Well, today I was looking at my facebook account, looking at all the pictures that had been changed, and what people said they were doing, all the fucking applications, everything in its totality, and goddamn if it isn't the new epidemic of our generation. It actually makes me look forward to a depression if this is really the type of shit people are going to spend their time on. Look, in high school it was kind of cool in a nichy kind of way to be a fucking wierdo and be totally into something as ridiculous as flan or calligraphy, but at some point, our generation needs to grow up and move out of the self identification phase.
Because if it isn't that, exactly what the fuck is it? I mean, I have friends (admittedly, I do have an account--fuck) that have over 1,000 photos of themselves and their buddies--I mean, jesus christ, we get it, you love yourself, you think that you are the most beautiful person ever, and you by god are going to prove it by constantly posing for every goofy little quirky fucking ridiculous picture you can...it's either that, or these people are so insecure that they have to build a different person, a facade to show the world so that they can prove they're...I don't know what exactly, because its not real.
But I guess this is the way of our society. People are just obsessed with themselves. Everything is visual. Everyone is special. People are always having just the greatest of times...at least on the surface, because in reality, everyone is spending thousands of hours downloading pictures of themselves onto facebook, updating their status, and engaging in fake endeavors like being a fucking ninja or a pirate, instead of acting like adults. Haha, look at those goofy pictures you took getting drunk on Zima, boy I bet that was fucking fun, because that's what people do, right? They get drunk on Zima like a bunch of fucking sissies and then have the where-with-all to take staged pictures of themselves...a truly precious moment captured in time.
And look, I'm going to have to take special umbrage with the female gender here: I mean, my god ladies, really? Really? Jesus christ, do you have an idea of how vain it is for you to post every picture you take of yourself? How many is enough? Are you that insecure? Look I am not saying there aren't guys out there that take a lot of pictures of themselves, but there aren't many, and the ones that do probably don't have a lot of male friends, because quite frankly, it's obnoxious, and if a dude pulled out a camera and started taking a bunch of pictures posing with his friends...well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but suffice it to say, it just doesn't exude much confidence or purposefulness.
I mean, honestly, if you're good looking, people aren't going to think you're anymore good looking because you take a bunch of pictures of yourself; and vice-versa, if you are ugly or fat, people are going to notice that--you're not somehow pretty because you managed to hide your paunch from the camera. You're just a bad person, because you spent time doing something that was dumb and useless, when you could have gone to the gym, pauncho villa.
The fact is that there are times when snapping a picture is perfectly acceptable--like when you go on vacation somewhere you've never been before, or on a truly special occasion, like a birthday or a wedding. At the same time, you don't need to take hundreds to capture the memory--a few will go a long way. When it gets to be that people start taking fucking pictures every 5 minutes, you have to ask yourself, "am I living for me, or am I living for my facebook photo album."
Moreover, believe it or not, no one really gives a fucking shit. The fact is that the people that put together these elaborate, arrogant photo albums take much more stock in their own profile than in anyone else's, and that includes me, you, and everyone else. The point is, even if people spend only a 10 minutes a day on their facebook, they are spending their time doing something that is completely useless. And from just the casual look of it, people are spending a whole lot more time than that on there.
Let me break it down this way...someday, we are all of us going to go into the ground, and either we are going to stay there and be food for worms, or the deity you've selected from the pantheon of possible religions is going to be fucking pissed that you spent your time being as vain as can fucking be by creating yet another you, when you could have spent your time worshipping, voting for Republicans (right...right you crazy fucking idiots!), helping the poor (the opposite of voting for Republicans), practicing self-denial, or performing some otherwise holy activity.
Fuck, at least start a blog or something...
Monday, December 8, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Fats cats or working class?
So, anyone had enough of the corporate welfare that is going on lately? I have. I mean, yes, banks are important, as is the automobile industry, but at some point, in a capitalist system, industries have to fail, otherwise, we have indeed slipped into socialism.
Unfortunately, it is the worst kind. The kind of socialism that makes products and insures that the rich stay rich; the kind of socialism that prefers to make weapons and prisons rather than schools and hospitals; the kind of socialism, that soon, will either require or invite wars due to its burgeoning budgetary needs.
