Hillary has spoken.

Her speech was a rousing success. I am inspired simply by the quality of her oratory.

Here are some thoughts and questions:

1. Do women in American really have a problem today? Is there anything about being a woman today in America that is made less free because of the the Bush presidency?

2. What exactly will Obama do to improve the lives of women and children in America? I mean exactly? Is this even an issue?

3. Is anyone persuaded by the anecdote approach to political speeches? E.g. "just yesterday I met a young man in a Marine Corps T-shirt..." Is this still an effective device?

4. Hillary mentioned taking back the country we love. The partisan notion of taking back anything - is this effective?

5. Has our standing in the world eroded? Who specifically should we be concerned about no longer loving us?

6. Hillary says that Obama will make college affordable again. Is this really a problem in America? Last time I checked, community college was ultra-cheap in my county.

7. Hillary says that Obama will give our veterans what they deserve. I am a veteran and I am treated pretty well. I know many vets and no one seems to think that treatment of our veterans is a problem.

8. Hillary says that Obama will join with our allies in fighting terrorism. Which ally will join the fight only when Obama becomes President?

9. Hillary mentioned Harriet Tubman who said "if you want freedom, keep going." Is freedom really an issue in America right now?

People of the Intergral world, I am shaking my head very, very slowly. The Democrats are in sad, sad shape. The stale generalities and anecdotes and calls to solve problems that are not problems is not cutting it.

The only take away I got from Hillary's speech is - a feminist-minded politician almost became the first President in the USA. Women are generally happy, except ... I know too many women who do not trust other women with power! They prefer men to wield power.

The only take-away I got from the speech is - let's be determined to win back the White House so that we can ... win back the White House.

The only theme that I resonate with is the President leading a charge toward green ecology and energy. Hillary mentioned this in passing. But I am not sure that this is the center piece of the Obama vision.

No, I am sorry. I do not see this vision and this platform winning in November.

Instead of really going for it, and laying out specific plans, the Obama platform is trying to hold on tight to whatever momentum in had 4 months ago. They are trying not to lose at this point. And their grip is slipping.

I could see it in the faces of the pundits. They are shaking their heads. They know there is a reason why Obama should win, but they cannot find that clarion call anywhere at the convention. Hillary gave us the same old generalities that Dukakis gave us. Equal this, freedom that, middle class this, anti-rich that, international prestige this, health and education that, ...

Unfortunately, many Americans still remember the Carter Administration. And this platform is sounding very similar to that one.

For crying out loud, can someone tell me specifically - why in the hell does America need a Democratic president right now?

A sad, sad moment.

The dream of America is available to America right now. The only question is - will we continue to squeeze hard on the terrorist fringe ... while Americans pursue their dream, or will we abandon the squeeze, deal with the blowback, and get ready for 4 years of litigation, rule making, bickering, moralizing, China irritation, human rights chanting that achieves the effect of pissing off people who operate on different time tables, and find ways to put more women in power, for no other purpose than to ... put women in power and be historical.

The Democrats are enormously deluded. I wish it weren't so. Can someone send Wilber over to Denver to plug the holes in this sinking ship???

Schalk in navy; mm in purple.

Hillary has spoken

She sure has. And Bill spoke tonight, but I missed it. How did it go? Man, he had to work hard on Hillary's night to keep smiling.

But the thing that struck me about Hillary's night was how it brought back the divisiveness for me. You saw Hillary, then you saw Michelle, then Bill, then Hillary, Michelle, Bill, Michelle smiling when Hillary said vote for Barack, looking a little suspicious here . . . There is no trust between those women.

Hillary gave a great speech, but for some reason the speech did not leave me enthusiastic about the Obama/Biden ticket but just the opposite. Before as you know, I was resigned; I was hopeful; I was supportive; I was among the mature Hillary fans who had gotten over the loss and was supporting Obama now for the good of the country . . . Fifteen minutes into the speech and I wanted to vote for McCain!

