Light

Ah, there it is.

Sitting out on my steep backyard slope, with the sun coming in from the West, I see a blade of grass incandescent, ablaze, alive, alight with sunshine. There it is. That is my spiritual practice. That is all of it that there is, to sit on that hill and to see that blade of grass making food out of nothing but that sunlight and the water that has rained down on the Earth. Not elaborate, not sophisticated, not disciplined, not, well, not anything except what I am.

All winter I sit inside at my altar, light candles, burn incense, call the quarters meditate upon tarot cards, breathe the Ha Prayer, go on vision quests. But then, on an afternoon in April, I return to who I am. I observe a blade of grass alive in the late afternoon sunshine.

May it be so for you. May we all burn with that light and to such good effect.

S'Official. I've Moved Out Onto The Porch And The Western Lilacs Are In Bloom

We Shall Dance

G/Son's New Favorite DVD

She Dared To Run For President While Being Female

Go read the whole thing.

Question: Is Chris Matthews the Michael Scott of political talk show hosts? And if so, does that make MSNBC the Dunder Mifflin of cable news?

Matthews has harvested a bumper crop of outrageous remarks during this extended primary season. Specifically, fueled by his obsession with the Clintons (he can't recall attending a single Beltway party where the couple has not been discussed), Matthews has unleashed a flood of sexist commentary.

On that front, of course, the Hardball host has not been alone. This election season, we've seen a cavalcade of white, middle-age men express their deep, personal contempt for the first serious female contender for the White House. Contempt, of course, that has nothing to do with Sen. Hillary Clinton's policies or her beliefs. Instead, it's been an oddly personal disdain dressed up as political analysis.

The way Mike Barnicle on MSNBC said Clinton "look[ed] like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court." The way Bill Kristol on Fox News said that among the only people supporting Hillary Clinton were white women, and "[w]hite women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that." The way CNN's Jack Cafferty likened Clinton to "a scolding mother, talking down to a child." The way Fox News' Neil Cavuto suggested Clinton was "trying to run away from this tough, kind of bitchy image." The way MSNBC's Tucker Carlson announced that "when [Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." The way Christopher Hitchens on CNBC described Clinton as being "sort of alternately soppy and bitchy.'"

Because

Support The Troops. Send Them To College!

Like my good friend watertiger, I, too, had a dad who served in World War II (he joined up right out of high school and spent the war in the Pacific) and then came back to take advantage of the original GI Bill. He was the first in his family of English/Welsh immigrants to go to college and, even with the GI Bill, he worked his way through college, cooking breakfast, as his store of hysterical stories assured that I'd remember, for a women's dorm. My dad was a journalism major, back in the days before spellcheck, and I still remember him telling me how the dean called him in and told him that he was going to have to learn to spell if he wanted a journalism degree from the University of Colorado at Boulder. He must have learned, somehow, because he fed a family of five kids on nothing but his writing, sent all of us to college, left money for my mom to live on after he died, and left me enough inheritance for a lovely diamond dragonfly brooch.

My Democratic Senator, Jim Webb, has proposed that America, again, begin awarding our soldiers a full GI Bill. After dad's first-ever-in-his-family college degree, I stumbled my way into a masters degree and a juris doctor degree, largely still running on the strength of the impetus from Dad's GI Bill's push forward. Son, whose granddad helped move him into Princeton, earned degrees from that school and a law degree. We've paid commensurate taxes ever since. Goddess knows what G/Son will do. It was a good investment that America made in the late 1940s. It would be a good investment here at the end of aughts. Course, as watertiger notes, Republicans like Five-Deferments-Dick and John Sideny McCain are opposed to that expense. Fuckers. Why do Republicans hate the troops.

Go!

I am very proud of my friend Sinfonian, who is smart, funny, brave, and an American patriot. Dude, I will even buy you a blueberry vodka (yuck!) shot!

