Paralysis of the Mind

Was there ever a reason why we fought "Communism" and not just Soviet Russia?

I pose that question because we've pretty obviously kicked the crap out of the Soviet Union. In fact, Russia is a meek little kitten in comparison to what used to be our arch-mortal-public-enemy-number-one. Hell, even their gymnasts have been surpassed by both our little gals and the Romanians, and even the Chinese clone army.

Not to mention that Carly Patterson is much more adorable than say, Svetlana Khorkina. Our family refered to Svetlana as the "ostrich chick" for the week. But this is unimportant.

But we weren't necessarily fighting the Russians. This was the best idea the industrial-military complex came up with after World War II. See, Russians could be defeated. Worse, they could be prove to be just as human as those good red-blooded Americans. We can't go feeling sympathy for our enemies.

So instead of picking a nation, we went after an idea. An idea can be made unsympathetic. An idea isn't human, it isn't a living breathing thing, and without a connection to the idea, anyone can dismiss it pretty easily. Life was good in America after WWII, and who was going to look at this "radical" idea with an open mind?

Best of all, though, ideas never die. No new idea is truly new; everything new is built upon what came before. The biggest ideas have been around since the beginning of time, and will probably never go away. These ideas are good and bad: from responsibility and concern for your fellow human being to racism and exclusionism.

So I'm going to say something that would have gotten me beaten up and questioned by the FBI 25 years ago: Communism isn't a dangerous idea at all.

Karl Marx, in fact, took the basis for his new social theory from the Bible. Jesus's credos of sharing, helping those in need, and -- especially -- ridding the temple of the money-lenders. In short, Jesus advocated for breaking up the corporate power structure of HIS era. Radical indeed.

Now, don't get me wrong. Lenin might have had noble and pure intentions, but his revolution certainly didn't work out that well. And Stalin was a maniac, who used his position to be as big a killer as Hitler (albeit to his own people, which according to history is slightly less awful...?) But a point that was never made by anyone other than a radical leftist is easy: Neither Lenin's rule nor Stalin's was the LEAST bit like the ideals that Marx (or Jesus) ever suggested. Both ran the Soviet Union like an armed fascist camp. Both used the government arm not to spread the wealth, but to centralize it. And neither were ever questioned on their actions, since they'd cut all opposition out early on in their rules.

In short, the Soviet Union was many things, but it was hardly a commune of paradise. Yet we spent 40 years on the prowl for that horrible Communist menace. We looked in Vietnam (it was there), we looked in Cuba (still there, in fact), we took a look in Central America (possibly there, we killed all dissenters just in case), we looked in Chile (had to support a brutal dictator to make sure it wasn't there), and best of all, Joe McCarthy took a look in the hallways of power in Washington (not there, but ruined a few reputations for fun anyway).

So anyway, when we... won(?)... in the late'80s and early '90s, it was cause for great celebration. Russia fell! Communism was dead (again, except for that nice little example 90 miles off our coast) and the world was safe for shopping malls once again. Again, note how the country was defeated, but not the idea. You may also note that the Communist Party continues to exist in Russia, and while eclipsed by Putin's ruling party, still holds seats in the Duma.

But now, it isn't safe to go to those shopping malls. Because there's anthrax, nuclear weapons, sarin, botulism, mustard gas, biological weapons, weapons grade-Ebola, chemical centerfuges ALL OVER THE FUCKING WORLD AND THEY'RE ALL COMING RIGHT THIS WAY... sorry. Sometimes I get into the threats too much.

These days, yes, we no longer fight Communism. Apparently 100% taxation and equality don't raise the hackles anymore. Now we're fighting TERROR.

Just like Communism, Terror isn't a solid thing, it's an idea. Terror doesn't have a country, it can't die, and it certainly can't be killed. Just ask a 5-year-old who just saw his first scary movie about how hard it is to shake terror.

Now, we could focus on real life enemies. There's brutal repression in China. They're close to being a superpower. And you bet your bippy they have WMD -- and they're probably pointed right at us! Or we could worry about Saudi Arabia. After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi. Iran is troublesome, what with their burgeoning nuclear program and fundamentalist government. North Korea? Autocratic dictator with nuclear weapons!