I'm not saying I'm going to, but that's how I felt. Is it me? Or was that the subliminal, emotional message coming through Hillary's speech even those it was supportive of Obama on the surface?

3. Is anyone persuaded by the anecdote approach to political speeches? E.g. "just yesterday I met a young man in a Marine Corps T-shirt..." Is this still an effective device?

I wonder about that, too! It's getting a little old. The people who they make sit up there watching appear to feel a little put upon.

4. Hillary mentioned taking back the country we love. The partisan notion of taking back anything - is this effective?

Another good point there. It's negative, isn't it, and negative collectively since it's negative against entire worldviews.

9. Hillary mentioned Harriet Tubman who said "if you want freedom, keep going." Is freedom really an issue in America right now?

Right! It's time we turn the corner on that. There is ample evidence now that girls at least are getting a better deal than boys.

No, I am sorry. I do not see this vision and this platform winning in November.

It's going to be close!

mm

MM:

The way I see the Democrat platform is this:

up until the Civil Rights era, the Democrats stood for cutting edge social change that needed to be taken to address bona fide injustices in our society.

My father is a hard core Democrat and for him it all comes down to unions and the blue collar worker. He remembers when the working man got jacked by the boss.

Well, the working man has nothing to complain about today.

Women and minorities have nothing to complain about today.

Children have nothing to complain about.

None of the "problems" that the Democrats are referring to domestically are really problems.

The economy is the economy - who knows how that works. (I have my own theories about Bush's agenda to equalize the balance of wealth in America, using the war on terror to permit old money to regain ground against the nouveau riche new money that rocketed ahead in the tech revolution. To put it another way, the economy is just dandy right now if you ask defense contractors, war material producers, oil companies, etc.)

So, there is no "issue out in the streets" that justifies the Democrat existence.

But, there is an issue, a might big issue...

What we have to complain about is this: the Republican vision is low-orange and America is ready for high-orange and healthy green to lead. America and the world are ready for enlightened Democratic vision in America. Without it, we get business as usual and stale ambery-orange vision, while our peers in Germany, Scandinavia, Japan, France, etc. shake their heads at our wasted opportunities.

The Democrats need to co-opt the Republican platform. They need to use the Integral model and say, we are everything the Republicans are, but we are also more through transdendence and inclusion. With us, you get religion and guns and free markets, but you also get a vibrant and vision based leadership that will not only let you have everything you have now but will give you more. The Republicans, like McCain mean well, but that cannot give it to you because they cannot conceive of it or understand it.

We will smack the bad guys, but we will also stimulate imagination and creativity.

The Democrats need to explain the Republican mind, with its ethnocentric and universalist rule mentality, and show how we can keep the healthy aspects of those and at the same time gain the richness of healthy pluralism. But, they are not taking this approach. They are trying to jazz us up with rhetoric like Bubba did. But only Bubba could get away with it! Look at what Bubba was promising us - it was just as tired as Carter. The only difference was his charisma, and then the tech revolution hit and made him look like a rainmaker!

I see Obama going down this road, trying to co-opt McCain so that it comes down to old McCain vs. a young version of McCain. It may be too late though, because he is already on record and his words spoken before he say the need to co-opt will be used in rebuttal against him.

Hillary needs to use the next 4 years to become a Republicanized-Democrat. Get as close as possible to the middle and speak like a hawk on terrorism.

Now I understand what you are saying, Schalk. That's a very interesting point--the traditional Democratic message has grown stale. On the civil-rights side, I think you're basically right. There is something of a case still on the economic side considering income distribution has been the most unequal since the 1920s, at least according to Bubba tonight--yes, I saw him on tape. He rocked the house!

Bubba rocked the house indeed. He should be allowed a third and fourth term.

What we have to complain about is this: the Republican vision is low-orange and America is ready for high-orange and healthy green to lead. America and the world are ready for enlightened Democratic vision in America. Without it, we get business as usual and stale ambery-orange vision, while our peers in Germany, Scandinavia, Japan, France, etc. shake their heads at our wasted opportunities

Right, we do need a more sophisticated, multi-faceted approach. Even if McCain is still young enough and he has Lieberman as a running mate, they would have to fill all those cabinet positions with so many meat-headed conservatives . . . It was awful in the 80s and it's even worse now. And Bubba made the case against it.