The very idea that we can spend our way out of a recession is the same one that got us into this mess…anyone recall Bush telling Americans to shop more following 9-11? Even more egregious is that it is now acceptable for companies to be arrogant enough to ask for our money, using of all strategies, an appeal to patriotism as the raison d’etre.
Quite frankly, as long as Bush has his billions with the Saudi’s and the banks and the auto industries have enough money to pay themselves multi-million dollar salaries and fly to congress in private jets to ask for bailout money, they can kiss the American people’s collective ass. And congress can kiss it too, since they don’t have a clue as to how to get us out of this mess other than throwing money at the problem and bending over to big businesses every perverted suggestion. Make no mistake, what we are seeing with this bailout money is trickle down economics—Republican style—only now we see that our Democratic congress is willing to play that game too.
And let this be a lesson to you idiot-asshole Republicans out there that are still butt-hurt John McCain didn’t win: notice that I’m not lying down like a lapdog to slurp up everything the Dem’s are doing now that we’ve won the election. I am going to be as critical as I ever was, because I care about results, about using government effectively and efficiently, not crooning over some suit because they have a particular consonant behind their name.
To tell you the truth, I’m not a huge fan of Obama’s plan to spend another $700 billion and to keep the Bush tax cuts in place either. I’m all for building infrastructure, but only if it is going to move us forward into a new economy, buoyed by green technology and grants to research alternative energy sources. Let me be clear: I am optimistic that he will do a good job as president, but only if he has the courage of his convictions to institute fundamental, drastic, and lasting change to the way this country functions.
For my part, I am going to try to be solutions oriented, and there are two huge, primary actions that can be taken to get this economy back on track—actions that I don’t hear anyone talk about, and actions I don’t believe Barack Obama or this Democratic congress will take unless prodded by massive popular lobbying:
1) Immigration Reform
2) Forgiveness of debts (primarily student loans)
The first should be no surprise, really. Illegal immigration is a huge burden on our society. To begin with, the influx of cheap, unskilled labor devalues our labor market in general, even our skilled labor market. The result is less jobs and lower wages for U.S. citizens. This then is exacerbated by the fact that many immigrants send their money back to Mexico or Central/South America, where it goes to work in their markets—not ours. Moreover, our social services, schools, police, justice, prison, fire, and medical establishments are burdened with providing service to people that have not paid into the tax system very long, if at all. Finally and most simply, illegal immigration means more people. More people to share less resources, which means ultimately, less for all of us. This may sound selfish, but unless we are going to make the jump to world government, it is necessary to do what is best for one’s country first and foremost. The excellent thing about this problem is that it would be simple to fix. All that would need to be done is enact a 10 year mandatory prison sentence for those who employ illegal immigrants, and then periodically sting businesses that are suspected of not complying with the regulation.
The second action that could be taken, the forgiveness of debts, would have a similarly simple solution: forgive debts that qualify under certain parameters. I know that this doesn’t seem “fair,” but then again, neither is bailing out CEO’s and billionaires. The benefits of such a program, however, would be much more far reaching in turning around our economy than the corporate welfare our government is such a fan of. You see, rather than giving money to people that already have houses, cars, businesses, etc., we’d be giving money to the young and the poor (in my case both). Forgiving debt gained through attending college, would allow the young, educated class to begin buying those things that keep our economy humming, like cars, houses, opening investment and bank accounts, enabling them to start new businesses.
Yes, I am aware of the fact that I am advocating for a program that would benefit me greatly, so of course I have a selfish interest in such an initiative. But the effects of such a program would be dramatic, and I’ll use an old axiom to illustrate my point: give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day, but teach him how to fish, and he’ll eat for the rest of his life. Right now, our government is giving the rich more fish, and they’ll eat for a day, but they won’t have learned their lesson, and so, they’ll have their lavish vacations and their leer jets and their golden parachutes, and five years down the line, we’ll have to bail them out again. On the other hand, by forgiving debt, the government is not making someone rich, but instead, giving them the opportunity to get rich. You see, if the young and the poor have their debts forgiven, we’ll still have to earn a living, we’ll still have to make smart investments, we’ll still have to fish to have our dinner every night, so to speak. And with that, we’ll create jobs, stimulate the economy, and provide a stable base for consistent, sustainable growth.
So, its up to the Democrats: keep throwing money at the fat cats, and the young and poor will slog along, unable to actively participate in the economy because we are saddled with debts, or, help free us from those debts and make us an active and powerful force that can drive the U.S. economy out of this recession, and into the future.