Tell me what a patriot looks like? This is what a patriot looks like:

understand that this is an illegal act under current federal law, but based on my own values and morals, I believe that the war and occupation themselves are illegal and that my decision to conscientiously object to funding these military actions is a necessary act of civil disobedience in order to express my outrage at the federal government’s continued adherence to a dangerous and destructive military strategy. There was, as we now know with certainty, absolutely no defensible reason to invade and occupy Iraq, and while the military operation in Afghanistan arguably was justified by the search for Osama bin Laden, the apparent abandonment of that mission has made our efforts there futile and has created an increasingly unstable environment for their citizens and our soldiers alike.

And, for his work on this issue, I'm also proud of my friend NTodd.

Take This Bible Park And Shove It

Turns out, the early news reports were wrong. The Rutherford County, Tennessee Planning Commission voted 8-7 to deny a rezoning request to allow the development of Bible Park USA. They were likely responding to local pressure from residents concerned about traffic, light, and noise. For example:

County Commissioner Steve Sandlin moved to deny the park.

Sandlin based his motion on lack of TDOT approval of the access road, bridge and tunnel; a belief that the park does not conform with the Blackman Land Use Plan; and most importantly, because the park would affect the character of the neighborhood in a negative way.

His last point was the park is at odds with the regulations for a Conditional Use Permit, which requires developments to not have a substantial effect on the value of the neighboring buildings or have a negative effect on the basic character of the neighborhood.

Fine by me. They might want to consider, as well, though, the legal costs that they're going to face, without a doubt, if they go ahead with this obvious violation of the First Amendment. Is that a good use of tax dollars?

The next step: The zoning plan will go before the Rutherford County Commission, which has final say in the zoning, on May 15.

The real First Amendment problems arise from the tax dollars that will be used to build this humiliating abomination.

In a separate process, the park's developers are seeking $27.9 million in property tax revenues in tax-increment financing (TIF) from an area around the park.

Under the TIF, the local government would authorize the sale of bonds to help pay for the park. The increased property tax revenues generated because of the value of the land of the Bible Park USA and inside an impact zone around the park would go toward the park's debt.

That financing plan is set to go before the Rutherford County Budget Committee on May 8, and will likely be considered by the Rutherford County Commission on May 15.

The developers are also likely to seek a second TIF, which would capture some sales tax from the area as well as a luxury tax on sales in the park to help pay for the development. No proposal on that TIF has been submitted to the county yet.

And, of course, in 2006, the county was successfully sued by the ACLU for posting the Ten Commandments in the Rutherford County Courthouse as part of a historical display, and made to pay legal fees of $50,000.

Contact decision-makers here. No Pagans at all in Tennessee to stand up against this nonsense?

A Bit Of Earth, Please

I planted some containers this weekend, even though it's a bit early for Zone 7. I was explaining to my wonderful landscape designer last week that, for me, it all starts and goes back to A Secret Garden. My first exposure to the root word "Wick." Did you ever read that book?

Things That Make Me Smile

Some days, I really need to smile. When that happens, I remind myself: it was a lovely Spring day today and Jeff Skilling spent it in jail.

My New Name For A Blog

What Four Legs Good said.

Razi, don't let me see you in my town.

Dumb Fucks

Going to make some lawyers rich.

Bible Park Meeting Draws a Crowd--Erika Kurre

NEARLY TWO HUNDRED MIDDLE TENNESSEANS GET THEIR CHANCE TONIGHT TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT A PROPOSED BIBLE THEME PARK.

THE RUTHERFORD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TONIGHT THAT THE PROPERTY IT'S PLANNED FOR BE RE-ZONED.

DEVELOPERS WANT TO BUILD "BIBLE PARK U-S-A" IN BLACKMAN, A RURAL PART OF RUTHERFORD COUNTY BETWEEN SMYRNA AND MURFREESBORO.

BUT MANY IN THE AREA SAY NOT IN MY BACK YARD.
FOX 17's ERIKA KURRE HAS MORE IN A STORY YOU ARE SEEING ONLY ON FOX.

ONE BY ONE... RUTHERFORD COUNTY RESIDENTS FILED INTO THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE-- MOST WITH RED SHIRTS ON, SHOWING THEIR OPPOSITION FOR "BIBLE PARK U-S-A."
Rutherford County Resident Tony Pegel says, "I see this taking lots of tax dollars and infrastructure building for a theme park I don't see any reason for a way it can succeed."