The Democrats need to co-opt the Republican platform.

Right, that's exactly what Bubba did. It makes it difficult when Obama ran as a progressive.

With us, you get religion and guns and free markets, but you also get a vibrant and vision based leadership that will not only let you have everything you have now but will give you more.

Right! I've been wanting them to do this for years! Bubba did it, in a smooth way, with charisma as much as anything as you say, but Gore didn't do it, even though that's what he wanted to do, and Kerry sure didn't either.

Oh, I saw some of Biden's speech--horrible, disappointing. Hillary outclassed him by ten times. Hillary blew the roof off of the place. You might be right, Schalk. It may have been a lousy choice. What Bubba could have done if Hillary had been the VP!

Why do you think Obama didn't take Hillary as VP?

We will smack the bad guys.

Obama has got to come through with some of this, too. I don't think he's ever done it. Some real tough talk--a hypothetical situation in which he'd really drop the bombs.

The only difference was his charisma, and then the tech revolution hit and made him look like a rainmaker!

Don't disillusion me, Schalk. Bubba is the rainmaker!

If he hadn't let the bloody New York Times kuntu beat him down, if he hadn't been afraid of making an enemy out of 90% of the African American community, and a lot of liberals too, Hillary would be the VP. He had Obama on the ropes. He was whining about how he had to run against two people--and Bubba backed off, driven away by the New York Times editorial board.

That's what happened, and he's kicking himself.

I see Obama going down this road, trying to co-opt McCain so that it comes down to old McCain vs. a young version of McCain. It may be too late though, because he is already on record and his words spoken before he say the need to co-opt will be used in rebuttal against him.

That's right, he's on record as a peacenick.

PERSONALY ITS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO STAY INTERESTED IN THE GAME OF POLITICS. I VOTE CAUSE OF THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE DIED AND BEEN WOUNDED IN WARS FOR MY RIGHT TO VOTE.  SEEMS TO ME BOTH PARTYS COW TOW TO BIG BUSINESS. MYSELF A RETIRED TEAMSTER TRUCKER HAVE SEEN OVER 90 PERCENT OF UNION CARRIERS GO OUT OF BUSINESS . AND IT WAS JIMMY CARTER  A DEMOCRAT WHO DEREGULATED TRUCKING. AND NAFTA WAS PASSED BY BILL CLINTON A DEMOCRAT AND WE HAVE SEEN , I SHOULD SAY HAVE HEARD THAT GREAT SUCKING SOUND OF LOST JOBS THAT GOOD OLE BOY ROSS PEROT SAID WOULD HAPPEN. MAYBE YOU ALL CAN ENLIGHTEN ME AND REENERGIZE ME TO GET BACK IN THE GAME OF POLITICS.  I SEEN JESSE VENTURA ON LARRY KING LAST MONTH AND HE  SAYS IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHO GETS IN OFFICE THE PERSONS HANDS OUR TIED TO THE LOBBYIST.  SO IF YOUR A BIG BUSINESS PERSON I GUESS YOU DIG THIS POLITICAL GAME, AND IF YOUR A POOR PERSON AT LEAST YOU CAN GO ON MEDICAID , BUT JOE LUNCH BUCKET KEEP BENDING OVER, AND KEEP GIVING BACK WHAT PEOPLE LIKE JIMMY HOFFA FOUGHT FOR.  I DOUBT JIMMY WAS INTEGRALLY HIGHLY EVOLVED BUT HE BELIEVED IN WORKING HARD AND GETTING PAID WELL FOR YOUR HARD WORK. NOW ITS WORK HARD FOR LESS OR ELSE ?

Bill:

I completely understand what you are saying about the power of money in America.

