Bush, Bush Go Away

Another State Press article: It was my second one. I recall it being pretty solid until the paper printed it, at which point it lost some luster after unnecessary (and somewhat puzzling) edits and cuts. But whatever. It was still pretty good after that. I suppose one should bear in mind that it was run just a few days after Obama's inauguration.

If you’ve been paying attention to the opinion pages of some of the popular (i.e. larger) newspapers during the week preceding the inauguration and the days that have followed, something will have been painfully clear: we, as a nation, want to forget George W. Bush and just get the hell on to the next guy.

The popular (i.e. larger) newspapers I’ve been perusing (which I’ll name so you can laugh at me for thinking they were/are worthy of reading) are The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post. Excluded from the latter group’s susceptibility to derision, of course, is The State Press.

A statistical analysis (one I won’t bore you with) shows that the opinion columnists are more concerned with what Obama should do than with showing Bush the door; or with ruminating nostalgically on inaugurations; or prognosticating. Or pretty much anything other than Bush.

If we grant that opinion pages tend to follow the American psyche (because opinion columnists are a part of that psyche and are unique in that they operate outside of normal journalistic constraints on bias and neutrality), then this seems to be pandemic throughout the nation.

The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, in “Exit the Boy King,” describes the inauguration crowd watching Bush’s helicopter fly away: “They wanted to make absolutely, positively certain that W. was gone. It was like a physical burden being lifted, like a sigh went up of ‘Thank God.’” She goes on to relate it to the catharsis of Greek drama, the emotional/spiritual release of, well, all that stuff people felt the last eight years, from the opening tip (the 2000 [stolen?] election) to the final buzzer (the crowd chanting “Nah nah…goodbye” at the inauguration).

By all accounts, the nation wants to forget. People are tired of thinking about anything Bush-related and they’re pushing him out entirely. Such categorical defenestration, though, means the national memory is ridding itself of not only Bush mistakes but also Bush successes.

But we shouldn’t forget, we can’t forget. If we do, it’s a disservice to all those who suffered the mistakes of the last eight years. I’m not, though, advocating war crimes tribunals against members of the Bush administration, but merely positing that a sweeping refusal to remember the past is a preemptive condemnation of the future.

A week after the inauguration, it’s easy to use Obama and Optimism to push past the Bush-saga, but the lessons history offers are irreplaceable and free. We need to take what we can get, learn from it, and work to make a better future.

If we push the Bush years away so absolutely, then we’re going to repeat the same follies that made us want to forget in the first place. Scary as it sounds, in four to eight years we might find our National Psyche suffering from another mismanaged presidency, making strong attempts to wipe it away. We can’t allow that to happen.

Read more...

Christian Politics and Social Conservatism

It never ceases to amaze me how adeptly Christian Conservatives are able to internally reconcile their Bible with their voting practices.

Try this one out: the supreme anti-Darwinists are Social Darwinists in practice. Makes sense, right?

They consistently practice and encourage economic institutions and policies that browbeat the poor into situations where they are left to scrape through life on their own, and then come right back and argue that evolution and survival of the fittest is all a load of crap. Christian Conservatives are, without a doubt, one of history's great group of ironists.

Matthew must not have been their favorite chapter. In 25, Jesus reprimands those who failed to see him in the poor and downtrodden, who failed to give him food and clothing because he was dressed as a beggar: "I was hungry, and ye fed me not." He says later "Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels." Fire and brimstone, the favorite imagery of pastors, cast back upon them.

Or Luke 18:22: a ruler asks Jesus how he might come to know heaven and God, and Jesus responds: "Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor." This notion seems a far cry from megachurches, inequality, and laissez-faire economics.

So how is it that the original anti-Darwinists came to sustain such dangerous Social Darwinism? Well, it was through a combination of ignorance, evil, and an utter lack of dedication to their book. I suppose it's nothing new, though, considering history.

Think, though, for a moment about the lack of credibility the Christian right maintains because of this. Or, at least the lack of credibility they should maintain. Sadly, even fewer non-Christians know the words that Jesus said, and that's impressive considering the number of Christians who are vastly ignorant of their own creed. How does this world, this nation, this community of peoples allow such absurdity to sustain itself? Here is a group of people hellbent (literally) on defying egalitarian principles and their own book, and yet they proclaim to be the children of God, the ones who preach and spread his gospel. Again, the great ironists of history are here before us, in our own backyard, peddling their contradictions and heresies.

It's this kind of bullshit that infuriates me to the point of non-lucidity. My friends are familiar with this stage, when I slip into a passionate state of anger during which I'm unable to do much of anything we might call rational. But sometimes irrational behavior (violence?) is necessary to overcome irrational and despotic institutions like the Christian right.

Read more...