Yet all of those countries -- while some are contained in the chilling AXIS OF EVIL -- aren't our enemies. We've decided to do battle with terror. Or terrorism. Since terrorism is a technique, we could defeat it by getting terrorists to declare war on us before they attack. According to government reports, they did more than 10 years ago, so in fact they're not terrorists at all, it's a war so they're soldiers and their technique isn't terrorism which means that we've already won the war on terrorism and the fact that we contin------ good God, I'm going crosseyed just writing this. Suffice to say, if they declared war on us 10 years ago, we defeated terrorism already. Amazingly, President Bush hasn't used this as a re-election bonus.

Just like Communism before it, TERROR will continue to be pressed into our daily lives while the government dithers on how best to confront it. Iraq was the first; it won't be the last. A lot of comparisons to Vietnam, but frankly, as we approach 1,000 soldiers killed, it's hard not to imagine a worse and more draining conflict over "terror" not right around the corner.

This is actually only half of what I meant to write -- as usual, I'm pushing 10,000 words and haven't finished -- so we'll close this one off either later or tomorrow.

If Atrios can do it, by God, so can I.

World, meet Louis (nee Butterscotch). Louis, world:



Here he is sleeping instead of blogging:



Annnnd, just because he can sleep with one eye open...



More pictures to follow, should this system work.

I think I figured it out tonight.

The problem with the media has nothing to do with partisan at all. The fact is that the media tries too hard to be non-partisan.

However the problem is that sometimes, facts are partisan.

On one hand, you have Kerry's war record. Public record shows everything you could possibly want to know about his heroism.

On the other hand you have a group of long-time Republicans who did NOT serve on his boat (and in some instances, did not even serve in the same area) who suggest otherwise.

In an attempt to be non-partisan, the media portrays both sides as equal. It took shrill bitching from Kerry's side before the media reported that a) the group didn't actually serve on Kerry's boat b) it had a multitude of ties to Republicans c) John O'Neill has been shilling for Republicans since Nixon and d) there's a lot of evidence to back up Kerry's version of events.

But isn't that already the problem? If the public record is really truly wrong, there would be Navy officials screaming bloody murder. Has the navy screamed bloody murder? In fact, they have not, saying effectively that Kerry's service is unquestionable.

So isn't that the end?

Well, no, not quite. The media -- ever nonpartisan -- continues to report that there are questions. There are no questions. Yet journalists aren't trained to answer questions, they're trained to write stories using other people's words to answer questions. There's a huge difference there. Stories can't be written: "Evidence appears to refute Swift Boat claims" without also including the so-called other side.

If the other side is lying? Well, good luck. In a case where all facts are not easily checkable, outright lying cannot be countered. And again, since the media doesn't come to its own conclusions in reporting (or at least, can't write or speak them in a traditional reporting sense), you continue to get both sides.

In this case, the Swift Boat Vets are no doubt lying. They might believe what they're saying and surely they don't want Kerry to win, but the claims they're making aren't true. They weren't true in 1971, and they have not become truer over time.

But the media is trapped into saying "Swift Boat this" and "Kerry that" in some robotic dance that is overwhelmingly useless and tiresome. The media needs to be a filter, not just a gaping hole of information. Biased accusations simply should not be pushed to the forefront of the news. And I say this for both sides. I would not want to see a group of liberals pushing for Bush to step down with sketchy evidence that Bush killed seven small children while driving drunk, no more than I have needed to see the Clinton witch-hunt, or the Swift Boat Vets For Whomever Will Pay Them.

Think of it. The Republicans put together 250 of its own party to throw a shadow on Kerry's service, but cannot find 1 individual to put the Bush AWOL story down for good? The Bushies can spend their time worrying about ways to slander Kerry's service from 30 years ago, but can't find a single thing to run on from 2000? And any of these things are more important than the leadup to 9/11? Or Abu Ghraib? Or Iraq? Afghanistan? Hell, the Chinese spy plane incident? 1.5 million lost jobs? Do any of these things ring a media bell?