Unfortunately, it is the worst kind. The kind of socialism that makes products and insures that the rich stay rich; the kind of socialism that prefers to make weapons and prisons rather than schools and hospitals; the kind of socialism, that soon, will either require or invite wars due to its burgeoning budgetary needs.
The very idea that we can spend our way out of a recession is the same one that got us into this mess…anyone recall Bush telling Americans to shop more following 9-11? Even more egregious is that it is now acceptable for companies to be arrogant enough to ask for our money, using of all strategies, an appeal to patriotism as the raison d’etre.
Quite frankly, as long as Bush has his billions with the Saudi’s and the banks and the auto industries have enough money to pay themselves multi-million dollar salaries and fly to congress in private jets to ask for bailout money, they can kiss the American people’s collective ass. And congress can kiss it too, since they don’t have a clue as to how to get us out of this mess other than throwing money at the problem and bending over to big businesses every perverted suggestion. Make no mistake, what we are seeing with this bailout money is trickle down economics—Republican style—only now we see that our Democratic congress is willing to play that game too.
And let this be a lesson to you idiot-asshole Republicans out there that are still butt-hurt John McCain didn’t win: notice that I’m not lying down like a lapdog to slurp up everything the Dem’s are doing now that we’ve won the election. I am going to be as critical as I ever was, because I care about results, about using government effectively and efficiently, not crooning over some suit because they have a particular consonant behind their name.
To tell you the truth, I’m not a huge fan of Obama’s plan to spend another $700 billion and to keep the Bush tax cuts in place either. I’m all for building infrastructure, but only if it is going to move us forward into a new economy, buoyed by green technology and grants to research alternative energy sources. Let me be clear: I am optimistic that he will do a good job as president, but only if he has the courage of his convictions to institute fundamental, drastic, and lasting change to the way this country functions.
For my part, I am going to try to be solutions oriented, and there are two huge, primary actions that can be taken to get this economy back on track—actions that I don’t hear anyone talk about, and actions I don’t believe Barack Obama or this Democratic congress will take unless prodded by massive popular lobbying:
1) Immigration Reform
2) Forgiveness of debts (primarily student loans)
The first should be no surprise, really. Illegal immigration is a huge burden on our society. To begin with, the influx of cheap, unskilled labor devalues our labor market in general, even our skilled labor market. The result is less jobs and lower wages for U.S. citizens. This then is exacerbated by the fact that many immigrants send their money back to Mexico or Central/South America, where it goes to work in their markets—not ours. Moreover, our social services, schools, police, justice, prison, fire, and medical establishments are burdened with providing service to people that have not paid into the tax system very long, if at all. Finally and most simply, illegal immigration means more people. More people to share less resources, which means ultimately, less for all of us. This may sound selfish, but unless we are going to make the jump to world government, it is necessary to do what is best for one’s country first and foremost. The excellent thing about this problem is that it would be simple to fix. All that would need to be done is enact a 10 year mandatory prison sentence for those who employ illegal immigrants, and then periodically sting businesses that are suspected of not complying with the regulation.
The second action that could be taken, the forgiveness of debts, would have a similarly simple solution: forgive debts that qualify under certain parameters. I know that this doesn’t seem “fair,” but then again, neither is bailing out CEO’s and billionaires. The benefits of such a program, however, would be much more far reaching in turning around our economy than the corporate welfare our government is such a fan of. You see, rather than giving money to people that already have houses, cars, businesses, etc., we’d be giving money to the young and the poor (in my case both). Forgiving debt gained through attending college, would allow the young, educated class to begin buying those things that keep our economy humming, like cars, houses, opening investment and bank accounts, enabling them to start new businesses.
Yes, I am aware of the fact that I am advocating for a program that would benefit me greatly, so of course I have a selfish interest in such an initiative. But the effects of such a program would be dramatic, and I’ll use an old axiom to illustrate my point: give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day, but teach him how to fish, and he’ll eat for the rest of his life. Right now, our government is giving the rich more fish, and they’ll eat for a day, but they won’t have learned their lesson, and so, they’ll have their lavish vacations and their leer jets and their golden parachutes, and five years down the line, we’ll have to bail them out again. On the other hand, by forgiving debt, the government is not making someone rich, but instead, giving them the opportunity to get rich. You see, if the young and the poor have their debts forgiven, we’ll still have to earn a living, we’ll still have to make smart investments, we’ll still have to fish to have our dinner every night, so to speak. And with that, we’ll create jobs, stimulate the economy, and provide a stable base for consistent, sustainable growth.