DEVELOPERS WANT TO BUILD THE BIBLICAL THEME PARK ON 282 ACRES OF LAND-- JUST NORTHWEST OF MURFREESBORO.

TO SOME LIVING IN BLACKMAN , THE PARK IS SEEN AS DISRESPECTFUL TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND ISN'T WANTED IN THE COMMUNITY.
NOT TO MENTION CLAIMS SOME SAY ARE UNREALISTIC.
/Rutherford County Resident Rafe Hyatt says, "Theme parks that do 1.5 million visitors a year have water slides, they have roller coasters, they have ferris wheels, thrill rides-- none of these things the Bible park currently brings to the table."

/Erika says, "While the majority of people at this meeting are opposed to the Bible park, there are a few who want to see it happen."
RICHARD MEADOW HAS BEEN LIVING IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY FOR 46 YEARS.

HE CAN'T SEE A REASON WHY "BIBLE PARK U-S-A" SHOULDN'T BE BUILT HERE.

Richard says, "I'm just very much interested in seeing something that can and will-- in my opinion-- bring revenue into this county."

HIS ONLY CONCERN IS TRAFFIC CONGESTION ONCE THE PARK IS BUILT.

THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE PLANS-- BELIEVE MAKING UP FOR THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC COULD FALL BACK ON TAXPAYERS.

THEY BELIEVE WHETHER THE PARK IS BUILT SHOULD BE UP TO THEM... NOT TO THE COUNTY.

/Rafe says, "If we the people, the residents of Rutherford County are given the chance to vote this up or down, #1: I"m confident it will go down in flames. #2: I'll live with that."
IN MURFREESBORO, ERIKA KURRE, FOX 17 NEWS.


THE COUNTY COMMISSION WILL HEAR THE PARK'S PLANS MAY 15th.

IF APPROVED, DEVELOPERS SAY IT WOULD BE FINISHED IN 20-10 AND COULD PROVIDE MORE THAN A THOUSAND NEW JOBS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

Freeway Blogger Rocks II

Let's Hope That The Planning Commission Does The Right Thing

From Michelle Willard:

The contentious debate surrounding the proposed Bible Park continues at 5 Monday evening, when Rutherford County Planning Commission hears public comments and casts its vote.

The planning commission is the second step in the zoning process and is only a recommending body to Rutherford County’s Board of Commissioners. The county commission has final say in the process and is expected to hold a vote on the project on May 15.

The Future Development Committee, a recommending body to the Planning Commission, met Thursday, April 3 to review the land-use plan and Conditional Use Permit request of SafeHarbor, LLC, to develop a non-denominational, Biblically based theme park in the Blackman Community, northwest of Murfreesboro.

The FDC debate ended in a 3-3 tie, meaning the plans go to the Planning Commission with no recommendation.

The committee based its vote on public concerns about the park’s impact on the surrounding community and its seeming conflict with the county’s Blackman Community Land-Use Plan.

SafeHarbor’s plans for the park and its economic impact study were approved by the Industrial Development Board, a quasi-governmental body, April 2.

Wearing Spiders

I got to babysit my much, much loved G/Son last night. His 'rents dropped him off about dinner time, he spent the night, and his dad came around 11:00 this morning to take us out for breakfast. We did everything from blowing bubbles, to picking bluebells, to watching Elmo DVDs, to baking cookies (with blue sprinkles!), to dancing to music, to picking up rocks and putting them in our pockets, to coloring with blue crayons, to watering Nonna's gardenias, to petting the cat (GENTLY!), to reading stories and poems. He walked me through the book about Thomas the Tank Engine, explaining the difference between tenders and helicopters and tank engines. He sang Little Rabbit Foo Foo to me and I sang a family variation of The Muffin Man to him. Plus, just hanging out. I just adore this kid.