As the Rod Turns...Andrew will like this post

Well, if anything else, I have to admire Rod Blagojevich: he's an incredible politician. If I was totally ignorant of those tapes the FBI or whoever had, I would think he was a beautiful person with a mind for good things for the people of Illinois. He's smart. He has a photographic memory. The latter allows him to prepare a ten minute speech and memorize it in less time than it would take to present. That's awesome.

The Illinois State Legislature - the House specifically - impeached him today. So Rod comes out swinging in a press conference. He framed the impeachment proceedings from the House as being the product of antagonism against his policies and bills, which, of course, he talked about and lauded as great stuff for the little people who reelected him. And that last part, the reelection, he emphasized in order to grace himself more fully as a martyr of the people. God, this guy is good.

He talked about healthcare, mostly, and he had a number of regular citizens, most of them diseased, old, or both, standing/sitting next to him to emphasize the point. I have to say, the points he made about healthcare (he also emphasized his involvement with a bill that granted citizens better access to medication across the Canadian border, which has been replicated in other states since its inception in Illinois) were pretty astute, and, as I said before, in a vacuum, they would be great advancements.

By framing his impeachment as an "us vs. them" situation, with the "good ole' boys" from Springfield (who are probably white) standing against the People (who will be seen as black) and their standard-bearer, the star-crossed governor, he has managed to turn the event away from FBI tapes and senate seats, which is an accomplishment, seriously. Of course, he's only turned the event in the minds of Illinois citizens. Politicians, commentators, and analysts haven't changed a bit, but if he gets the hearts and minds of the Illinois citizenry, he's won himself a ticket out of impeachment.

The penultimate paragraph in his speech implored the very House that impeached him to hurry up and approve a bill the Senate passed two months ago that would, in Rod's words, keep Illinois families in their homes. He spoke about this for a minute, but it didn't matter, the damage was already done: he'd just called out, legitimately, the people who are caught up in lynching him - AND they're alone in their embarrassment because the Senate already passed the bill! The people of Illinois are waiting for the House to hurry up and help them. This all plays perfectly into the anti-House fervor he's hoping to whip up among the people of Illinois. This is beautiful stuff, and we should all step back and admire it...and then sink our teeth into morality and truth and what not. But just sit back for a minute and admire a situation that is being handled better than even Clinton could have managed. This guy is great. I'm supposed to hate him, but I can't get enough - he's so quick!

The ultimate paragraph, and possibly my favorite, was a quotation from Tennyson - about the fourth or fifth British poet he's cited in speeches defending his credibility in the past few weeks. The passage talked about living life and not yielding to the external (and implicitly evil) pressure from others. In other words, it was a beautiful passage that illustrated perfectly the situation he's trying to describe. And each of his British quotations have been as illustrative. And this guy knows he's ridiculous! Honestly, I'm starting to admire this guy a lot more than I should. But I can't help it: genius is inspiring and beautiful, even if it's implemented for less than benevolent purposes.

Even if this guy is impeached, we need to find something for him to do, because he's incredibly sharp, flexible, fox-like, and smart. It would be a waste of human talent to not have him operate as a CIA analyst or something. This guy's too good to go to jail.

Read more...

Let the 111th Congress Begin!

Every newspaper had an article about the opening of the new Congress today, which is fine. Aside from the drama concerning the Senate appointee from Illinois to fill Obama's old seat (the Democrats won't seat him; they say he's not cool enough) and former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman deciding he won his senate race when the vote recount said otherwise (Al Franken beat him by 225 votes), a bunch of nominal figures presided over the opening ceremony, and the New York Times captured it perfectly on the front page:


Doesn't this sum up American politics for the last 250 years? Four old white men, smiling vaguely, wearing similar suits? Certainly the trend is changing with all kinds of "exotic foreigners" being elected to office, least of all the presidency (the Founding Fathers would shit themselves if they heard), but these four guys are trying to hang on until the end. Dick Cheney is on the left and Joe Bieden is in the middle, but the other two guys look like carbon copies of the people standing to their right. The dude on the far right looks like Joe Bieden's older brother and the other one looks like Dick Cheney with more hair. All four seem like they were attempting the "Ben Franklin" look at some point in their lives. Weird.

But seriously, how awesomely absurd. This is the picture the Times ran. Is that a sign? Do they want a peaceful return to the Good Old Boys Club? Maybe. And maybe they didn't think that some stupid kid from Arizona would take this perspective on their picture.

Read more...

The Morality of International Democritization

International Democritization is not a new concept. The idea that a nation would try to apply its own "successful" governing principles to other parts of the world, promoting its own system above all others, is an activity every empire has found the need to implement. That the United States, another, newer empire, is doing the same, and plausibly seeking to do it elsewhere, is no surprise. The question, though, is whether international democritization, in the case of the United States (it was international autocratization for Alexander the Great and Caesar), is a good thing and, separately, something the nation should be actively seeking.