But even if the media did look into these things, surely a Republican defender would be able to deflect the facts into something different. "We think Bush handled it fine," would read the other side, and since the media must be nonpartisan, so the story would read. Fair. And. Balanced.

It is not the discourse of politics that has changed, gentle reader, it is simply that the media ignores the baby, and puts the bathwater on page one.

No matter if we're red state or blue state, we're still all in this together.

So tonight, I figured I'd take a look and see what the possibilities are over the next 70 days for the election. After all, once the smoke clears, no matter who wins, we'll have to take a long second to catch our breaths and say, "Hey, that's my President, vote or no vote." Therefore, I'm trying to look a little beyond just the election itself, and into the post-November 3rd fallout.

Looking at the possibilities, there's really only four that hold water. Kerry in a landslide, Kerry in a squeaker, Bush in a squeaker, and a Bush selection (a la 2000). The other possibilities are incredibly unlikely. Should the election be close enough, the Republicans own the House, Senate, and Supreme Court, so John Kerry certainly wouldn't be selected under any circumstances. Nor will George W. Bush win in a landslide. Although I'm glad to have the opinion, it isn't just wishful thinking. Independent voters rarely break for the incumbent this late in the game, and Bush's numbers on everything but terror and death are lower than Kerry's. Furthermore, the one section of the population most likely to register late (18-25) are breaking about 70% in Kerry's favor. In other words, should Bush win, it's going to be an uphill climb from here on out. But anyway, here's the breaks:

1. Kerry in a landslide — Charlie Cook thinks it's Kerry's to lose. John Zogby completely agrees.

Who the hell are Cook and Zogby? Well, they're well respected pollsters. Cook works for the National Journal, a policy-wonk magazine that is well respected within the circles of Washington power. And Zogby is a poll man who was the only person to predict the mess of 2000 accurately beforehand. Suffice to say, the credentials are okay.

So what happens should Kerry take a majority? Not a plurality (a win with less than 50% of the vote), but an honest-to-God 50.1% of the voters? The answer, of course, is... more money for the Swift Boat Vets for Whomever Will Pay Them to hound Kerry with slander for four to eight years.

But on a bigger scale, it might make a mark on the Republican party. Although Jeb Bush and John McCain will undoubtedly eye 2008, a majority victory would cast a pall on some of the tactics used in this (and other) campaigns. And for Jeb Bush, I think it's easy to say that his chances for the White House would be completely extinguished. McCain is friends with Kerry; that could hurt his chances to get the votes from the Limbaugh/Hannity axis, and he certainly isn't particularly liked by the Christian section of his party. It would be an interesting time to see if the Republicans could continue on their current rightward trend, or if the party would try to move left to counter Kerry OR make a major split into two factions (conservatives and the Christian evangelical branch).

Of couse, Kerry would be hounded like Clinton. But Kerry is an experienced politican, and certainly wouldn't be sleeping with any interns. Clinton used much of the noise to his advantage. Should Kerry get a good break in either the House or Senate, he could use his majority victory to get plenty of iniatives rolling.

Overall, this scenario is probably the best for the country. No matter how you might feel about the candidate, a real winner with no lingering questions is what the election system is supposed to bring. As I said above, Bush has almost no chance to win big, so this is really the hope.

2. Bush in a squeaker — I rate this possibility second-best of the four. And there's only one reason why: Bush won't face the hostility Kerry would in a close race.

Should Bush win, and should that win both LOOK and BE fair and square, many disappointed Democrats will go head for the bar. Many will roll their eyes and mutter, "If that's what America wants, that's what America gets." There will be some fury from all angles, no doubt, but it will not be the connected attacks the conservatives have been working at for the past 20 years. Or to put it another way - George Soros will never catch up to Richard Mellon Schife in passing out money for libel.

This, of course, ignores whatever horrors or delights Bush has in store for a second-term. But guessing at his policies over the last 3+ years, there's going to be an even bigger consensus between the center, left and far-left come 2008. And it seems likely to say, already, that without some stroke of political genius, the man who has to follow Bush in the Republican party won't just be looking at an uphill climb - it'll be Mount Everest in a snowstorm.

