Watching John McCain explain his 1983 "no" vote on a federal holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is like watching an episode of Cops! where a drunk tries to talk his way out of a sobriety test. There’s enough in this YouTube clip to diary about for a week, but let's look at three of the Senator’s explanations, all of which fall flat: 1) He didn’t understand "the issue" or appreciate King’s contribution, 2) the holiday wasn’t "an issue" in his home state of Arizona, and 3) he had to work against a governor from his own party. I'm not holding my breath, but it’d be nice if someone in the press asked him to clarify these three responses. To put McCain's comments in context, over the jump I'll begin with a brief chronology:

A diary last night by Zwoof and a recommended diary this morning by Muzikal203 both correctly mention that John McCain is playing fast and loose with history, when it comes to his voting record concerning the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. I was somewhat involved in social and political matters here in Arizona in the 80s and 90s, and I participated in the state’s effort to establish an MLK Day, so I'd like to offer my own view of this slice of Arizona history - providing some context for McCain’s recent misstatements, waffles, historical distortions, and other "straight talk." My memory might be a little rusty, but I don't think it's half as bad as our Senator's. If anyone else can fill in the gaps, please do so. (My McCain quotes below are taken from the videos in the two diaries just mentioned.)

I guess if his opponents can compare Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet who lost an arm and two legs in battle, to Osama bin Laden, and succeed with that filth, then we should know what’s coming. I guess if his opponents can say that one of their own party, John McCain, fathered a black baby out of wedlock, and succeed with that filth, then we should know what’s coming. I guess if his opponents can disparage another military hero, John Kerry, for his service during a war when their own candidate was who-knows-where snorting who-knows-what, and succeed with that filth, then we should know what’s coming.

Ever seen those late-night infomercials where there’s a skit between the lady who needs her floors/kitchen/clothes/whatever cleaned, and the know-it-all guy who’s got the perfect product to help her? Of course there’s a paid audience too, who “wow!” and smile and applaud at just the right moments, as if the dang thing isn’t completely scripted. Well, I’m watching the Congressional version right now on CSPAN, as Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R-MN) and Congressman Robert Latta (R-OH) are acting out their infomercial to persuade us to drill in ANWR.

General Clark’s comments about John McCain’s judgment raised a question I’ve had for a while – one I’ve never heard asked of the Senator. So I’ll ask it here. Clark of course said that McCain’s military service, as a fighter pilot and POW, does not necessarily qualify him or anyone to be president, a view I support. As a veteran of the same conflict that shaped McCain's career, I agree that military experience might reveal something about one’s character and skills, but it does not, by itself, prepare one to hold any elected office, not to mention President. Military service also does not mean that one possesses sound judgment, and we need look no further than some of John McCain's views for proof of that.

A number of diaries have been posted recently that raise the possibility of bombing Iran. Earlier today EmperorHadrian had a diary on the rec list about this question. When these diaries appear, the comments range from “No he won’t, you’re crazy,” to “We’ve heard this for months, shut up,” to “I wouldn’t put it past him,” and varying points of view in between. Other comments dissect the political intricacies, such as whether Israel is behind this, how it might affect the November election, or if it would start WWIII. Still others debate the constitutionality of attacking Iran – does Bush, in fact, have the authority, or where would Congress and the American people stand on the issue?

We were discussing this recently at a dinner party, and while we agreed the international and geopolitical debate is informative and invigorating, it's not a stage we play on or can affect much. For many of us the first and perhaps only thing we control is our own actions. However, most comments here that raise the personal, as opposed to political, consequences of attacking Iran say something like, “I don’t even want to think about it.”

John McCain thinks he can buy your vote for a dollar. That’s what his proposal to award $300 million to the person or company that invents a superior car battery amounts to.

John McCain is hoping to solve the country's energy crisis with cold hard cash. The presumed Republican nominee on Monday proposed a $300 million government prize to whoever can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology. The bounty would equate to $1 for every man, woman and child in the country, "a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency," McCain said at Fresno State University. AP

NOTE: Earlier Keith Pickering and westsidegirlygirl diaried this story, and Olbermann featured it tonight. I know little about the technology that may make this project feasible, which was mentioned a lot in the other diaries, so I don't discuss that. Most readers here don't need to be reminded of the hollowness of McCain's environmental claims, but the audacity and emptiness of this gimmick calls for comment.

When John Edwards realized his vote to authorize war with Iraq was a mistake, he said so. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, for years refused to say “I was wrong” or “My vote was a mistake.” For the longest time, when asked if she would still have voted for the authorization, even knowing what she knew well after the vote, she said yes. It was too difficult to say no and appear to have been wrong. She did not say what she knew to be true, that her vote was a mistake. That is all she really ever had to say to draw me to her side.

As if all the Pennsylvania news wasn’t enough, I stumbled onto this story about a student, whose family may sue their daughter's high school history teacher. They seem bitter. I’ll update as the story develops. <snark alert>

As the Bush folly slithers toward its slimy end, as McCain stumbles deeper into the politics of amnesia, as ABC covers another breaking story about lapel pins … here’s a little interlude, in this late-night lull before the PA primary news kicks in, to remember a departed but not forgotten voice.

“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”

Today (for you west coasties) was the 60th anniversary of the passing of ecologist Aldo Leopold, who died April 21, 1948 of a heart attack while fighting a fire on a neighbor’s Wisconsin farm. Beyond his connection to the many excellent eco-diaries posted on DailyKos, Leopold’s voice remains relevant in other ways.