At the outset of any discussion surrounding this question is the obvious observation that it is contradictory and ironic for a democratic nation to force "freedom" onto foreign subjects. This notion has to at least be considered, because it underwrites the entire operation. International democritization aims to spread freedom and democracy to the world, yet it often manifests itself as a large and powerful country forcing a small and weak country into a political system with which it is probably unfamiliar. There is a swath of rhetoric directed towards letting the people of the country in question determine their fate, their government, but their options are limitated to which kind of democracy they are allowed to have. If the people in Iraq, for instance, voted overwhelmingly to be represented by a monorchial authoritarian government, I have a sneaking suspicious the United States, and the international community at large, would veto any such measure.

Once we manuever past this uncomfortable realization, we are confronted with the question of whether a country should do it in the first place. From a security perspective, it might be rational to consider toppling unpleasant regimes, so as to further guarantee the safety of a country's citizens, but then is it rational to impose the same style of government onto that subject country as the host's own? Maybe it is the thought of a victorious country that since it is, in fact, victorious, its political system is right and better, so to use another would be wrong. Whatever the reasoning, it needs to be reexamined and, at the least, reconsidered broadly.

But is it a good thing at all to trample in someone else's business? From a moral standpoint, it would seem we are all culpable in making the decision to stop abuse, death, and murder by any tyrant, anywhere in the world. The Rwandan genocide, for example, appears as a black stain on the international community, and the lack of involvment combined with the veritable flood of verifiable evidence supporting the genocide's existence would seem to argue that the United Nations is an awful piece of shit and its respective members are all total and complete assholes. But on the other hand, where does one draw the line? Is it then the responsibility of the international community to topple every abusive regime the world over? Here arises the issue of absolute morality and whether a community can even agree on what morality is in order to defend it. If a group of nations cannot decide what counts as abuse, then how can they mount a unified front against it? And so we are left with the sinking feeling of impotence, of inaction and inability, of confusion.

What are the problems, then, of international democritization? Well, for starters, the nation builder must understand the history of the region. The United States, to the contrary, has failed, repeatedly, to do their homework when they have set out to spread freedom to the world. They have been constantly and unerringly ignorant of the focus country's demographics, culture, and political tendencies, which causes all manner of havoc when the conflict ends and nation building commences. Was there a plan to rebuild Iraq after toppling Saddam? "No," admitted Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. Was there a plan to rebuild Vietnam? No, but we never got a chance to botch that one. And the same goes for Korea, as well, or Guatemala, or Panama, or Guam, or the Philippines, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua, and so on. The United States has seen fit to topple and remove dozens of regimes over the past 150 years, but has seemed ill-prepared each time to successfully install a new, functioning government. It seems to me they eventually recognized this weakness, because they began letting indiginous warlords and generals institute dictatorial governments in the aftermath as long as they swore semi-allegiance to the United States, or at least agreed not to give in to Soviet advances.

What stresses the mind when considering democritization are the complexities of the activity. A country must be aware of indiginous populations, cultures, languages, and tendencies; they must understand that it is a long and arduous process that requires a substantial amount of time and money, and possibly military occupation; they must submit to the realization that their government might not be the best government; and they must recognize that the activity, as a whole, is going to become uncomfortable and negatively viewed by the host country's electorate. The decisions required are going to be mesmerizingly difficult, and producing a system of answers that is free of contradictions and problems will be all but impossible.

So what is a country to do? I do not know, and I do not think we will ever produce a sufficiently qualified answer. The complex nature of the issue and task is so overwhelming at times that considering all the variables consistently is super-diffcult, if not impossible, which lends credence to the reservation that an answer is not possible. It is particularly saddening, disheartening, that the issue is so complex as to be inpenetrable: how is a country to operate, then? Is it to base its international policy on the whims of whichever leader is currently holding court? Is it to ascribe to some doctrine of action beforehand and merely institute fitting aims in the future? Or is it to struggle, obviously, with the pain of incomprehensibility, the anguish of its inability to divine the correct course?

Probably the first and second, but hopefully the third.

Read more...

Thoughts and Things About Tolerance and Stuff

(Due to the stream of consciousness nature of this post, I’ve left it unedited. So ideas and things that don’t make sense and that don’t fit together are probably side by side. But it’s how I was thinking at the moment. So the second idea might supersede the first, though I may not have made that clear. Have fun, kids.)