One of the meta-issues that I see us dealing with is this:

- we have tried every vision and every right and every march and every value and ... we need markers that make our life measurable.

There are very few things that are "real" in America today. When I say real, I mean something that you can count on as being a priority or ... common currency for the next guy to come around the block.

We have fallen back on measuring value based on money. It is a number and we can all agree on numbers. We may not agree on anything, but we will form a coalition in a heart beat if it means that you and I will each make $100 in 5 minutes!

We are an enormously skeptical country, and for good reason. We have been larded over with deceptive statements, ulterior motives, and less than perfect good will by those we should expect to trust. Our politicians, our elders, our educators, our neighbors, our entertainers.

What I am saying is - we demand to see the bottom line on everything now.

And in America, the bottom line is business and making money.

So, let's talk about the labor movement. How does that help me as a consumer?

I don't give a damn if my TV set was made in Nanjing or in Nebraska. But I do give a damn about paying $350 less for it if the quality is equivalent.

When I go to Wal Mart, I know I will find decent quality at rock bottom prices. I am not interested in buying a union and American made pair of cut-off pants for $3 more.

The reality is this - we now have the means to search around the world for the best place to build a plant and make things. Shipping is not an issue.

So, why should we care about helping out an American guy who wants to make $20.00 an hour to do a fairly mundane task that can be done in China for $2.00 an hour?

Bottom line: the labor movement was a highly coercive movement. It's power lies in the ability to strike and shut down operations. This is a amber-minded mechanism. And it is rarely used or successful today.

The market place is working perfectly. And there are no laws preventing the workers from pooling their money and creating their own companies and becoming ... management!

MonkMonk pointed out that the disparity between the rich and the rest is greater than ever before. What he failed to mention is - the material level of "the rest." They are not worse off than ever before.

Every blue collar guy I know owns a big screen TV, a truck, has a cable TV subscription, barbeques steak on the weekends, and has a bunch of debt. I know guys in Asia who live in homes 1/4 the size of most of my blue collars buddies, they have advanced technical degrees, work longer hours, and save their money.

The greatest crisis in America today is how we respond to our wealth. How we use our wealth.

What I am looking for in a national leader is someone who will talk to us collectively and demonstrate for us how we should and can live a full and healthy life given the material conditions and cultural conditions we have today.

There are very few problems in America that cannot be solved by the people themselves. The problem is the vision. The people do not see their role as citizens or neighbors in the way that will solve those problems.

That's why I kept asking - what exactly is Obama going to do for us that we cannot already do for ourselves? He seems to be teasing us, as if he is going to unleash that vision, but it is mostly rhetoric to my mind. He wants the power just like McCain wants the power.

Schalk in red; mm in black.

But ... don't we have to look at the material conditions of the middle class. I for one don't seem them suffering today.

They may not be suffering, but aren't they getting ripped off? Ripped off for one by a tax structure that favors corporations and the ultra rich who do not truly reinvest to create value and jobs (all in the name of trickle-down-theory economics) and on the other hand by CEOs who take all the marbles on payday.

They're not getting beaten with baseball bats when they ask for safe working conditions, but it's not yet particularly fair. In 1960 the average CEO made something like 20 times the lowest-paid worker, and now it's like 300 times or something. Those Orange bastards take all the marbles! Greedy, greedy, greedy . . . If they can't get their act together they should be, yes, regulated! I wonder why we couldn't have a tax code that gave larger tax breaks to companies with a fair pay structure.

I believe that a subsistence life should be guaranteed. This includes a place to live, food, and ... health care. Beyond that, I believe in vibrant free markets, except in industries that are essential to bedrock human needs (health care, law, education, etc.)

Agreed!

I believe that the position of President is the greatest platform in the world to do good. If I were President, I would have an FDR fireside chat every Sunday afternoon, just for an hour or so. And use it as a pulpit to challenge every American to live right.

You'd be great, Schalk!

When are we going to see the first presidential blog, by the way? Or even the first ex-presidential blog? Do any major political figures maintain a blog?