3. Kerry in a squeaker — Yeah, so Kerry ain't getting his 50.1%. But he can certainly still beat Bush. According to handy-dandy Electoral-Vote.com Kerry's got a national poll lead, and the lead in the all-important and all-useless Electoral College.

But winning close will dog him. The Republicans know full well that Bush has not done one iota of the things he promised in the last campaign, and that he's been marginalized in many ways to one issue: all terror, all the time. Bush is a national and international laughingstock to many people, there's questions about his motives, his intellect, his advisors (has there ever been a group of advisors who have seemed more clueless than Bush's?), his plans, and his past. There are many questions he hasn't answeres; nor has he honestly tried to answer them.

It's like giving Michael Phelps a 20 meter headstart on a short race. But if Kerry cannot use all of those advantages, than the Republican party will surely be able to use its advantages to marginalize Kerry. There will be a daily drumbeat of anti-Kerry rhetoric splashed across the media board. And without a clear majority, people will listen.

This is the third-best possibility of the four. There won't be riots in the streets, but the ugliness of the last few weeks of the campaign will spill out into the next four years.

4. Bush gets re-selected — The worst of the four choices. Should the vote split the Electoral College (possible at 270), the chaos would unfurl quickly.

Look at how the Republicans reacted in 2000 to the very notion that all the votes should be counted in Florida:


Yes, that's right. When the going got tough, the Republicans sent in their own version of preppie thugs. The riots, which the media decided couldn't possibly be scripted, effectively shut down the counting in Miami-Dade county. Furthermore, after the fact, a group of media organizations did their own count, and found Gore probably WON anyway!

In 2000, very little was done. Yes, sure, there were protests in Washington, and plenty of grumbles. But in 2004, there will be chaos, and I for one would almost *have* to advocate for it.

An election like 2000 is a one in a million event, statistically. The same thing happening four years later? That suddenly looks like a pattern, and the obvious loss of voting rights should send ANY American into paroxysms of rage. Of course, Bush fans probably wouldn't be upset - can't cut off the nose to spite the face and all that - but everyone else would be furious.

Now, I'm not suggesting there would be civil war, but there would be massive social upheaval. And it would be up to the President to actually be a uniter, not a divider. Chances are not good that he would be up to the task, which would leave America only a step or two ahead of all those little banana republics whose elections typically turn into machine-gun battles.

And then what? What would America have left to defend and fight for? Yes, indeed, it would be a mess of incredible proportions. Of course, I wouldn't expect the Bush campaign to be above such trickery; forethinking has been proven thus far not to be their strong suit.

Overall, with the polarization of this election, any undisputed outcome would be a welcome relief, and both sides should look toward the future of politics before dabbling in the sorts of underhanded tricks that have gone on in the past. I certainly hope nobody has to take to the street to protest in November, but I wouldn't give it a 50.1% chance either.

We're skipping politics tonight, kids. No heavy topics, no heavy lifting. Perhaps its the spirit of the Olympics dominating coverage in favor of real news (actually, sort of nice... as a liberal, I've been suffering from outrage fatigue for a while) or it's a full moon and a Voodoo holiday weekend...

Anyway, up top of most of blog*spot's pages now is a little toolbar. This new feature allows a user to search the blog, leave comments, and best of all, hop right on across to a new random blog. Just like that.

I suddenly realized that the entire Blog world was just opened to me. I have been given keys to the kingdom... and by God, it's time I use them.

So tonight, we're going to surf what's out there in Blogland (Blogville, Blogvista, Palo Bloga?). Let's see what the folks are thinking. And at the same time, lets -- and this IS the important part -- be a sarcastic little prat. Because that's what I do best. However, if I run into anything good, I'm definitely going to see if I can earn some new links. We'll do this for about an hour, diary style. Ready to rock?

8:49 p.m. — Ahh, home sweet home. The chilling black, the dark blue and maroon. 'Bout time I change the colors, eh? (This should happen soon.) Okay, we click the magic button and. . .