This morning, I was getting him out of his pajamas and into his clothes and he told me that he didn't want to take off his Spiderman pajama shirt to put on the lovely blue-striped Hanna Andersen shirt that his mom had packed. We'd talked the night before about how spiders make their webs out of their own bodies, spinning their own homes, and he'd been so impressed by that discussion that he repeated it, this time as the imparter of information, verbatim, to Miss Thing. When I tried to jolly him out of the spider shirt: "Look, this one has BLUE stripes!" he cried, and he cried the way that two-year-olds cry: completely, abjectly, thoroughly. And I stopped and thought, "I'd cry too if I couldn't even be in control of what I wore on a Sunday morning in my own Nonna's house. I'd cry, too, and every bit as abjectly." So when Son came, we went to brunch in the Spidey pajama top. And, Sweet Goddess, what did I think? Of course, no one even noticed. G/Son scarfed strawberry crepes and gulped orange juice (he'll never be president, this kid, plus, he's way too interested in mass transit) and no one batted an eye.

I think that I didn't do such a good job of allowing Son to make his own choices. I was a poverty-stricken, single, teen-age mom and always terrified that people would judge me a poor mother and, as a consequence, judge him as a badly-brought-up child. (When he was born, the first thing that I said to him, talking more to myself, was, "It's OK.") No such fears with this wonderful young man and I pray that I'll do a better job of always being the place where it's safe for him to be all of himself. When he was born, the first thing that I said to him was, "Namaste." That which is divine within me honors that which is divine within you. I mean to honor that. I wish that I'd been a braver mother. Sorry, Son. Sorry. I mean that.

Next Time, Don't Try To Play So Cute And Swipe At Hillary, M'Kay?

So, probably more has been made of this than it deserves, but here's my problem with Barack Obama's recent remarks concerning people in small towns.

The controversy stemmed from remarks Obama made at a private fundraiser in San Francisco on April 6 when he explained his struggles appealing to working-class voters by saying they were frustrated with the loss of jobs under both Republican and Democratic administrations over the last decade, adding: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

Obama wasn't asked why Democrats have trouble appealing to working-class voters. He was asked to explain his trouble appealing to working-class voters who, rather emphatically, when they vote Democratic, choose Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, whose support comes, to a large extent, from African Americans (from all economic classes) and better-off white Americans with college degrees. (The question commits the usual fallacy of using a term such as "working class" when what is actually meant is "white working class.") Obama's answer may or may not explain why working-class voters sometimes vote, in a "What's the Matter with Kansas" way against their own economic interests when they vote Republican, rather than Democratic. But his answer is in no way responsive to the question of why working-class voters who do vote Democratic choose Hillary Clinton over him. To the extent that voters are voting on abortion or gays or guns or immigration, they're not voting for Clinton, either.

Maybe he was too eager to get in a swipe at the Clinton administration, in a Ralph-Nader-kind-of-way: there's no difference between the Democratic and Republican administrations. That's how his answer sounded to my ears and, if that's what tripped him up, shame on him.

Maybe he was reluctant to say that working-class Americans can sometimes be racist (although then he'd have to explain why he thinks that they're more racist than sexist and I'm not sure he'd get me to agree with him on that). Fair enough, if he'd said that, even though it has an element of truth, he'd be in hotter water than he is right now. And the explanation that they're sometimes racist because they're sold hating on brown people by corporatists who want them to have an enemy other than the corporatists would have gotten lost in the sound-bites on Hardball. Running as the first genuinely competitive African-American presidential candidate is a marathon race through a field of landmines and acknowledging racism is, in the minds of Fox News anchors and squawking heads, being racist.

But perhaps he could have used the question to explain what he does intend to do for working class Americans, why he thinks that he can be more successful than his Democratic predecessors, and to begin reaching out to a branch of the Democratic party that, so far, hasn't been overwhelmed by his promises of "change" and praise for Ronald Reagan and Joe Lieberman to the same degree as college students and well-to-do Democrats. Perhaps he could have used the question to show his support among working-class African Americans and explain how he intends to build upon that to begin attracting white working class voters. There were ways to answer that question that didn't involve insulting people.

Hey, remember when we had to select Obama because otherwise the media was going to pick Clinton to death? Remember how Obama was supposed to have this amazing ju jitsu? Yeah. I do.

Susie's blog does a good job of rejecting the premise of the question, but also leaves unanswered why Clinton does so much better with working class voters than does Obama.