Nope, I think it's Ridge. McCain's talking in Ohio and then Pennsylvania after the announcement. I don't see Lieberman. There are too many anti-Semites in the world. Lieberman would be wonderfully domestically, but his presence would unnecessarily antagonize too many people abroad who would have proof of the "Zionist conspiracy that is America."

That all makes sense. I didn't know he was speaking in Ohio and Pennsylvania. However, I don't think Ridge is going to win them Pennsylvania. It would be interesting to see what happens, but I think it's a blue state.

Yes, that's why Lieberman can't be VP anymore. Too many Muslims around the world would say, "See, I told you so. Americans and Jews, same, same." That's how they put it in Morocco, anyway. "America and Israel, same, same." It's a shame, though. I think he's among our very best leaders, along with Clinton and Gore (and Obama?).

No, the VP pick will have to be a solid, nose-tackle American.

I'm seeing it now. Yes, it's Ridge. And you nailed it; he's a nose tackle!

 A guy you know will attend Sunday Episcopal services, clean his gun while watching the Steelers game, and then head off to a Chamber of Commerce meeting after dinner.

Hahahahaha!

Betcha an ice cream sundae with a cherry on top!

If it's Ridge, you've got it Schalk. Yes, when they floated the two pro-choice candidates, Ridge and Lieberman, Lieberman was just a smokescreen. It was all about Ridge. Ridge, at least, is a Republican. And I think you're right about Amber loyalty--they won't go to Barr; they'll stick with the party.

mm

SURPRIZINGLY , AS I WAS READING YOUR RESPONSE SCHALK IT WAS OCCURING WITHIN ME A RESONANCE OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.

MAYBE LIVING HERE IN MICHIGAN MY EMOTIONAL SELF OVERIDES MY RATIONAL SELF. THE POSSIBILITY OF THE BIG 3 GOING OUT OF BUSINESS. VERY FEW TEAMSTER TRUCKING FIRMS IN BUSINESS. SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS , AND THEIR HOUSES , EMOTIONALLY IS TOUCH TO ACCEPT.

BUT I AGREE THAT THE COMPANY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST PRODUCT AT THE CHEAPER PRICE GETS THE SALE, AND STAYS IN BUSINESS.

POLITICS, AND BIG BUSINESS IS A BRUTAL IN YOUR FACE GAME. SO YOU BETTER STAY IN SHAPE AND AS KEN WOULD SAY" EAT YOUR VEGGIES ", MEDITATE , AND KEEP PUMPING THAT IRON.

YOUR A WELL READ KNOWLEDGEABLE MAN SCHALK.  THANKS FOR SHARING THAT KNOWLEDGE WITH US.

Here is where this is going, as I see it.

The key word for the debate will be - fibre!

Where to begin?

1. Let us now talk about the big bugaboo - abortion.

Many people do not regard it for what it really is - a debate about the nature of sexual conduct. It is not really about the fetus.

If the crux of the abortion issue were about the fetus, then you would see anti-abortion activists and fundamentalists making a big fuss about holding funerals for the dead "persons" as pointed out by George Carlin. They do not do this. They do not "really" believe that a "person" has died when an abortion is performed.

It is about the act that caused the pregnancy. It's about the degree to which we allow ourselves to engage in sex acts and the degree to which we regard the sex act as "important" or "serious" or "consequential."

The Democract who supports abortion generally also supports freedom to engage in sex with other consenting adults. And this includes same sex sex.

This is an enlightened worldview that transcends years and years of repression. That is, it is enlightened if ... it is built on top of the first tier awareness of responsibility and fidelity to a partner and reverence for life.

If it is merely a permissive stance that allows me to fuck, then it is not enlightened. It is weak. It is a dodge. It is unhealthy.

To the Democrat supporter of sex, it goes without saying that when that sex leads to an unwanted pregnancy, termination of that pregnancy must be a freedom available.