9:00 — Welcome to One Hit Wonder. This blog is written by "I NEED TO GET A LIFE" which is probably true of any blogger, but I suppose that because it's written in CAPS, this writer REALLY NEEDS A LIFE. This page bores me already, although the 3rd entry down is a great paean to that horrible song used in those horrible "Roxbury" skits on SNL. We'll move on.

9:03 — Goodness gracious, there are a lot of Spanish/Porteguese blogs. Through a landa dizia I love how it's half-English. Even some post names are English. Kinda weird. Like I'm going to name my next rant about George W. Bush in Spanish (El Dicto Terrible)... y'know... that ain't bad...

9:07 — If there are a million blogs, a good 800,000 are at that one-post "should I keep going or not ever post again" stage.

9:10 — OOH! At carsound I can download the new Britney Spears remix! Hot damn! Although I do appreciate the talents? of some remix artists, I must ask: If you're taking a singer with no talent, and mixing in someone who doesn't have enough talent to create their own... Well. It's Britney Spears for your car.

9:15 — If George Bush had a blog this would probably be its name. And despite the good name, the prose is... well... Bushian.

9:16 — As I'm doing this, I have the Olympics on in the other room. This doesn't need to be said, but Amanda Beard? Goddamn.

9:17 — I found The Cronicles of Seria to be pretty funny. The long first paragraph is about getting a friend totally shit-faced, while the second is about working on an honors thesis. There IS a time for that sort of thing, and it's... college.

9:20 — Both pictures on this page scare the everliving crap out of me. I can't explain why.

9:22 — We've run into "Best title, worst blog" country, with bring down the fcc which looks good at the top, but devolves into such commentary as: "i still haven't finished 1984. this is going to be the best year ever" and of course, a big thumbs up for "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle." Look, I'm all for bringing down the FCC, but geez, at least agitate for something good?!

9:26 — Ah, my first liberal friend. It's Who cares? and it's written by a guy in a cowboy hat from Japan. Shoot. Us Democrats DO have a big tent after all.

9:27 — Shoreline Filmmakers, a Christian group of some sort, are working on their latest short, entitled "Jihad." Starring a guy playing Osama bin Laden. So. Fundies making movies about fundies. How very... Mamet.

9:36 — It's slow on the blog front. All I keep getting are 1 posters, foreign languages, and blogs written by 14 year olds with WAYYY too much time on their hands. On the other hand, Amanda Bears is getting her gold medal on TV right now, and all activity will stop for a second.

9:37 — This might be the best completely personal site I've seen yet. Well designed, easy to navigate, and not totally hung up on emotion. Other bloggers could get a lesson.

9:38 — Ewww. When you leave some blogs, weird crap happens whilest exiting, such as the ever popular "star wipe." Sucky, but when hopping from blog to blog, the effect follows you!!

9:40 — Another one-poster. All it says is "Hi." WHY?!

9:46 — Yet again, one post. But the post is weird enough to need at least 2 looks. I wasn't aware that milky thighs did, in fact, lead to record sales.

9:50 — Either it's God or else maybe, the people who win gold medals... just have more talent?

9:55 — Uh oh. Somebody better call the Sports Guy. Turns out there's another NBA fan out there. Dry stuff, but nice for the nine people who give a flying fuck about basketball. Plus, the author is Canadian, which make a lot of sense - he's turned against hockey for a foreign sport, just like Americans have turned against basketball for fast things going around in circles. Gah.

10:00 — Artistic Talent. Check it out.

10:04 p.m. — If this girl is 18 years old, I'll eat my keyboard. It is genetically impossible to write "lolz" after the age of 17.

10:08 — Yet another bad blog with a great title.

10:10 — There's an "OC" e-mail newsletter? Jesus, I weep for humanity.

10:11 — By God. Maybe I was wrong. According to the, ahem blog iF U are Reading this... I really want to Thx u for reading... cos i am a LOSER! you can be 19 and still write LOLX! You can also have anime running all over your blog. Anime is a super-popular blog feature, but the Anime-to-LOLX factor is far too high.

10:18 — Hell yeah. This one might have the best name in Blogo Alto.