There’s a prevailing idea that we should be tolerant of other people’s beliefs and ideas. There’s another idea that says that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I’ve been wondering lately if maybe both of these statements are incorrect, or at least misguided. Of course, these are just thoughts and do not necessarily reflect any definitive position on my part. I have to include that statement, otherwise I’ll be quoted as believing something I might not believe. These are thoughts, wanderings, musings, and should be treated as such. If I solidify my position on anything that follows, I’ll be sure to send out postcards letting everyone know. (har har)

It’s usually assumed that we should be tolerant of what other people think and that we should be tolerant of someone else’s opinion, even if we think it sucks. But I’ve been thinking about racism and discrimination: should we tolerate racist beliefs? Should we allow someone to perpetually hold that one group of people is inferior to another and thus deserves less attention legislatively (or whatever)? The standard response is to say that they can hold those beliefs but that their practices should be voted down by ‘the people.’ Well, why even let them hold the beliefs? If our society takes a hard stand on certain issues, such as racism, then why should we ‘let’ people hold beliefs that go against those positions? I think we can agree that the Civil Rights Act of ’64 and the Voting Rights Act of ’65 will not and should not be overturned, so why should be let people think differently? Shouldn’t they be punished or ostracized?

What is the difference between being a racist and institutionalizing racism? The difference, it seems, is the scale of effect. In the first instance, only those in the immediate vicinity are affected, but in the second, whole towns, cities, and states are affected. So should we discriminate between objects of which we are tolerant? We are being legislatively intolerant but socially tolerant. If we are going to be intolerant of legislative discrimination, shouldn’t we be intolerant of social discrimination? It seems a person should be penalized when they act in a racist manner.

I’m really not sure on any of this. The original thought stems from an ongoing discussion I’ve been having with my brother about a friend of his. The general discussion concerns marriage (whoa!) and his friend voting for Proposition 102. Jon and I have been trying to rationalize why he voted for the proposition, and other things, and we came to a place where I started thinking about being tolerant of thoughts but not laws.

This friend of Jon’s voted for Prop 102 for a number of reasons. One reason was that a school in Massachusetts apparently sent home a “diversity backpack” that included a number of children’s books that were meant to introduce children to different races, different cultures, and different ‘lifestyles’ (one book involved a child’s life growing up two fathers). Jon’s friend was afraid that if Prop 102 passed, his child might be introduced to things he either a) didn’t want his son to know about or b) he wanted to first teach his child about.

I can see his reaction, to an extent. I suppose it would seem natural to want to teach my child about something like homosexuality, sex, and so on. But then I started thinking: why? Why should I feel the need to be the first to let my kid know about vaginas, black people, and men kissing men? If I feel the schools are doing an adequate (for argument’s sake) job of teaching my kid history, math, and so on, why should I do the job myself on other issues? But this is an issue I’m not entirely certain on, so I’ll let it go.

Another thing is that I think our schools need to teach tolerance, aggressively. A lot of parents don’t want their children to know about this or that and so they fight the school until they school drops the issue. And then their children grow up hating non-whites, Jews, gays, and so on. Why should be let this continue in our society? It only seems natural that people grow up and start voting down equality if no one is educating them properly.

So why should we let Johnny Smith go through school without learning tolerance for other cultures, other ideas, other lifestyles? I think Jon’s friend’s kid should be taught these things in school, otherwise, he’s a longshot to grow up tolerant and egalitarian-minded. He’ll grow up just like his dad, voting away the rights of his fellow humans.

The other focal reason as to why his friend voted for Prop 102 was that he himself didn’t believe in homosexuality or marriages between them, and he didn’t want his kid to believe so either. It stems from his belief in the Mormon Church; he is, as is the lingo nowadays, LDS. This is what brought me to this notion of social tolerance of what our laws deem to be bad ideas. I think this man is very backwards in this thinking and that his judgment is clouded. Moreover, his beliefs appear irrational to me. But the standard operating procedure is to be tolerant socially and then vote down his ideas in the legislative arena.

I find a problem with this, however. To me, the issue of marriage and homosexuality is one of equality, and if ‘the people’ don’t vote ‘correctly,’ then inequality is being encouraged and augmented in an apparently free state. So what happens here? What happens when a majority of the electorate thinks along non-egalitarian lines? Can we have a society that works on equality? I think not. And so that’s where I get this idea of being socially intolerant of bad ideas.

This, of course, brings up the issue of what’s bad/good/etc. and whether or not each person should be entitled to live in an area that fits his belief system. That’s all nice and everything, but I sure as hell ain’t moving so some discriminatory Mormon can have all the land. But then again, why should he move? And there’s the problem: who moves? Who leaves and forms a separate state? I think he’s an idiot, he thinks I’m a sinner: and who’s right?

Well, obviously, I am.

This has been a lot of rambling and wandering. Somewhere in there I may have formed a loose connective of rational thought. If that’s the case, awesome. If not, have fun trying to fit something together.

Read more...

Funny and Hillary-tastic

A classic, a real gem.

At 1:22, I wet my pants.

Read more...