To the anti-abortion crowd, the notion that we can cruise around in our daily lives and be free to "hook up" and have sex with no more consequence than blowing our nose is intolerable. The fundamentalist and the anti-abortion crowd want sex to be a very "serious" act, a "consenquential" (i.e. "with sequence") act that is only permissible under circumstances that support the flowering into life and the nurturing of that life for the next couple of decades.

They want society to be oriented in this way so that once a seed is planted, it goes without saying that it will grow. This "serious consequence" notion will cause women to be very selective about when and with whom they have sex. This promotes chastity and fidelity in relationships.

Abortion rights activists generally invoke examples where the women was raped or the fetus will be born with handicaps.

This issue is going to live again. Because ... we have a woman VP choice who:

1. Knew she was going to have a Down Syndrome child and welcomed this.

2. Who presents herself as capable of preventing herself from being raped.

3. Who appears to live a life of classical virtue.

4. Who has worked neck and neck in the roughest environments with some of the horniest men on the planet and who was able to back them down on their advances.

The weakness of the Democrats is that, while their liberalism in policies shows compassion, you have to wonder about the moral spine that produced this realization.

Palin says to women - you can be strong, and virtuous, and competent, and not be jerked around by men who want to use your body. But you also must live with your choices.

So, we are talking about making fibre the issue.

What was it about Obama's moral stance that allowed him to use cocaine? I am not moralizing. I have no concern that Obama's use of cocaine diminished his abilities in any way.

But, under what circumstances does a person get into an environment where cocaine is used and then allow themself to use it? Could they have chose not to? What moral or ethical compass has to operate to cause us to not accept cocaine?

What is it about Palin's moral stance that determined that she would carry forward with the birth of a child with Down's Syndrome? It would have been easier to abort that child.

These are the undercurrents that are going to be playing out. The notion of what does it mean to be strong and live a moral life and do what is right?

This is the open sky theme of American fibre that McCain is bringing. It is a contrast to the high cognitive, self-serving permissiveness of the Democrat worldview.

I have spoken before about guns. Guns represent the freedom to be a sovereign person.  A gun represents your power to shoot an kill a person who is going to wrong you. Not to call 911 and have someone else do it for you, but for you to do it.

The gun issue is not about hunting. It is about being able to possess a weapon in your hands that you can use to prevent yourself from being raped or killed or violated. This is a major area of resonance in America. Not giving up individual sovereignty.

Now, do not get me wrong, I do not walk around with a gun. And I have never in my life been presented with a scenario where I would have to shoot someone. I am not trying to talk tough. Maybe I could never shoot someone. I accept this. In fact, I know too much about the law to know that it is very rare that the law lets you completely off after having shot someone. Very rare. I will let people do a lot of things to me, turning cheek after cheek, because I don't want to do 5 years for manslaughter or involuntary homicide or some other rational conclusion to what I thought was my restoration of honor.

But, I am identifying the core nature of why the gun represents American freedom and why the notion of Palin shooting a rifle in Alaska is a massively powerful image. To own a gun, you have to be responsible. You have to have fibre that distinguishes when and when you cannot use it. The gun and you, both are of consequence. They matter and once the bullet is fired, it cannot be talked back into the gun.

For many Americans, the only thing that allows them to feel a sense of personal power and worth is the fact that they have a gun. And they behave in a way that reflects the fact that others have a gun.

The law of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is manifested most vividly in the way gun owners think of their community. 

Palin is a shooter. A shooter uses their own eyes to make their own decisions. It can be no other way. When you have a gun, you cannot bullshit yourself.

I bought my son a .22 the other day and took him out to the range. In 30 minutes, as I explained to him the range rules and how to load the gun, and showed him how the other shooters were behaving, the awareness they had up and down the range, I watched him grown a foot in responsibility. And when he hit 17 out of 20 on the target at 50 yards, I could see him beaming with pride! He knows he can load a rifle and hit a target with it. He seems like a young man now, knowing he can do this. And the fact that I trusted him to do it, bonded us very nicely.