10:20 — Scott here makes some really superb arguments about why liberalism doesn't work. In particular: Two, competitive industry beats non-competitive industry (monopolies are bad). This applies to every field. Three, the government makes monopolies; it does not break them up, no matter what it says it is doing. Good point. Standard Oil is really kicking the crap out of the oil business these days.

10:24 — I just realized how long I'd been going at this. It's nothing if not entertaining. Unfortunately, I've run into maybe 2 good blogs in over an hour of searching. There must be something I can end on a high note with...?

10:34 — Hoo-rah! The search is over. A blog dedicated to Phish's last show. Very sweet... bittersweet, really, having read about it. But if you want a good (and non scary wookie rant) idea of what it was like for a true phan, you could do a lot worse.

And that is that, for tonight. But this new blogger button is like crack, I'm already pheening for more. I'll be sure to post updates every now and again when I get a spare hour.

That's a nice offensive title for a blog entry. I was thinking about maybe some ethnic slurs, but abortion will do nicely.

I've said before, I'll say again: I'd never want my own child to be aborted. Unless there were serious risks to the mother's health, I don't think ANY child should be aborted. However, simply because I don't care for abortions (and really, honestly people, who the hell likes abortions??) does NOT mean I think the process should be outlawed. That's just ridiculous.

Religious types loathe abortions. The "taking of an innocent life" and what not is their calling card. I'm not going to debate the science of this. They're welcome to their interpretation, and on a soul level, I don't want to get into who has a soul and when a soul is a soul, etc etc and so forth.

Conservatives absolutely love abortions.

Did your eyes go a little fuzzy around that last sentence? They shouldn't, because it's the big ugly truth that the conservative movement has been grounded upon since 1976.

It sounds a little funny at first. Conservative leaders from Reagan to Bush to Bush have beat their breasts with a pro-life drumbeat. They promise to do their best to stop the horrible horrible process of killing the innocent.

But the conservative movement absolutely counts on the fact that the religious of this country loathe abortion. Therefore, the conservatives can get away from answering substansive issues by hiding behind a strong pro-Life stance. And with the Catholic Church suggesting it's a "mortal sin" to vote for a pro-choice candidate, those votes come rolling in on a one-issue vote platform.

This isn't to suggest abortion is a non-issue; it obviously is. However, would that the world was simple enough to make abortion truly an important issue. This election cycle we're faced with a dragging war, terror threats, a sagging economy, huge numbers of minorities in prison because of the 'war' on drugs, and major foreign policy gaffes.

Amazingly, conservatives get away with their obviously pro-death penalty stance, despite the fact that killing ANYONE is against Judeo-Christian values. Furthermore, considering all of the questions raised about executions around the country in terms of race, it's hard not to see there's a racist underpinning. In 5 years as governor, Bush oversaw the execution of 147 prisoners. 80% were black or hispanic, and many were given lawyers so poor that they were later disbarred. Bush executed Karla Faye Tucker, the first woman killed in the state since the Civil War and then famously mocked her later. Bush executed Canadian Stan Faulder, who was denied his consular rights for 15 years while he rotted on death row.

Yes, the Bible does say "Thou Shall Not Kill" and Jesus did say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." But apparently, anyone who was convicted for in a death penalty case has given up their right to a soul, at least according to the conservative movement. The religious shrug, willing to put abortion above execution.

The Chicago Sun-Tribune did a study in 2000 that shocked the state. In the study, the paper revealed that many convicted Death Row felons had been convicted on contradictory, circumstansial, or even outright phoney evidence. Governor George Ryan, so pained at the thought of an innocent man dying, scrapped the entire system before stepping down from his office in 2001. Many who oppose abortions so stringently, but look away from the death penalty use conviction as an excuse. Truly, this is not the case in all situations.

Oddly enough, if abortion were stopped tomorrow, the country would doubtless be worse off. There are enough kids who are neglected or live in abject poverty now; that number would definitely skyrocket if fetuses that were to be aborted were not. Plus, the number of "back alley" abortions done in shady clinics outside the borders of the country would rise. Many women died from those procedures before Row v. Wade. But these things cannot compare to the "innocent" lives being destroyed...