Dr. Sir Charles Barkley, PhD (and DPhil, MPhil, and J.D.)

Go here.

I've said it before, and I'll be saying it for years, so I might as well say it now, too: Charles Barkley, in spite of his awful speech mannerisms, is a very intelligent person. When you actually hear the ideas behind the broken speech patterns, whether he's discussing Dirk Nowitzki's ability to knock down the outside jumper or the issue of racism in this country, you have to respect him, have to acknowledge he knows what he's talking about.

I've heard Charles give interviews on CNN and Fox a few times, and he just recently sat down for a longer interview with CNN a few days ago, and that link up there is the transcript. I encourage people to read it and get through his disjointed sentences so you can see that this man is very smart. And not only is he smart, but he isn't afraid (and never has been) of saying the right thing,t he direct thing.

For instance, whenever he has the opportunity, he encourages black people to "stop killing each other, get an education, and don't make fun of people who are trying to get an education" (para.). And he further recognizes and points out that the main issue in this country (and the world, he seems to think) is the conflict between rich and poor. It's cliche, old, and most people hate to hear it, but it's true: we can never get away from rich against poor, haves against have nots. And Charles sees this, understands it, and wants to combat it. He even lays out the role the president should play in America, the way it "ought" to be, according to Dr. Sir Charley Barkely, PhD.

I guess I just can't get over how smart he is, considering he's the same person who read the words "I am a dumbass" on a teleprompter when the boys at TNT pranked him. He was so into his reading he read the line right off, realized his mistake, and cracked up laughing.

And remember, kids: Charles is NOT a role model (cue mid-90's music).

Read more...

John McCain's Struggle

Have you ever noticed how John McCain seems like he has lost his soul? As in, literally lost that possibly existent thing we all talk about as holding those intrinsic and specific ideals that make us unique? The John McCain of 2000 (or hell, 2005) was strikingly different than the John McCain of 2007 and beyond – but we all know that, it is old news. But have you ever looked at the man?

There are telling moments when he seems physically pained; it is almost as if his mind is tearing itself apart. He has turned against so many things he strongly believed in before (or at least strongly supported) and it is as if his entire person has not acclimated yet to the new approach. You can tell, after watching enough videos, that his perpetual and giant smile is forced. He has a normal smile, as do all people, but the politician smile he never acquired until recently. Usually, John McCain, when not speaking, will have a solemn, pensive look on his face; I have seen it dozens of times. Now, however, when he is not speaking, he wears this large, overly extroverted smile and after enough viewings, you can see where his face twitches a bit, where his cheek bones struggle to stay as close to his eyes as possible, and where his eyebrows look as if they want to sit down for a bit. Before, he used this smile when speaking, or when laughing, and so on, but now that it is a constant adornment of his façade, it is tiresome, to us and him. This is merely the beginnings of the deconstruction of this man, a simple external feature.

Watch a portion of a speech or a response to a debate question that concerns the Bush tax cuts as well as something else. When speaking about the other issues, he carries himself with a certain air, speaks with a certain confidence and familiarity that you see in people who are sure of themselves, sure of what they are saying, and feel a certain intimacy with it. When McCain begins arguing the positive aspects of a policy that renews the Bush tax cuts, there is a change, sometimes subtle, sometimes very obvious. His sentences flow less smoothly, his sense of intimacy with the subject lessens, and his demeanor seems to shift slightly. Deep down, he is clearly not comfortable with what he is doing and it is tearing him apart.

Watch him give stump speeches at rallies. Watch him stumble through those call and response segments where he gets the crowd fired up and motivated to sustain their fervor through the whole speech. Those little games, those little toys and tricks of political speeches that involve stating a certain position or a fact, listening to the crowd react unfavorably, and then tearing it down to great applause and cheers – they do not sit well with John McCain, who is clearly unsettled every time he has to sustain a broad smile for forty-five minutes while giving some awful speech that is short on details and long on rhetoric (and not good rhetoric, either).

Compare this to Barack Obama, who also favors a different kind of speech-giving, who is more comfortable espousing the ins and outs and ups and downs of policy than the Martin Luther King, Jr. rhetoric that soars above the universe. The difference? Obama does not show his discomfort. In the 90’s, Obama was an awful speech giver; he would drone on and on about policy and laws and the constitution, boring the hell out of his listeners. It was only when he met a guy (whose name I cannot recall from memory) who told him what he was doing it all wrong and encouraged him to educate himself on “the great speech givers” and their techniques. Soon after, Obama began perfecting the rhetoric he is very well known for today and the rest is, as they say (I usually do not say, however), history. Though Obama would rather write an essay for the Harvard Law Review about the inherent vagueness of some constitutional principle, the reasons the Framers wrote it as such, and the positives of such a framing, he foregoes his own longings and gets the job done He feels much better dealing with details, wrapping his mind around the ins and outs of a problem, and working it all over like kneading bread dough. There is a certain pleasure to it, and a rhythm that develops that becomes intoxicating, and I am sure that is one reason Obama finds it so appealing. But no matter how uncomfortable the rhetoric may seem to him, he finds a way to get through it without anyone noticing. McCain, however, has not.