Obama and Biden are going to lose:

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Florida, and it's not just because Palin is a core Christian. It's because she is a Christian who knows how to live as if every choice were like shooting a bullet from a gun.

See, this is how much of the Reagan vision lives. Life consists of acting in a way such that your actions carry as much consequence as if you were shooting a gun. You don't get two chances, and you live with the consequences, and you aim to kill, when killing is in order. Or to put it another way ... life is not about fucking around!

So, we have gone from abortion to guns and tied the deep themes, I believe.  

We are going to see what America is really made of.

My operating thesis in the Integral community is - by all means, honor your emergent 2nd Tier. That is why we are here.

But we must stop deluding ourselves about our first tier reality. Go back, and reclaim the healthy side of your first tier awareness. Invariably, I am concerned about the "forgetfulness" of Integral seekers. They want to escape the reality of first tier instead of build on it and fill in its healthy holes so that 2nd Tier blossoms as a natural and fully matured consequence.

The problem with the Democrat platform is not Obama! It is the delusional, morally weak fibre of the crowd that rolls with Obama. It is the knowledge that of the 80,000 people in Invesco Field, probably 75% of them have used drugs other than marijuana on a good number of occasions. It's not the drugs. I have no problem with the drugs. It is the fibre that allowed them to be in a position to use the drugs and to permit themselves to do it. It is the inner lack of fibre that does not live life as if every action were shooting a bullet from a gun! We want mulligans and do overs and try-outs and 3rd and 4th chances and excuses and ... This is the crux of the divide.  

McCain and Palin equate to simpler and stronger. This will be a ticket of solid common-sense. You see the target, you hit the target. You live with your choice.

And in the Integral community, if we see this solid common sense package resonate, we should consider what it means for our practice. Are we being simple and direct and real or are we fooling ourselves, adopting clever concepts that mask our inability to deal with real and simple issues.

Are we acting in a way such that we bring the full awareness and responsibility of our choices to bear, like shooting a gun? Do we feel that we have the power to make a difference, shooting the targets of life, wherever they may be with love, compassion, sobriety, sustained endurance, non-delusional differentiations, etc.

Are we - in a word, full of clever bullshit?

This will be an enormously exciting 8 weeks until November. The national fibre will be on display. We will learn who we are and what we mean and represent.

And, ... for the first time in a long while, victory by either side will be cause for joy!

Times are good and we are going to see win-win become the theme.

You make a lot of great points, Schalk, as usual, and as usual you do it with great flair. A highly instructive and entertaining read! You are without a doubt one of my favorite online buddies. You also point out one of the deep, important problems in the "integral" community--that it's not really intergral; it just thinks it is!

You are one of the very, very few that gets it that integral means integrating Amber, not dissociating with it or attacking it. You're right--Democrats lack moral fiber in a big way. They even lack themselves half the time. They don't know what to think. With that high cognition they have as well moral relativism, which means that they are untrustworthy.

However--despite all your wonderful points so wonderfully put--this choice of Palin . . .

It accomplished a couple of things: It made the news cycle about Palin and McCain in a second--everyone forget about the big wing ding in Denver. No one is talking about it. Amber, the Christian conservatives, the evangelicals, are throwing a big party. They are all going to regress into Red tonight, get hopelessly drunk, and start a bunch of children they can't afford.

And they will come out to vote in November--oh yes, they will come out in droves. This is rallying the base. The stategy is clear--did you see the kuntu at the big speech? "Country First." Pure Amber, and it goes nicely with McCain's serving-something-higher-than-yourself motif, which at least until recently has always meant a lot more than Amber policies. And then the infant--right there on stage! Right there in front, and then about six feet behind Palin as she was speaking. Did you see the woman trying to find her mark on the floor? Go check it out. There's an "X" taped on the floor somewhere, and the woman with the baby looks around for it so she is in just the right place.