... unless it's the mother's, of course.

In the end, though, it seems like no woman can be innocent, unless she's still a fetus. And as long as knee-jerk reactionaries vote on this one issue, this country will be stuck in an electoral rut - an end that conservatives long for above anything else.

So should you consider using your vote on any one issue, keep in mind that politics is so deep, so multi-faceted, that voting entirely on one issue will leave you blind-sided on SO many other issues. Choose carefully, choose wisely. After all, if you want to call yourself pro-Life, shouldn't you live up to your own title?

Today in Portland OR, 50,000 people showed up to see John Kerry talk.

It's a fascinating trend. Kerry has been getting humongous audiences lately, growing steadily by the week. People seem genuinely interested in what he's got to say (and also the converse, people seem genuinely interested in getting President Bush very far away from political power).

Bush, on the other hand, spoke to merely 300 people a few miles away. This is a common theme of the Junta. Bush doesn't read newspapers, he vacations a lot, and his campaign crowds have to sign what amount to loyalty oaths just to get in to see him. He lives in a happy bubble, one which (even though he doesn't pay attention) our media doesn't want to burst.

I compare this to my favorite band in the world, Phish. If you didn't know, Phish is breaking up after this weekend's big festival in Coventry, VT. Check that right. Phish drew 70,000 people to nowhere in Northern Vermont to see them off.

Phish is a band that drew almost no radio airplay. They were never top-40 (thank God) and never tried to pretend that they were. Although they were fairly big in the Northeast, they certainly weren't as big in the press as any of the big comets that have come flying through popular music in the last 20 years.

Yet, I restate: They drew 70,000 people to nowhere Vermont. And believe you me, as I'm not one of them, they could have easily drawn 100,000. Tickets on Ebay were going last week for over $450.

How did it happen? Very simply: If you saw the band live, you couldn't help but like them. They played a ton of concerts, and grew an incredibly loyal following. I'd say a cult following, but they're actually a little too popular for that sort of niche. The fact was, yes, other bands might have had big hits, but they could NEVER compare on stage. And I believe, have always believed, that the stage is where the cutting edge of music is, not "can you make a song that radio stations all want to play?"

John Kerry is obviously bringing something to these stages. Some of it is surely disgust with where the country is going, and some are life-long Dems who have always voted for their man, but Kerry must be doing something right. And the results are coming out on the road -- on his biggest tour, White House '04.

Things like this count far more to me than polls. Despite the bashing Kerry is (and will be) suffering, his 50,000 is just a different world than Bush's 300. And I think that will show up at the polls come November. But we'll see. Plenty of time for Florida to chalk things up again...

Part I: Fear and The Death of Reason

Let me start with a story.

Two days ago, two Muslims were arrested in Albany in connection with a scheme to launder money for someone they thought was a terrorist. The government agent posed as a man looking to buy surface-to-air Stinger missiles, typically used to shoot down aircraft. The two members of a local mosque (yes, I live very close, and know exactly where said mosque is) were arrested. Big news, it was.

The publisher of my paper, a money-driven clean-cut fellow of about 40 was particularly animated that afternoon when I got to work. The front sections were being prepped for the next day's printing, and he was reading over the headlines, and suddenly freaked out. The original headline was about the arrest for money laundering. He almost screamed at the poor woman laying out the pages. "This is about terrorism! They're everywhere! They could strike anytime! Any place!"

Since he's the publisher, the headline became a huge banner head (or, in non-J speak, a headline that goes all the way across a page) saying "Terror Link in Albany." Even this didn't really satisfy our frightened publisher, who continued to mutter about the local threat.

I bring you this story not for ridicule, but as a perfect object lesson. In America 2004, many people in this country are absolutely terrified. And the problem is that people who are afraid surrender their judgment and reason to the fear that grips them.

Fear is one of the most powerful emotions. The theory is that fear is so potent, so gripping simply for personal protection. Without fear, it's hard to imagine the human race would make it very far (I picture Oog and Zok riling up a sabre-tooth tiger... you get my point...) without a healthy dose of making sure it didn't go ahead and get itself killed, or eaten... or both.