So why is John McCain so opposed to these changes? It seems that he has a very strong loyalty to his principles. Whatever his principles may be, he likes them best and wants to stick with them. And this should come as no surprise and should, after all, seem rather intuitive, for the conservative mind has a stronger tendency to place importance on things like loyalty and tradition. Irrespective of the pros and cons of such a mindset, it is the way it is. A liberal mind, for contrast, is going to tend towards ‘tolerance’ (or what they see as tolerance) and change (or what they see as change). So it is no large surprise that McCain would find such changes as he has been making throughout the campaign to be uncomfortable and unnerving. This also explains why Obama can so easily disguise whatever discomfort he may have in shifting positions to reflect the center on issues or engaging in exorbitant amounts of rhetorical speech at rallies: his mind is naturally more open to change and new ideas, so it is easier to accept certain things to gain ground.

So whether or not I agree with John McCain’s principles, the man has them and he strongly wants to stick to them. But he is also a rambling, gambling man, a straight-shooter who “does what he wants,” so to speak. I honestly think he tends towards maverick-ism because he likes standing out. He did so constantly during his military service; he was considered a brash, young buck of a pilot, sort of a Tom Cruise/Top Gun character. So maybe the reason he originally opposed the Bush tax cuts was because he was still steaming about his demonization in the Republican primaries and wanted to stick it to the President – it would make him a maverick, a standout among the crowd, just what he has always been.

So when he modifies his positions to look like a standard Republican candidate, it must eat his heart up inside. It must feel like some acidic disease is slowly devouring his organs, gradually assimilating destruction to his entire body. His spirit must be crushed every time he repeats a party line, every time he compliments Sarah Palin, and every time he shuts his mouth and lets his advisors do some dirty work.

So watch McCain next time, try to notice the little ticks, the changes in intimacy and familiarity, the constant struggle to sustain that inhuman smile. Watch him and feel his pain, feel his hurt, feel the emptiness in the room as he searches for his soul from among a sea of devils (though he may be one as well). Watch him die on stage, for Pro-America America

Read more...

Discrimination/Inequality

UPDATE: I misread the dates on the articles I read and thought the Palin/money thing happened a week ago and no one had said a word. They came out today, however. Go me.

Remember when John Edwards had that epic haircut that cost 400$? And everyone gave him all kinds of hell? The media crucified him for such an expenditure? Yeah, it was pretty ridic. And you know what? They were probably right to do it. A 400$ haircut is a little absurd. Is there such a striking difference between his haircut and the one my local guy could give me? Hell, all he needed was some scissors and some hairspray - that could have done the same thing. So it was probably pretty stupid to go that crazy. But guess what?

Since Governor Palin was selected as McCain's VP candidate, the RNC has spent 150,000 dollars on clothes, makeup, etc. for her and her family. And guess what?

The media hasn't said A WORD.

What the hell? Reverse discrimination: you pile up the shit on John Edwards, but when a woman does it, nothing? That's real nice, media. Way to go. Here's the official release:

"The political website www.politico.com reported Tuesday night that the Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 for clothes, accessories, cosmetics and hair-styling for Palin and her family since August. According to RNC financial disclosure records, the amount includes a bill of more than $75,000 from Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis in early September, as well as bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York totaling more than $49,000."

And they checked Obama's campaign as well:

"Politico reported that a review of similar records for the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee turned up no spending similar to the amount spent on Palin and her family."

So we're certain this isn't a lie; to further add credibility that they spent such an exorbitant amount, the McCain campaign commented on it, implicitly acknowledging the expenditures:

"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokesperson Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

Did the Republicans use this language and argument when commenting on John Edwards haircut? Nope. Gotta love it.

Read more...

Willaim Kristol? Really? Sigh...

William Kristol, a founding member of Neo-Conservatism (aka Neo-Racism), wrote an article in The New York Times for today, or Monday, or whatever the hell day it is - (I think I read the article when it was Sunday here but Monday back east, but this post might be going up Monday here; got it?) - about Joe the Plumber, among other things. His thesis, it seemed, was to argue that the "common people," the Joe Plumbers et al., have done pretty well for the country. In his own words: "Needless to say, the public’s not always right, and public opinion’s not always responsible. But as publics go, the American public has a pretty good track record."

