, sets the moral tone, and un-minimizeably possibly realigns the Supreme Court. But my point is this, even if a certain group of voters have low-ass expectations and are willing to settle, a lot of other people aren't. The ability to draw and hold those single issue voters, the abortion right votes, the anti-Iraq votes, the as-long-as-it's-not-McCain votes, the least worst votes, ain't no asset, but a deadly liability for the candidate. Mainly, it signifies the candidate has no message, a cluttered message, a weak message, or some combination of the three. So.

I don't want to spend all my time hating on Barack, if that is what it seems I am doing, and if so, then contrary to the above, because I do not hate him.24 What I see instead is that Barack's attraction is premised on a cloudy rhetoric of change, principled, or intertwine-ness, and beyond that, it's more standard political buzzword bullshit posturing. What scratching the surface reveals is hardly encouraging, the aforementioned anti gay marriage, pro death penalty, and what the fuck pro corn based ethanol?25 Lingering in Barack's backyard, the not rosy picture only gets thornier: now it's okay to off shore drill, a twisted mandate-less health care scheme, endorsement of pro-Bush/war Barrow and Lieberman, an unstable position with public campaign financing, and spinning flashing sirens for the FISA votes.

Oh crap, this is like the never fucking ending story. The bottom line is that I do not see Barack attempting to win my vote, and by too presumptive extension, the votes of core Democratic voters. In contrast, Barack has emphasized emphatic courting of the marginalia in the center, or the center right, and corporate interest. To me, and I wouldn't hesitate to state solely to me, this puts Barack in a position of not winning the votes on November 4. What Barack has been doing or has revealed as his campaign runs deeper, I feel is immensely alienating; fine, others might not be whiners like me, but whatever Barack has been doing, not much offers reasons to energize the Democratic base. The failure to substantively excite Americans, many who starve for transformation in government, is, I think, super stupid bad.

Then again, you know, I've been on the loser's end enough with my pick for which candidate to support to say I don't know anything about these things. I tend to see Barack as an empty shill/shell, but apparently he's the world's biggest celebrity. Maybe that carries the election day after all. Okay, concluding along, assuming a Democratic victory, what then, roses? Barack never promised a rose fucking garden! Instead he has made many indications of a right and corporate ward shift. Who or what then should have reasons to hold Barack accountable, or who or what would Barack be accounting to? Those tree hugging suckers, or the money grubbers in energy whose vote and campaign contribution may have been purchased by Barack's hint of off shore drilling compromise?

What remains is what to do. I'm totally fine with those who abstain or side by party line despite ever diminishing expectations. I've expressed before the reasonable futility for whatever change a new administration will likely and typically bring.26 And this, after all, comes when typically less than 1/2 of the population votes anyway. But let's say naivety rules and a prospective voter sincerely believes in some type of governmental transformation, what options? Support a third party candidate that better aligns with a progressive platform. Or, vocally and vehemently criticize the perceived wrongward slide of the Democratic candidate/party. Either is more likely to compel Barack to try to win my/your vote. Let him know your vote and/or support comes at a price. Whether Barack becomes a stronger, more viable candidate, or - assuming a foregone Democratic victory - a Barack administration more accountable to a progressive agenda, criticism is a sharper tool than blunt/blind support.

Awhile back, I considered an intriguing challenge might be to identify three measly issues that a particular voter might care about and to see where Barack lands on that ledger. I'd wager probably off target. Someone countered: "but people oftentimes only need one." So let's go with that, a different someone voiced that a Democratic candidate/Barack needs to be supported if only to get out of Iraq. Now, a 2-year Democratic controlled legislature had not shutdown Guantanomo, had not responded to charges of torture, had not impeached Bush Cheney, had not withdrawn budgetary support for the ongoing war, had not conditioned that budgetary support, had not overseen the botch Anthrax investigation, and had not moved any closer to withdrawal, while celebrity candidate Barack had endorsed pro war and pro Bush congressional candidates and had (I'll kindly describe as) equivocated on "the surge", troop withdrawal, and timelining. That is an anti-war candidate/party? Or more pointed, that is an anti-war candidate/party to place trust in? Let's say there is criticism over Barack's doughy stance on Iraq, that is a surer bet for a clearer and more forceful message on Iraq that may electrify the electorate and may actually, assuming a Democratic victory, and even assuming not if the anti-war cry is obstreperous enough, result in positive policy changes. Otherwise, there is nothing to hang on before or after the elections from Barack's grand statement, "I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."27 Oh gee, thanks Mr. Obama.