So, its up to the Democrats: keep throwing money at the fat cats, and the young and poor will slog along, unable to actively participate in the economy because we are saddled with debts, or, help free us from those debts and make us an active and powerful force that can drive the U.S. economy out of this recession, and into the future.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
For the pros
The progressives that is...yes, yes, a little more than a week removed from Obama and the Democratic (not the Democrat, you idiot conservatives) party's dramatic, sweeping victory, we get to pat ourselves on the collective back and allow ourselves to feel pretty damn good going into the holiday season. Here's a little more on why/how we won, what remains to be done in the present, and what goals I believe we should have for the future:
1. Why/how we won: Lets begin with the how. Obama's fifty state strategy paid huge dividends and may well have permanently reshaped the electoral map. He also brought a huge number of new voters, especially young voters, to the polls. According to exit polls, Obama won virtually every demographic, except among whites in general, though he did win among younger whites (18-29; the full results are at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1).
However, why he won may have less to do with campaign strategy and more to do with state of the economy. Recall that before the market essentially went on its journey through the center of the earth, McCain was ahead in national polls. His campaign seemed to follow the markets as well, going to more and more obscure negative attacks, and of course, there was and still is "aahlsoo" the Palin factor...as it turned out the nastiness the barracuda had in spades, she lacked in tact, poise, and intelligence--only the GOP would glorify such a substanceless trainwreck of a human being.
In other words, Obama may have won as much because of the self destruction of McCain's candidacy and the economic results of 8 years of the Bush administration as anything.
Still, the results are staggering. Obama won 364 electoral votes, turning Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and possibly Missouri blue, all of which were won by Bush in '04. He also won the popular vote 66,361,433 (53%) to McCain's 58,024,608 (46%). In the end, we crushed them, and that feels really, really good. Suck it cons!
2. In the present: sit back and watch the destruction. The day after the election, Fox News was discussing whether the voting age should be moved to 35, and you'll still hear a lot of dumb comments about socialism and terrorism from the dumber cons--wait, is that an oxymoron? My favorite are the snide little comments about how people voted for Obama but they don't know why--that we are sheep for change. In rebuttal, I'd like to point out that conservatives knew more about why they weren't voting for Obama than why they were voting for McCain, and moreover, for the right wing to say that Obama's voters were, or are not, critical thinkers is the single most absurdly self-unaware things I have ever heard--even if I count the ramblings of Rush and O'Reilly. Yes, because somehow electing Bush president twice was at the apex of critical thinking...what a bunch of fucking bullshit.
But to be a bit more positive, we as progressives need to: a) encourage those fiscal, states-rights conservatives to retake their party, and b) alienate and belittle the religious and philosophical zealotry that took over the Republican party starting with Reagan. Unfortunately, conservative talk show hosts are too rabid and crazed a group to tell their base the truth, which is that they lost because they didn't have a real platform and their economic philosophy simply doesn't work, so it is up to us to say exactly that, and encourage the reasonable Republicans to either join and influence our party, or to take back their own.
With the crazed and rabid religious nutjobs that make up the base of the party, we need to do what a good football team does when its up by 10 points in the middle of the third quarter: go on a long, clock draining, touchdown scoring drive in which you just physically dominate the other team and totally demoralize them. We need to have that killer instinct, step on their throats, and show absolutely zero tolerance or forgiveness for their insertion of hate and immaturity into the political landscape. STAMP THEM OUT!
I really hope that our Democratic leaders understand this as well. We still need to have hearings on torture, the manipulation of intelligence in the leadup to war in Iraq, spying on American citizens without warrants, and the politicization of our Justice Department. These issues lie at the core of our constitution, and if this is to be a country of laws and not men, we simply cannot allow lawlessness and despotism to go unpunished. Those who are responsible should be made an example of by being forced to undergo significant jail time.
3. Goals for the future: Obviously, Obama and the Democratic party have their work cut out for them and I would expect that they will address the economy, the war in Iraq, and the energy crisis, first and formost. A few issues that still lie at the core of our domestic problems that we cannot forget about however, are: the healthcare crisis, improving public education, and the war on drugs/the prison industrial complex.