He cites a few superficially strong examples and concludes his point, thinking he has shown, explicitly, that his thesis holds. Sadly, he fails to address a number of strong examples that run counter to his thesis. But let's look at his "strong" supporting examples. He states that in the 1930's "the American people didn't fall - unlike so many of their supposed intellectual betters - for either fascism or Communism." This is true, to an extent. The American people, as a whole, leaned neither right nor left to the extreme, like so many other populaces around the world. Now, I'm not sure if those other countries were considered our intellectual superiors, but I'll let the matter slide. In fact, I'm willing to grant that this point is strong; let's say it is and move on. Next, he states that since World War II, the American public resisted isolationism and "turned their backs on a history of bigotry." I'm not sure if I can grant these two, for a) I'm not convinced that we resisted isolationism, and b) we definitely have not turned our backs on a history of bigotry. Evidence is abundant in today's world. And, Kristol implicitly (and unwittingly, I imagine) admits that these same American people have been bigots, for some meaningful period of time. How does a "history of bigotry" go unnoticed in his examination, a fact he pointed out? It's a little odd, but nothing unusual for a Kristol article. These are his "strong" supporting examples.

What if we grant that both these examples are true and strong? He still loses. For Kristol cherry picks his evidence, here. He seems to have overlooked that "history of bigotry" he briefly mentioned. For over 200 years, the American people hated minorities and allowed, through the democratic process, laws discriminating against them. How does that factor into their track record? Pretty heavily, I'd imagine. Now, Kristol could come back at me and say that he was implicitly talking about the 20th century and beyond. But those same people who resisted isolationism, fascism, and communism spent 64 years hating black people legislatively, and another 44 privately. So how does he get off saying they have a good track record? They have an awful track record. Widespread anti-minority sentiment, backed up by powerful legislation - that's their crowning achievement. On that list are other acts, too: supporting Reagan, voting for George Bush twice, voting Jimmy Carter out of office, encouraging death and destruction by submitting their will to wars in multiple countries, and paying way more attention to media outlets than they should. This is a strikingly beautiful track record.

So Kristol got it wrong, again, and in a rather lopsided manner. He's usually spinning the truth, but today/tonight/tomorrow he simply missed it; he didn't spin it because he didn't know where it was - that or he was lying through his teeth, which is a strong possibility, given the man. But in any case, I thought his attrocity of an article (which many conservatives will find enlightening and intelligently informed) deserved attention, if only to satiate my desire to crush him. Speaking of crushing, he should go back on the Colbert Report; that worked out really well last time.

Read more...

Spewing Hatred

This campaign reminds me of the TV show 'ER': we loved it in the beginning, watched it win awards while we faithfully kept track, and then watched as it died, slowly, over a long period of time before it finally succumbed to the awful eternity of death.

In the beginning, you loved everyone and everything; positions didn't matter so much as the fact that people with positions were up in front of you again, asking for your vote. It was exciting. So many new people, so many new faces, so many new things to think about and do, and research and read! It was incredible! And then you started picking favorites, started getting rid of the ones you hated, getting rid of the ones who weren't very good, and the campaign settled down into a smaller race, just a few left on each side. Some were given praise for their hard work, some were left out, there was an occasional scandal or two that rocked the primaries and made us all watch again. But then, twenty years later, you were tired, and the campaign was old. And the two people left, in order to retain viewership and make people remember them more than the other guy, started doing stupid things, like changing their mind on issues, or throwing negative ads at each other. And the debates? The debates were awful! They were pleading with the American audience to not forget them! Don't forget me! I've been putting in 20 hours a day for two years! I deserve your vote for that if nothing else! Fuck Joe the Plumber and Joe Six Pack, and Hockey Moms and Jesusologists! I've been working my ass for years! You are MORALLY inclined to vote for me! Ahhhhh!!! It was like watching two people argue the same position, for an hour and a half, like watching vaudeville performers decry the invention of movies, or white golfers when Tiger Woods started dominating, or white suburban mothers when black people started selling rap records...ahhhhh! The debates were awful, both candidates look more the same than they did a year ago - they should be on the same ticket! And who said the dumbest thing? I don't even know, they both couldn't say two smart things in a row. Obama said he would encourage more funding for charter school vouchers, and then said later that vouchers were bad. McCain said vouchers were bad and then later said he would fund them more! What the hell!? I thought we were supposed to elect the best and brightest, but it looks like we're limited to Dumb and Dumber. If the question about Bush is "Great president or the Greatest president?" then for McCain and Obama its "Dumb candidate or the Dumbest candidate?"

Read more...

There Can't Nobody Do Me Like Jesus

So today on campus, at the busiest intersection in terms of both foot traffic and cars (and such), a Catholic Organization (which apparently inhabits a nearby building) decided to protest gay marriage. They came armed with multiple signs, poles to hang them twelve feet int he air, pamphlets...and a bagpiper! Needless to say, for many reasons, I was excited. Any time people gather to protest something, and are so prepared, they deserve attention. I gave them some of mine.

