A Better Take

The news article linked here, , finally reports John McCain acting the hero he has been attempting to portray himself over the course of this campaign. He once said, "Better to lose a war than a campaign"; now it seems he finally realizes that it is better to lose a campaign than one's honor, which surely has been more than adequately besmirched in recent days and weeks by increasingly rabid radical supporters. Those who see McCain as representative of demagoguery and hate mongering do their idol a disservice. Perhaps McCain reclaims his honor too late for this campaign, but it is never too late to do so for the man himself.

Seriously, if McCain had actually gone to Washington and fought the bailout bill instead of desperately flailing before attempting to assist in its passage, if he had called out the hate mongers when they first surfaced, if he had resisted the easy path of turning GOP young guns loose on his campaign when his numbers first floundered, I might have thought him enough of a leader to respect and at least consider.

Now at least, I am once more willing to consider the merits of the man who has actually contributed much to the legislation some of us take for granted today.

Still not good enough for president when reflex responses matter so much more, but an honorable legislator, truly.

Monday Freefall Part Next

It's the first Monday in October, but instead of leading off with stories about the Supreme Court opening a new round of sessions, the news is full of more freefall on Wall Street and its counterparts around the globe. It's good to be able to go global, isn't it?

In case anyone is confused, the legislation so urgently demanded by Bush and supported by both presidential candidates is intended to assist the lending industry, a different beast than the Wall Street that so many citizens were so eager to assure their spooked Representatives they did not want to help bail out. Now while I'm all for helping to alleviate credit debt, I remain leery of anything recommended by G.W., especially anything urgently recommended by G.W....

And it's good to know that both Democrat and Republican candidates are adamantly for change and for blowing off lobbyists, as long as said folk bow out gracefully while still leaving their ample donations at the door on their ways out...

So where was all this vaunted leadership when that lovely bill was being crafted? Where is there evidence of direct assistance to the financially distressed in the streets (literally), as opposed to continuing to rely on the theory of trickle down economics, which seems to be at the heart of the idea of buying up bad debt? And why are we only now hearing about the private companies that will be serving as "economic experts" who will be doing the actually buying and processing of said bad debts?

Personally, I'm sick and tired of having my perfectly good credit card debts being sold to increasingly rapacious holders who have consistently raised the interest rates on outstanding debt. I've given up on seeing any end in sight, aside from the promised lighted tunnel, after which I won't care anyway. But enough and too much about me -

Now that the national election campaigns are entering the final month, the rainy season is beginning and mud is flying. As a teacher I used to sit in conferences with parents of children who had been reprimanded for fighting, only to hear said parents averring that while they had taught their children not to start fights, they had also personally taught their children to make sure at least to bloody if not outright knock down and out anyone who attacked them first, either verbally or physically. Now I hear the same from an otherwise high-minded sounding candidate. All I can say is grrrrrrrr

Of course, I realize that turning the other cheek, while Christ-like, is believed to have cost at least two or three previous candidates the presidency, which I guess is why true Christians make such poor and unsuccessful politicians. Equally disturbing is the observation that those most vocally professing to be followers of Christ are the ones leading the character assassinations. IMHO, they give true believers a bad name. Of course, that's nothing new: the Roman Emperor Nero is credited with being the first high profile fellow to villify Christians, while his successors managed to do so from within the Church. Ah well...

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." That doesn't seem to invite political activism on any level, certainly not in His name. That's my story and I'm sticking to it (as Steve Kerr famously said in a Chicago park back in the early 90s).