The healthcare crisis is going to kill our economy, if not many of our citizens, if it is not dealt with quickly and efficiently. Socialism is the way to go here--the military is socialized, as are our police and fire departments, and public education. While all have their problems, the fact is that there are certain segments of needs a society has that cannot be solved effectively by the free market. It is much more efficient to socialize these segments, and then to run them as cost effectively possible.
We also need to totally rethink our educational system. As a recent addition to public schools, there are a myriad of problems that need to be wholly overhauled. For my part, I will be writing a thesis position paper on what those problems and their causes are, and how we can solve them by redesigning everything from the structure to how we evaluate student performance to how we evaluate and pay teachers.
Last, but not least, is the war on drugs and the prison industrial complex. We currently imprison more people than any other country in the world per capita, and if the fact that we are doing an injustice to many imprisoned doesn't move you, perhaps the cost will. It costs about $32,000 a year for every prisoner in our system. We have over 2 million. That's a lot.
The cause of this is that: a) we continue to increase prison sentences in the hope of cutting the crime rate, and b) we still criminalize the use of most drugs. The result is a lot of people that were either trying to get high or trying to get rich (the American dream, right?), end up rotting in jail for much longer than is realistically necessary. To solve this problem we need to decriminalize most drugs and treat their users as addicts rather than criminals. This would eliminate the black market that breeds the vast sums of money that allow for the rise of organized crime and gangs.
Back to the present--celebrate pros--we are potent, but now that we are in power, it is time for the real work to begin.
1. Why/how we won: Lets begin with the how. Obama's fifty state strategy paid huge dividends and may well have permanently reshaped the electoral map. He also brought a huge number of new voters, especially young voters, to the polls. According to exit polls, Obama won virtually every demographic, except among whites in general, though he did win among younger whites (18-29; the full results are at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1).
However, why he won may have less to do with campaign strategy and more to do with state of the economy. Recall that before the market essentially went on its journey through the center of the earth, McCain was ahead in national polls. His campaign seemed to follow the markets as well, going to more and more obscure negative attacks, and of course, there was and still is "aahlsoo" the Palin factor...as it turned out the nastiness the barracuda had in spades, she lacked in tact, poise, and intelligence--only the GOP would glorify such a substanceless trainwreck of a human being.
In other words, Obama may have won as much because of the self destruction of McCain's candidacy and the economic results of 8 years of the Bush administration as anything.
Still, the results are staggering. Obama won 364 electoral votes, turning Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and possibly Missouri blue, all of which were won by Bush in '04. He also won the popular vote 66,361,433 (53%) to McCain's 58,024,608 (46%). In the end, we crushed them, and that feels really, really good. Suck it cons!
2. In the present: sit back and watch the destruction. The day after the election, Fox News was discussing whether the voting age should be moved to 35, and you'll still hear a lot of dumb comments about socialism and terrorism from the dumber cons--wait, is that an oxymoron? My favorite are the snide little comments about how people voted for Obama but they don't know why--that we are sheep for change. In rebuttal, I'd like to point out that conservatives knew more about why they weren't voting for Obama than why they were voting for McCain, and moreover, for the right wing to say that Obama's voters were, or are not, critical thinkers is the single most absurdly self-unaware things I have ever heard--even if I count the ramblings of Rush and O'Reilly. Yes, because somehow electing Bush president twice was at the apex of critical thinking...what a bunch of fucking bullshit.
But to be a bit more positive, we as progressives need to: a) encourage those fiscal, states-rights conservatives to retake their party, and b) alienate and belittle the religious and philosophical zealotry that took over the Republican party starting with Reagan. Unfortunately, conservative talk show hosts are too rabid and crazed a group to tell their base the truth, which is that they lost because they didn't have a real platform and their economic philosophy simply doesn't work, so it is up to us to say exactly that, and encourage the reasonable Republicans to either join and influence our party, or to take back their own.
With the crazed and rabid religious nutjobs that make up the base of the party, we need to do what a good football team does when its up by 10 points in the middle of the third quarter: go on a long, clock draining, touchdown scoring drive in which you just physically dominate the other team and totally demoralize them. We need to have that killer instinct, step on their throats, and show absolutely zero tolerance or forgiveness for their insertion of hate and immaturity into the political landscape. STAMP THEM OUT!