As a preface, I want to say that people are allowed to hold whatever position they want on a given issue. My dissatisfaction stems, in most cases, from a lack of consistency in a person's beliefs. That's usually the point at which I get upset. So, in the future, all I ask, Catholic organization, is that you be consistent in your beliefs.

I first approached the nearest member; he was an older gentleman, with a kindly disposition. I calmly asked him what he found so unattractive about equality.

...

He apparently felt the need to ignore me. After this initial foray, the herd could smell danger; they knew there was a lion in their midst.

I then asked the young guy handing out pamphlets and saying something about Jesus if he felt Jesus was an egalitarian. He asked what "egalitarian" meant, and after explaining that it had a bit to do with equality, he said, yes, Jesus would have been an egalitarian. I then proceeded to ask if Jesus would have supported taking away rights from citizens. He turned away and began handing pamphlets to someone else.

Hmmm. I wasn't getting anywhere. Well, might as well head for the bagpiper; I love bagpipes.

Now, my love for bagpipes is rather strong. And the bagpipe is an instrument that requires precision, exactness, and perfection that is beyond the capabilities of most mortals. For purity's sake, I'll simply give an exact transcript of our conversation. No joke; this word-for-word:

"Hey, man, you blow pretty good, but your pipes are a little out."
"Yeah? Yeah? They're out of tune? Really?" (he was rather defensive)
"Yeah, brother, they're a little off."
"Really. Flat or sharp? Huh? Which one?"
"Flat, man."
"Oh yeah? Do I push in or pull out?"
"Why would you pull out? That would make it worse. Push in, dude."

Then he turned away and refused to say more. I imagine his musicality quiz didn't exaclty turn out the way he envisioned. I suppose he didn't expect an adept musician to give him tuning advice. I wanted to tell him, a bit more forcefully, that he clearly had a deficiency in pitch perception, but I don't think that would have solved anything.

At this point, I was getting blacklisted by everyone, so my conversations were going unheeded. Flag waving and sign holding are apparently taxing activities.

Also, I suspect that none of them share my egalitarian attitude. Come to think of it, I don't think any of them share Jesus' egalitarian attitude, either.

This brings me to the crux of what I see as the misunderstanding between those who support gay marriage and those who do not: the issue is strictly about equality and beliefs concerning the rightness or wrongness of the act are irrelevant. If the lack of gay marriage fosters inequality in the state, then clearly there is a problem with the state. But for some reason, the conversation seems to center on the deontological nature of gay marriage.

It seems a rather easy issue to deal with: what fosters equality is permissible in the state and mandatory; and what fosters inequality must be reevaluated and, most likely, terminated.

So what's the big deal? Why do I get blacklisted for asking simple questions to people who put themselves in public situations in the desire that they will be examined and questioned? It's pretty awful.

Oh, and I guarantee Andrew says something about how I'm beating up on stupid people.

Thanks Andrew. :)

Read more...

John McCain will attend tonight's debate with Barack Obama. He changed his mind, his campaign said, citing "progress in the bailout negotiations." Hmmm. Every single news outlet in the world was aware yesterday that the talks had broken down into chaos and luncheons. Members of Congress were on TV all day describing the pandemonium; they said it hasn't been this bad since they got rid of French Toast in the cafeteria. But here's how John MCain's mind works:

1. If Congress devolves into absolute bedlam, then important work is being accomplished.
2. If important work is being accomplished, then progress is being achieved.
3. Congress devolves into absolute bedlam.
4. Therefore, important work is being achieved.
5. Therefore, progress is being achived.

THAT'S LOGIC

Read more...

Should We Be Suspicious?

So after telling the American people for 18 months that the economy was "sound" and that the housing crisis wouldn't last past December; after claiming that economic growth would be rising by the end of the year; after ignoring the pleas of economic experts the world over: now Henry Paulson wants us to give him three things: unbelievable and unprecedented power, absolute and immovable immunity, and a SHITLOAD of money. Even if we don't give him these things, he's still taking our firstborn child. That's not negotiable.

My first reaction after hearing these demands? Admiral Ackbar!

Clearly, Paulson wants to formalize his control over the nation's economy, which would grant him control over the world economy, and thus the world. He'll officially adopt the title Caesar Little Dick at a later date, to be announced. George Bush will assume he's still President of the Earth, and Dick Cheney will finally murder him, outright, something he's clearly wanted to do for years. When the Republican party forced him to play second fiddle to "The Great Decider," he wasn't smiling. So once patricide is committed and Paulson assumes command, we'll be left to wonder why we didn't heed the warning...oh Ackbar. Here's a moral tribute to you, the modern Oracle at Delphi:

Thank you, Ackbar. Hopefully, we heed your prescient warnings.

Read more...