"Sometimes I think that ideas, like men, can become dictators... I doubt if there exists today a more complete regimentation of the human mind than that accomplished by our self-imposed doctrine of ruthless utilitarianism. The saving grace of democracy is that we fastened this yoke on our own necks, and we can cast if off when we want to, without severing the neck."

Splashed across the front page of Sunday’s Arizona Republic, the state’s largest newspaper, is a color photo of Senator John McCain, with the bold headline: “Convictions and Contradictions.” Now, the conservative mouthpiece has a long history of political king-making and shilling for Republican candidates, so it comes as no surprise they’d do a puff piece of their favorite son. But with a headline like “Convictions and Contradictions,” you’d think they might spend some time on that second word. I was soon disabused of any such notion.

Abbott: Well Costello, I'm going to Washington, DC with you. You know the President gave me a job as a constitutional strategist for as long as you’re working with the NSA to fight terrorism.
Costello: Look Abbott, if you're a White House strategist, you must know all the cabinet members and other staff.
Abbott: I certainly do.
Costello: Well, you know I’ve never met the guys. So you’ll have to tell me their names, and then I’ll know who can help me get around FISA, the other courts, the Constitution, and that pesky public.
Abbott: Oh, I’ll tell you their names, but you know it seems to me they give these politicians and staffers now-a-days very peculiar names.
Costello: You mean funny names?
Abbott: Strange names, pet names...like Decider.
Costello: You mean Ima?
Abbott: Yep, Ima Decider. Well, let’s see who else we have in the administration: Yoo’s legal counsel, Watt's in Interior, and I Don’t Recall the Attorney General.

Those who teach literature have more than enough ammunition these days to make the classics “relevant.” The other night when discussing Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” I didn’t have to alert anyone to the contemporary application of Henry’s words when we came to this early passage:

The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

Of course the rest of that essay rings alarmingly true today, and other literary references abound in daily conversation. Critics often speak of the Orwellian nature of BushCo’s language, whether it’s the “Healthy Forests” initiative or the way Iraqi deaths are counted (or not counted). Huxley’s Brave New World and Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale are invoked to described NSA scandals and other Big Brother abuses. Stories that seemed outrageous during our college years have become reality. A few on the flip, please add others:

Tonight on PBS's NOW program, host David Brancaccio surveyed several of the campaign public funding initiatives around the nation, including Arizona's "Clean Elections." (Watch a 6-minute segment here.) The state's current governor, Janet Napolitano, is the only sitting state executive who ran using public financing. In Arizona, that means the candidate cannot accept donations of more than $5, then a formula kicks in that provides public dollars, which hypothetically gives everyone the same amount to spend on campaigns - and keeps "big money" out of elections.

The movement has certainly resulted in strange bedfellows. On NOW, both Republicans and Democrats spoke in favor of and against public financing. Brancaccio pointed out, for instance, that in Arizona Republicans gained more legislative seats using Clean Elections, a strategy that many people initially saw as a Trojan Horse for progressives.

I just watched five (5!) campaign ads in a row on television - same station, one after another. And we still have more than three weeks to go. Oh god. None of these ads provides any substance that will help the average citizen understand where the respective candidate stands on a single issue. If "positive," the ads are mushy and meaningless. But most are negative attack ads; and all of them stretch or at least blur the truth. Fear is the dominant selling point - the "bad guy" is always portrayed in grainy, black-and-white, slow motion. Booo!

We prohibit cigarette advertising from the airwaves because smoking is bad for one's health. I wonder if it's time to think seriously about restricting political advertising from television and radio - because what we have now is equally unhealthy for democracy.

Last week I diaried about a Jon Kyl commercial (R-AZ), where the Senator tries to distance himself from Bush (and his own record) by stating he's a strong advocate for Social Security. He also reminds us he didn't support W's energy plan because it's "good for oil companies but a lousy deal for the public." It should come as no surprise, as I documented by highlighting his record, that he's consistently voted against Social Security and for Big Oil. Historically, Kyl is rated about as low as you can get by senior watchdog groups, and about as high as you can get by energy interests.

He's at it again. You can check his recent ad here, but the eye-opener transcript follows the flip.

You know the commercial, the one where a brash announcer, edgy cartoon graphics, and in-your-face Wagnerian horns tell you to "come on down" and get a new car for no money down and only one-ninety-nine a month. There's like a page of text at the bottom of the screen; it's too small to read and stays on only briefly, but you know what it says. It's saying there's no friggin' way you can buy that snazzy car for nothing down and $199 a month.

We all know the ad lies. Go down to the dealership and there'd be "delivery charges," "upgrades," "service fees," and other additions that would require a down payment (they'd call it a "dealer deposit" or something), and the $199, with all the franchise's tack-ons, taxes, and financing schemes, would be closer to $299. This isn't the Letterman-like irony we came of age in. Many of today's ads are just plain lies - from benign ones that we accept and largely ignore, to dangerous ones that potentially undermine democracy.

Yesterday deano's post about Ben & Jerry's alleged mistreatment of animals, specifically chickens, yielded an interesting and, at times, combative thread about the use and abuse of animals for food, clothing, and other human necessities. A few of the comments were along the lines of "They're just chickens, get over it," while others challenged the hypocrisy of animal defenders with questions like, "Don't you wear leather?"

I'm going to sidestep the issue of B&J's corporate social responsibilities, because I don't know the company's history since it was purchased, but I want to go to the heart of the comments. We're supposedly "liberals," in the historic sense of that word. So in the spirit of Rawlsian liberalism, which is at root the story of extending rights to the oppressed, and giving voice to the voiceless, I want to try to put our chicken discussion in context - specifically a historical, ethical, and jurisprudential framework.