My New Name For A Blog

What Digby Said:

There was a time when the Village clucked and screeched about "defiling the white house" with an extra marital affair or hosting fund raising coffees. I would say this leaves a far greater stain on that institution than any sexual act could ever do. They did this in your name, Americans.

The vice president, national security advisor and members of the president's cabinet sat around the white house "choreographing" the torture and the president approved it. I have to say that even in my most vivid imaginings about this torture scheme it didn't occur to me that the highest levels of the cabinet were personally involved (except Cheney and Rumsfeld, of course) much less that we would reach a point where the president of the United States would shrug his shoulders and say he approved. I assumed they were all vaguely knowledgeable, some more than others, but that they would have done everything in their power to keep their own fingerprints off of it. But no. It sounds as though they were eagerly involved, they all signed off unanimously and thought nothing of it.

Naturally, the saintly General C. Lukewarm Powell was his usual evasive self when asked about it. (And if I hear one more person say he should be on the Democratic ticket I'm going to have an aneurysm):

Powell said that he didn't have "sufficient memory recall" about the meetings and that he had participated in "many meetings on how to deal with detainees." Powell said, "I'm not aware of anything that we discussed in any of those meetings that was not considered legal."

The Attorney General(!) also present and approving, was concerned that this was being done inside the white house:

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

That's what passes for integrity in the Bush white house.

He's certainly right about history not judging this kindly. Neither would a war crimes tribunal.


Derrick Jensen has a wonderful piece that he does about a time when he was still reluctant to use the word "apocalypse" to describe what's happening to our environment. A friend asked him, "What would it take for you to use that word? Would it take chemicals in the breast milk of every mother on the planet? We're there. Would it take dead zones in the Pacific Ocean? We're there. Would it take the extinction of carrier pigeons who were once so plentiful they darkened the skies? We're there. Would it take polar bears dying because they can't swim far enough to find the increasingly-scarce ice floats? We're there." And on an on.

I wonder what it will take for Americans to break themselves away from American Idol and Dancing With The Stars and America's Next Supermodel and take to the streets demanding consequences for this evil junta. Would it take the death of habeas corpus? We're there. Would it take warrantless domestic spying (almost certainly used on the media and Democrats)? We're there. Would it take lying the country into an illegal and immoral war that drained our economy of so much money that we had to go hat in hand to the Communist Chinese and look the other way while they slaughter Tibetan monks? We're there. Would it take the president of the United States of America shrugging and saying, "Well of course we discussed the sickening, obscene details of how to torture people"? Because, well, because we're there.

Anyone Who Thinks This Shit Keeps Happening By Accident Should E-Mail Me Immediately For A Great Deal On Beachfront Property In Arizona

Media Matters reports:

On last night's Hardball, host Chris Matthews and David Shuster focused like a laser on the things that really matter:

MATTHEWS: He's [Sen. Barack Obama] not that good at that -- handshaking in a diner.

SHUSTER: No --

MATTHEWS: Barack doesn't seem to know how to do that right.

SHUSTER: -- he doesn't do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that's why, Chris, we've seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean --

MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection?

SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."

MATTHEWS: No.

SHUSTER: He did.

And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] --

MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.

SHUSTER: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.

The mind-blowing inanity of this conversation can't properly be appreciated through the transcript. When Matthews said "No" in response to Shuster's revelation that Obama ordered orange juice in a diner, he sounded as though he had just been told that Obama had punched a nun in the face. Watch for yourself.

When CNN's Candy Crowley suggested after the 2004 election that John Kerry's attempt to order green tea in an Iowa restaurant showed a "disconnect" between the presidential candidate and "most of America," it seemed unlikely that we would see a sillier attempt to find meaning in a candidate's beverage choice. Not only was Crowley taking the elitist attitude that simple Iowans couldn't possibly be familiar with green tea, she was also wrong. The Kmart in Dubuque, Iowa, stocked Lipton's green tea.