But we outlasted sabre-tooth tigers. And we certainly outlasted a lot of other things that could have killed us. But the fear can still take hold like nothing else can.

Fear has become more intellectually based as we've become *slightly* less primeval. It isn't likely Bob from work will eat you or hit you in the face with a club for your woman, but we might worry about losing our job. It isn't hard to fear something like cancer, or even the rare but deeeeeadly Ebola. In this country, we worry about money. We worry about health insurance, and losing weight.

But the ultimate fear, the one that still kicks right in the ole instinct, is the fear of dying. And terrorism, above all other types of warfare, puts the fear of death on the front page. This is, of course, exactly what the terrorists want.

This fear slaughters reason, every time out. And while a little fear doesn't hurt, we stand at a point in human history which hasn't been seen in well over 1 million years. As a race, we have developed tools that can destroy us. Not most of us, not a few million of us... every last human on the planet. Call me nutty, but with that sort of devastation looming, I want absolutely no action without careful deliberation. Obviously, with a fear so great, that deliberation, that reason just ain't gonna happen.

This combination, fear and power, propel our nation in a direction that will only lead to disaster. The fear makes many people believe that only direct methods will be able to eradicate the feared, either by military warfare, or chillingly, those same weapons of mass destruction that are so feared in the other side's hands. Never mind that it would be a crime for "their" side to use such a weapon. Never mind that they fear for their security in the same way we do. Our leader breaks it down "us and them" "with us or against us" leaving so little room to navigate reason or thought. The fear isn't just in the public, after all.

So when it's said "We must kill them before they kill us" it must be asked, "Who has become the terrorist?" When suggested that we must "deal" with the terrorist threat by force, we must ask, "How will killing solve anything?"

Yet in asking, those that are filled with the fear find it easy to add another fear. After all, if our leader says with us or against us, such questions can easily be brushed aside. "You are helping those that I fear," cry the frightened masses. "You must not care about my fear, and you must be on their side and not mine."

This small nucleus of fear is why America stands at a great chasm in its history. Another terrorist attack, especially one involving any sort of larger weapon, would turn this country directly into a paranoid dystopia. This attack, which despite all the precautions and wars in the world, will probably eventually happen. And with it will rise the first pillar of a fascist state.

If there is reason to fear, then there is reason to want to end the fear, by any means necessary. Eventually, enough conniving men and women will figure that security will trump all other concerns, and offer the people what they want: safety by any means. Of course, this will mean giving up liberty, but the sweet bliss of safety will quickly make liberty seem unimportant or even old-fashioned. The people, who needed safety, might kick back at a later point, but by then it will be too late. Once you hand over the reins of a democratic state to a ruler, it is not nearly as easy to get them back.

The outsider might say that the process is not so easy, but America has been very close to tending fascist before. I myself posted about a failed coup on FDR in the '30s (I'll write more about this in Part 3) earlier this year here. Back then, it would have been fairly unpopular with the citizens. But now? In return for 100% promised security? With a pliant media?

Many people - too many - would probably take that trade-off to end the fear, thus ending democracy and reasoned rule in America.

But this is only the first pillar of what it would take to prop up a fascist state. Check back for the next three parts:

II. One Nation, Ruled By God
III. Hoarding the Globe
IV. New America

Probably the best tool I've found for tracking the election is located at Electoral Tracker, a site that instead of polling 1,000 people and suggesting that those results tell us ANYTHING about the tone of the upcoming election (cough, cough NYT, CNN, NBC, ABC, WaPo, CBS, everyone in the whore media category cough) actually goes state by state and keeps track of the latest polls there and updates it daily for new results.

Not only are the results better (since each poll is independent, there's less chance of bias plus in a state poll vs. a national poll the margin of error is far lower) the chart is easy and helpful, so if you aren't a dork like me, you can read it in 5 seconds and figure out who is in the lead. Currently, Dr. Crags is winning, with the Dark Prince of Evil sitting behind, but within a width of victory.

This is a good thing. I hope the election stays ridiculously close to the end. The more people who vote, the better Kerry's odds are - and I don't really want to have to consider the alternative.