I really hope that our Democratic leaders understand this as well. We still need to have hearings on torture, the manipulation of intelligence in the leadup to war in Iraq, spying on American citizens without warrants, and the politicization of our Justice Department. These issues lie at the core of our constitution, and if this is to be a country of laws and not men, we simply cannot allow lawlessness and despotism to go unpunished. Those who are responsible should be made an example of by being forced to undergo significant jail time.
3. Goals for the future: Obviously, Obama and the Democratic party have their work cut out for them and I would expect that they will address the economy, the war in Iraq, and the energy crisis, first and formost. A few issues that still lie at the core of our domestic problems that we cannot forget about however, are: the healthcare crisis, improving public education, and the war on drugs/the prison industrial complex.
The healthcare crisis is going to kill our economy, if not many of our citizens, if it is not dealt with quickly and efficiently. Socialism is the way to go here--the military is socialized, as are our police and fire departments, and public education. While all have their problems, the fact is that there are certain segments of needs a society has that cannot be solved effectively by the free market. It is much more efficient to socialize these segments, and then to run them as cost effectively possible.
We also need to totally rethink our educational system. As a recent addition to public schools, there are a myriad of problems that need to be wholly overhauled. For my part, I will be writing a thesis position paper on what those problems and their causes are, and how we can solve them by redesigning everything from the structure to how we evaluate student performance to how we evaluate and pay teachers.
Last, but not least, is the war on drugs and the prison industrial complex. We currently imprison more people than any other country in the world per capita, and if the fact that we are doing an injustice to many imprisoned doesn't move you, perhaps the cost will. It costs about $32,000 a year for every prisoner in our system. We have over 2 million. That's a lot.
The cause of this is that: a) we continue to increase prison sentences in the hope of cutting the crime rate, and b) we still criminalize the use of most drugs. The result is a lot of people that were either trying to get high or trying to get rich (the American dream, right?), end up rotting in jail for much longer than is realistically necessary. To solve this problem we need to decriminalize most drugs and treat their users as addicts rather than criminals. This would eliminate the black market that breeds the vast sums of money that allow for the rise of organized crime and gangs.
Back to the present--celebrate pros--we are potent, but now that we are in power, it is time for the real work to begin.
Friday, November 7, 2008
For the cons
So, I've noticed this truck at work that has a homade sign reading "Liberty vs. Socialism," clearly referring to the accusation made by the right that Barack Obama is a socialist. This is ironic for two reasons: 1) we both work at a school, which is essentially a socialist entity. It is funded by public money, run for the public good, and ruled by anal government regulations. To be clear, it is run poorly, and Bush's No Child Left Behind is the worst kind of socialist reform there is, because it reduces human beings to numbers and spreadsheets, provides insufficient funding to its purposes, and sets unnattainable standards that exacerbates the rift that exists between the haves and the have nots. 2) We both work at a school, and one would hope that teachers and people working at schools are rational, reasonable people, because in the end, we all strive to teach our students to think critically.
Therefore, though he is accutely aware of the pitfalls of a socialist run entity, especially one as badly run as public schools, he should also surely be aware that many of the problems particular to schools have their root in NCLB. Moreover, for him to buy into the absurdly simple-minded allegation that Obama is a socialist can only be interpreted to mean that he is neither rational nor reasonable, and that he lacks, or refuses to use, critical thinking skills.
Let me just lay it on the line for the grumbling conservatives out there:
1) Obama is no more a socialist than McCain, who I'd like to point out, has helped oversee an unprecedented expansion of the federal government and allowed the GOP, a party that formerly believed in states rights, to completely reverse their position in order to dictate federalist mandates from Washington.