But last night's exchange between Matthews and Shuster was far worse. Offered coffee, Barack Obama asked for orange juice instead. And Chris Matthews and David Shuster pounced, aghast that he would dare do such a thing as ask for orange juice. A preference for orange juice was supposed to demonstrate that Obama is out of touch with "regular" people. (For what it's worth, neither Matthews nor Shuster so much as hinted that a single, actual voter who was in that diner was put off by Obama's interest in orange juice. But Matthews and Shuster were upset enough for everyone.)

MSNBC runs commercials for itself in which Tim Russert solemnly explains why MSNBC covers politics: "It's about the war. Our sons and daughters. It's about the economy. Our jobs. It's about education. Our schools. It's about health care. Our families' well-being. It's about everything that matters."

MSNBC doesn't run any ads that claim that what really matters is whether the candidates choose to drink coffee or orange juice. But that's what the cable channel's brightest stars (Matthews is reportedly paid $5 million a year for this nonsense) chose to spend their time discussing last night.

Orange juice -- and bowling.

Immediately after his exchange with Shuster, Matthews hosted Obama supporter Sen. Bob Casey. Here's the very first question Matthews asked this United States Senator:

MATTHEWS: Isn't that interesting, Senator Casey, that Barack Obama, your candidate, can walk before 15,000 people with complete calm and assurance, but he seems a little out of place in A) a bowling alley and B) a diner? What is the problem with your guy?

Obama ordered orange juice in a diner and isn't a very good bowler -- and based on these facts, which can only aspire to qualify as trivia, Chris Matthews demanded to know "[w]hat is the problem with your guy?"

Matthews has been positively obsessed with Obama's lack of bowling skills. He talked about it on Hardball on March 31 -- in two separate segments -- and announced, "[T]his gets very ethnic, but the fact that he's good at basketball doesn't surprise anybody, but the fact that he's that terrible at bowling does make you wonder." And again on April 1 -- this time bringing it up in three separate segments and opening his interview with Obama supporter Sen. Claire McCaskill: "[D]id you advise Obama to go out and try to bowl the other day?" On April 2, Matthews interviewed Obama himself -- and his very first question was about the presidential candidate's bowling. On April 8, Matthews said, "I'm actually surprised by the fact that neither Barack or Hillary have bowled much in their lives. Maybe that tells you something about the Democratic Party." He referenced Obama's bowling again on April 9.

A profile by Mark Leibovich in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine suggests that Matthews thinks his other television show -- The Chris Matthews Show airs on Sundays -- disproves the notion that he isn't serious. Leibovich writes:

When I asked Matthews about the bloviator stigma, he dismissed it as jealousy or at the very least ignorance among those who don't know him or who don't regularly watch his Sunday show or who have not read his books or who are not aware that he is a student of history and film or that he is on the board of trustees of the Churchill Center or that he has received -- did he mention? -- 19 honorary degrees.

Leibovich also quotes the executive producer of The Chris Matthews Show describing that program's audience as "smart people who want smart analysis."

But even on a show that purports to offer "smart analysis," Matthews can't resist focusing on Obama's inability to bowl well; he included a segment on the topic in last week's broadcast.

These discussions of bowling and beverages may be stupid, but they aren't pointless. They are part of a broader pattern of media portraying prominent progressives as elitists.

Matthews routinely asks if Obama can "connect with regular people." Apparently, all those people who have been voting for Obama are irregular. And, just so you don't have to wonder exactly who it is Chris Matthews considers irregular, he spelled it out for you, continuing: "Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?"

New York Times columnist Gail Collins said Obama "can be disturbingly Ivy League." Candy Crowley, doubling down on her green tea comments, refers to Obama supporters as "latte liberals." The Chicago Tribune refers to Obama supporters as "wine-track" voters and chides the senator for referencing arugula while in Iowa. Obama's arugula reference drew a barrage of (inane) media criticism, with Glenn Beck falsely claiming "arugula is not even grown in the state." In fact, it is -- and it is readily available in Iowa supermarkets, too. Apparently they even having indoor plumbing in much of the state, despite what Candy Crowley and Glenn Beck seem to think. Even George Will got in on the act, mocking Obama for mentioning arugula to Iowans. Yes, George Will wants you to think Barack Obama is an out-of-touch elite.