This has got to be enough already.28 See you at the debates bitches.29

Or, let's end like this. Days ago, waking, pulling clothes on, the hygiene thing, pocketing loose change, phone, and such, I left my apartment and apartment building. Noontime, my cousin called asking that I go with him to Ikea to pick up some Ikea things.

"I'll be free after two," I decided.

"Pick me up at the office at two:thirty," he ended the call with.

As things turned out, I was busy past two, but made it to my cousin's Seaport area office building on time. Seatbelting himself in, he asked, "I wonder whether the New Jersey Ikea is closer."

"No," I thought; and otherwise pedaled to the metal it to Red Hook Ikea.

Easy traffic going in, and Google Maps saved us from my cousin's odd directions - if I remember correctly, something something "take the Belt," he said, which is most definitely not the way. Yet, he said it so confidently. Like above, as if New Jersey Ikea could actually possibly be closer than Red Hook Ikea

Anyway, we got there. We parked. We entered. Climbed the Ikea stairs. Then, my cousin pronounced, "Oh, I need to get some water," and turned for the dining area, asking on the way if I had lunch yet.

I replied to him no and that I didn't want anything. I looked ahead at my steps as I walked, at my new-ish kicks that were already streaked with smudge marks. I needed to do something to clean them soon, or those smudges will be impossible to remove. If ever possible. Then, my field of vision caught the bottom hem of my t-shirt, the stitching was showing. I thought my hem had bent outward which bothered me because it reminded me that my clothes may not be fitting properly, or that it required pressing of some sort. Or that my belly unduly stressed the integrity of my t-shirt. I proceeded to fold it back. Or tried.

I worried my fingertips were playing tricks on me as they glided half way round the bottom hem of my t-shirt. Nothing was mis-folded over. I quickly turned to my shoulder, the stitching showed there too. I reached behind along the outside collar. Phew, no tag. "Oh wait," as I sought along the collar inside, and found, "Oh drats, no tag!"

It was a tag-free shirt.

"I'll meet you here, have to go to the bathroom," I told my cousin as we approached the queue to the food counter. Inside the men's room. I tugged my t-shirt off, which educed no staring. Either what they say about the docks/retail bathrooms are completely false or my flab checked the curiosity of the rough traders.30 Reversing the shirt and then slipping it over my head again, I alternated between wondering, "Dang, how long was I wearing this inside out?" and, "Geez, hope no one noticed."31