So, we have an typical, self-described "hockey mom" with a bachelor's degree in journalism, who joined the PTA, became the two-term mayor of Wasilia, Alaska (pop. 5,740), lost in a run for lietenant governor, won the governship of the simplest state in the union, served two years  as governor, and listen to this: she met with McCain ONE TIME BEFORE THIS DAY! McCAIN HAS MET THIS WOMAN ONE TIME BEFORE TODAY. AND NOW SHE IS GETTING READY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT UNDERNEATH A DODDERING 72-YEAR-OLD MAN. Of course she was runner up for Miss Alaska . . .

I see what they are trying to do. They are rallying the base. This is the Rove strategy, how G. W. won two terms. Everyone else thought the way to win elections was to win the middle; Rove thought they could do it by rallying the base--and they did, twice. And they are trying it again--only they know the base won't be quite enough. No more than 25% of Americans are hard-core evangelical. Add another 15% or 20% of other Christians and the real, hard-core tax cutters, and you have the Republican 40-45% that they can always count on. But it won't be enough--and they think because Palin is a woman she will win disaffected Hillary voters! So wrong, so unbelievably misguided and wrong. They think this because they have no understanding of Orange and Green.

They think that Hillary's Army backed her because he is a woman, but that is only half of it--Hillary is a modern woman, an Orange, Green, even Teal woman. Palin is an Amber woman. Yes, the evangelicals will come out to vote for McCain, every last one of them, but Hillary's Army will not, even the angriest among them. In fact, those among them who might have stayed home, who might have abstained from this election altogether, will come out and vote against this ticket because of Palin. Palin stands for what they are against. Palin is not for a women's right to have control over her body, and that is the real issue. Palin is for all the old boys to have control of women's bodies.

I agree with everything you said about sex, committment, etc. etc. I agree with it all, and that's what needs to be integrated in the integral community. However, a woman must have control over her own body, and Palin would appoint judges that would overturn Roe vs. Wade, and McCain has said he would, too (though of course he has put this on for the election). Disaffected Hillary soldiers flocking to McCain? No way. An incredible strategic blunder on the part of the McCain campaign to think so. Just the opposite. They will come out to oppose this ticket--not neccessarily to vote for Obama but to vote against McCain/Palin.

Also, it sounds wonderful about you and your son and the expedition to the shooting range. That is tremendous. However, Palin is not running to be the manager of a hunting lodge! She is running to be the closest vice president to the presidency since George Herbert Walker Bush, and the similarity betwen G. H. W.'s boss and Palin's boss is incredible--he met her one time before today, and she has zero, zero--I will say it again--ZERO experience in foreign policy. She is incredibly unqualified for this position, shockingly unqualified. She has half the qualifications--no, a quarter of the qualifications of Dan Quayle and a tenth of the qualifications of G. W. This is a shocking, irresponsible choice--an Amber woman who made it from the children's hockey club, to the PTA, to the mayorship of a town of hardly more than 5,000, to the governership of the simplest state in the union.

There are 638, 478 people in Alaska, and half of them don't have indoor plumbing! They are either white or Eskimo. It doesn't even qualify as a big city. There are 3 and half million people in the city I live in, of many different races; there are very complex problems, and there is no way that Palin could run it. Not a chance. In Alaska she can say, "Yes, I want to drill!" And "Let's cut taxes!" And "Have as many babies as you can!" And it can work. The economy depends on how the fish are biting, how the salmon are running, how the bears growling, and how much oil and gas there is in the ground. It couldn't be simpler. And McCain has nominated this neophyte as his running mate. Look at him read that speech off of a piece of paper! He is not the McCain of 2000; no, he is more like Reagan at the end of his term. This--it is shocking.

In other news: Obama has stopped dying his hair. He is now the elder statesman with grey hair. Or at least that was the case today. Perhaps he ran out of coloring (see "Obama calls Palin" if you want to see this breaking story for yourself). They are going to go after Palin just like they went after Hillary: Obama is going to say nice things about her; the rest of the campaign is going to say bad things about her--Obama is going to appear to take the high road while others do his dirty work. It might be a wise strategy. After all, it worked with Hillary, and women don't like it when men criticize women.

mm