And, of course (according to the media) John Edwards' big house and expensive haircut showed that he was out of touch with "regular people," as did John Kerry's windsurfing and Al Gore's childhood attendance of a private school and his decision to occasionally wear brown clothing.

Most people who are no longer in middle school understand that it isn't a great idea to judge people based on things like their haircuts, their wardrobe choices, or what beverage they drink. Most people understand that we shouldn't choose a president based on these things. Most people -- but not political journalists.

Most people understand that in a time of war, with the nation teetering on the edge of recession (if one hasn't already started), and the housing market collapsing, and an administration that views the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and the Bill of Rights as optional, assessing candidates based on who would be the most fun to have a beer with is not the way out of this mess; it's the way we got into it in the first place. Most people -- but not political journalists.

Which isn't to say that there is nothing candidates can do to avoid having reporters relentlessly mock them as out-of-touch elitists: They can run for office as Republicans.

George W. Bush and Al Gore were both sons of successful politicians, both attended private schools and Ivy League colleges, but only one was portrayed by the media as an out-of-touch elite; the other was a "regular guy." Bush owns $13,000 worth of bicycles -- a fact that never seemed to come up when the media were portraying John Kerry's windsurfing as the pastime of the wealthy. Kerry was skewered for ordering a cheesesteak with Swiss cheese -- and when Bush lied about ordering his with Cheez Whiz, the news media politely stayed silent. John Edwards' expensive haircut was endlessly portrayed by the media as evidence that he was an out-of-touch elitist dandy --but how often have you seen a reporter mention that George W. Bush handpicks the cloth for his $2,000 suits?

During the height of the media frenzy over Edwards' haircut, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd made fun of him for visiting "the Pink Sapphire spa in Manchester, which offers services for men that include the 'Touch of Youth' facial, as well as trips 'into the intriguing world of makeup.' " But, as Bob Somerby pointed out, John McCain has also taken a trip "into the intriguing world of makeup" at the Pink Sapphire. Somehow, Dowd forgot to include that in her column -- and the rest of the media (except for the New Hampshire Union Leader) forgot as well. (A Nexis search for "John Edwards AND Pink Sapphire" returns 71 hits. One news report available on Nexis mentions McCain's visit to the salon. One.)

Last year, CNN's Wolf Blitzer called Hillary Clinton a "flip-flopper" because she sometimes drinks her coffee black, and sometimes with cream. The very same Associated Press article from which Blitzer learned this completely irrelevant fact also reported that Rudy Giuliani drinks his coffee with "Sweet'n Low or Equal, whichever is available," and that John McCain likes "[c]appuccino or coffee with cream and sugar." Blitzer saw no troubling insecurity in Giuliani's or McCain's preferences (and, to be clear: He shouldn't have. Just as he shouldn't have branded Clinton a flip-flopper because she sometimes puts cream in her coffee and sometimes does not).

And that same AP article also reported that Mitt Romney doesn't drink coffee at all -- but "has been known to have hot chocolate." Try to imagine how Chris Matthews would react if he found out that Barack Obama doesn't drink coffee -- and that, instead, he drinks hot cocoa.

Now imagine how Chris Matthews would react if Obama didn't drink coffee -- and was as rich as Mitt Romney is.

Remember when Obama supporters were telling us we couldn't nominate Clinton because the media would bash her for stupid stuff? And, as Susie points out, he's not helping himself a lot lately, but that's no excuse for the media to act like assholes.

Yet Again, Come, Come

Thorn explains in fourteen short words the true goal of the Craft of the Wise:

Showing up to my life with as much attention as is within my capacity.

Minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day, that's the challenge. It's just incredibly easy to say, but then we wake up late and get on a crowded metro car and get an e-mail that enrages us, worry about having enough time, get bored on a long call, and . . . .

And, of course, that's the challenge. To live with attention in those circumstances, the ones, in Adrienne Rich's words, already sounding as we're born.

And of course, there's only one thing to do and, of course, Rumi told us what it is:

Come, come whoever you are.
Wanderer, idolater, lover of leaving,
Come even though you have broken your vows a thousand times.
Come, yet again, come, come.
Ours is not a caravan of despair.

Art found here.