--------------------------------------------------------

1. If I refer to a book or a writer or a movie or whatever, as I have done in the past, it's not because I believe my reading list or my movie watching list or my listing ability is particularly interesting.
2. Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon.
3. There might be a slight footnote issue. The way this piece was put together, I was careless in keeping track my sources, and I had to re-find them. Some times I hit Google pay dirt and got the exact url. Other times, I had to settled with a substitute where at least the information in question matched. There were also times, as with this, that I opted for the substitute regardless as it offered an one omnibus-like stop for a variety of information. And I'm okay with Wiki as a source. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama and www.barackobama.com/issues.
As well, another footnote problem is the laid back application. For example, this footnote is meant to encompasses a pretty substantial portion of Obama's other described-within positions.
4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.
5. The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama.
6. But not all the bad shit, like gang violence, which Barack finds too disproportionately hurting young black youths. Did I mention the arbitrariness of applying the death penalty?
7. Kennedy v Louisiana, 554 US __ (2008).
8. blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/25/obama-condemns-supreme-court-decision-in-child-rape-case.
9. For the record, it's been over 40 years since anyone has been executed for a crime that did not involve murder. lethal-injection-florida.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-draconian-new-death-penalty.html.
10. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dukakis#Views_on_capital_punishment.
11. Kerry, despite slight backpedaling for post 9/11 terrorists was firmly against state sponsored execution. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/mar/28/20040328-115812-7206r.
12. www.debates.org/pages/trans2000c.html. Which makes me wonder what Obama might say regarding Medellin and his execution.
13. Pretty much, and gutlessly, all three have stated some language of tolerance, supported the pseudo shame status of civil unions, viewed it to be primarily a state matter, and want the federal government out of the equation. Small consolations. Kerry: www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0506-05.htm.
14. firedoglake.com/2008/06/19/obama-supports-blue-dog-barrow-over-progressive-in-georgia-primary-why.
15. www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6969.
16. The dollar amounts are a bit roughly estimated, but the proportion is the thing.
17. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Edwards#2008_campaign.
18. www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/a-progressive-herione-in-_b_22930.html.
19. tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_fisa.php. If you don't want to bother, or you aren't on top of your Googling game, write me, I can direct you to a few places for more 411 regarding FISA.
20. I hope it doesn't have to be said that not executing child rapists is not the same as not punishing him or her. And not hating child rapists is not the same as not believing that child raping should be done and that the people who do it should be caught and punished. And imprisonment, specifically life imprisonment, is punishment. And obviously, I don't mean to belittle the child victims, and apologize if it seems that way.
Also, an obvious, massive and certain difference with my casual jokey reference and the Kennedy case is that he was a stepfather. The degree of association and level of caretaking responsibility elevates the crime to a much more atrocious matter.
21. www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama.
22. www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/29/center/index.html. Congressperson Chris Murphy can be added to the list that includes Donna Edward, it seems.
23. www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi.
24. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7529015.stm.
25. This will seem awfully more shallow and trite (if possible, given what you have or may continue to read) but a driving factor for my annoyance with Obama is his appropriation of buzzwords of responsible, principled, change, etc; then act or be contrary to those words intended meaning or spirit. I don't mind flip floppery, but is there such a thing as a principled flip flopper. I imagine how poorly educated a generation of kids in social studies class will be if took their semantic/linguistic lesson from politicians/Obama. Obama also loves to use "pragmatic" which he seems to have a better handle in using, but I don't think it speaks as well of him as he (should) thinks.
26. Haha, no citing of myself. But it should be little trouble to find.
27. hotair.com/archives/2008/07/03/obama-im-willing-to-refine-my-policies-on-iraq.
28. Overall my criticism probably tracks the standard Nader narrative on what is wrong with the major parties and their candidates. At the same time, I don't intend this to be an endorsement of Nader. I should add, while Nader has worthwhile ideas, and I do support him, I'm kind of puzzled or worried on where or how he stands on the economy. And that Nader is running as an independent rather than propping up a third party group, to possibly sustain a third party alternative, that tempers my enthusiasm a bit.
Many of the links within (or material I have otherwise read) which are critical of Obama are, in fact, by Obama supporter/voters (at least as of today).
29. Loves it: www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d. Except lame-o on a policy level. No way, no offshore drilling.
30. Or is it a matter of good or bad timing again? Also, for the record, I have no position on not-quite-yet babies, as I am not gravid-able. That kind of defaults me to the pro-choice camp, which I wouldn't dispute.
31. Anyway, this was suppose to counteract/balance whatever perceived ad hominem quality, if any, in my writing about Obama. You know, something not positive reflective from my personal experiences. This doesn't quite rise to the same level, but I'm no perfectionist either. Also it is difficult/depressing/exhausting to equate my petty personal trauma/comedies with what goes on in politics.