The answer to the above question could be easily answered by saying that I've begun my PhD classes and that I've been incredibly busy. But that wouldn't be the full truth. The real reason I haven't been posting that much is that as a rational human being I don't have much time, or energy, or willpower to write about a what has increasingly become a candidacy of lies; or to be exact, McCain-Palin's candidacy of lies.
Let's be very clear and realistic about this: They are liars. Period. No equivocation. No ambiguity. They are liars in everything they say from claiming that Palin never supported the Bridge to Nowhere, to saying that she never asked for earmarks or McCain saying that the only piece of important legislation that Obama passed was teaching little children sex education. These are all lies.
Here's the video:
What's sicker? The McCain camp has even acknowledged that lying is their strategy:
“We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media’s swooning coverage of McCain’s ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. “But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”
Got that? So, to 'win,' we're not concerned by what 'the media filter' (the truth) tries to say. And this is all supposed to sit well with the American public.
Not that the media has been doing much of a job recently. If they were they might as well switch their whole paradigm over to Factcheck.org. (Which probably wouldn't be a bad idea). I understand their need to handicap the race and keep it close, but at some point it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to put on our little patriotic hats and say, "hey, maybe this shit is bad for America." But for some reason we seem to have a problem calling out lies and liars. Even more frightening, we seem to have the hardest time doing so when these lies have the most disastrous results. Sure, the media had no problem calling Clinton a liar when he got caught with Monica, but why is it so hard to call Bush a liar when we found no WMDs, and books have been writing exclaiming the fact that our president knew that was the truth and yet still led us to war? Why?
It's one thing to debate the merits of a particular position when both sides have veracity, but to debate a lie is like masturbating with a vise grip. It's painful and probably won't get you anywhere. The only thing you can do with a lie is expose it and ostracize the liar.
The good news? The truth is out there and the American public, white, black, Latino and the thousand million others in between of all creeds and cultures are reaching their threshold for bullshit. As Sully writes:
"I still believe that the actual truth matters in the world. If propaganda could win in the end against truth, then Bush's approval ratings would be somewhere in the high 80s. They are in the lower 30s. In the end, the American people are not fools. And facts are facts."
You know, I'm going to vote for Obama because I think he's the best man for the job. I have never said that people should vote for him simply because he's a black man or a Democrat. But now I think I have found a simple reason to vote for him. You may disagree with his policies or philosophy, but in the end not only should you vote for him, you must vote for him because Obama in all his liberalness has argued with you honestly, earnestly and truthfully. Against an opponent who's modus operandi is deceit and lies you must, I repeat, must side with the candidate who has treated you in good faith. To reward McCain, a man filled with toxic cynicism, is to endanger and threaten our country, our planet and, perhaps more importantly, reason and truth, which are the building blocks of all human progression.