2) On election night, a lady in the 7-11 I was at, upon seeing me high five an African American woman wearing an Obama T-shirt, complained that, "this country is going to hell." OK, first of all, discontent was one of the primary reasons for Obama's historic election to president. But second, and more importantly, the feeling that America is not headed in the right direction has nothing to do with Obama, who, in point of fact, is not yet president. Look, even if you want to blame everything on Clinton, conservative, remember that that was 8 years ago--6 years for which your party had complete control of the government, and 8 with the executive branch. In those 8 years, Bush and his buddies did NOTHING to make you feel good about our country. Why then you would be foolish enough to believe that 4 more years of your party's rule was going to make things better is beyond me...I'll refer back to Einstein: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
3) You lost because your party is ideologically bankrupt. You ran a person for VP, a person that would have been a heartbeat away from the presidency, who thought Africa was a country, not a continent, and could not name the countries involved in NAFTA (So Sara, NAFTA stands for the North American free trade agreement--North America consists of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico). More importantly, your platform had nothing to do with the problems we face as a nation in the 21st century; instead, your guy continued to trot out tax cuts and more of the same bankrupt economic policies that have not worked since Reagan first tried them in the 1980's. Finally, your campaign strategy relied on name calling, fear mongering, and bullying, with the hope that lingering racism among southern and rural voters would buoy your cause. Put all of these things together and you have a dumb, immature, foolish, and bigoted campaign; that you thought you would somehow win was a joke.
Therefore, though he is accutely aware of the pitfalls of a socialist run entity, especially one as badly run as public schools, he should also surely be aware that many of the problems particular to schools have their root in NCLB. Moreover, for him to buy into the absurdly simple-minded allegation that Obama is a socialist can only be interpreted to mean that he is neither rational nor reasonable, and that he lacks, or refuses to use, critical thinking skills.
Let me just lay it on the line for the grumbling conservatives out there:
1) Obama is no more a socialist than McCain, who I'd like to point out, has helped oversee an unprecedented expansion of the federal government and allowed the GOP, a party that formerly believed in states rights, to completely reverse their position in order to dictate federalist mandates from Washington.
2) On election night, a lady in the 7-11 I was at, upon seeing me high five an African American woman wearing an Obama T-shirt, complained that, "this country is going to hell." OK, first of all, discontent was one of the primary reasons for Obama's historic election to president. But second, and more importantly, the feeling that America is not headed in the right direction has nothing to do with Obama, who, in point of fact, is not yet president. Look, even if you want to blame everything on Clinton, conservative, remember that that was 8 years ago--6 years for which your party had complete control of the government, and 8 with the executive branch. In those 8 years, Bush and his buddies did NOTHING to make you feel good about our country. Why then you would be foolish enough to believe that 4 more years of your party's rule was going to make things better is beyond me...I'll refer back to Einstein: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
3) You lost because your party is ideologically bankrupt. You ran a person for VP, a person that would have been a heartbeat away from the presidency, who thought Africa was a country, not a continent, and could not name the countries involved in NAFTA (So Sara, NAFTA stands for the North American free trade agreement--North America consists of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico). More importantly, your platform had nothing to do with the problems we face as a nation in the 21st century; instead, your guy continued to trot out tax cuts and more of the same bankrupt economic policies that have not worked since Reagan first tried them in the 1980's. Finally, your campaign strategy relied on name calling, fear mongering, and bullying, with the hope that lingering racism among southern and rural voters would buoy your cause. Put all of these things together and you have a dumb, immature, foolish, and bigoted campaign; that you thought you would somehow win was a joke.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
An Election of Monumental Importance and Colin Cowherd's Lies
Ok, raise your hand if you enjoy being lied to...hmmm, OK...now raise your hand if you enjoy being placated...hmmm, well seeing that no one raised their hand, I'm going to recommend that you stop listening to Colin Cowherd's radio program; moreover, stop listening to any radio or talk show host that says, "I don't have a dog in this fight," as Cowherd said yesterday, referencing the presidential race between Obama and McCain. No one bought that argument when Micheal Vick said it, and we certainly aren't going to now.
As Jim Rome would say, "Look, we get it. (5-10 seconds of dead air) You don't want to admit who you're voting for because it could skewer your ratings, but don't lie to me and tell me that you don't have a dog in this fight. Unless you are an idiot, a recluse, or a corpse, everyone has a pick and they know who that pick is going to be...(more dead air) so cut the crap and tell it like it is."
In general, the effectiveness of Colin's show, in particular, is that he is completely objective and unbiased when it comes to talking sports...he doesn't get passionate about this team over that team, and I can buy that, because, in the end, the winner of a football team is just that: the winner--and nothing more. They are not going to decide on important matters like tax, foreign, domestic, or civil rights policy. The win a game, or lose a game, and they may get a pay day in so doing.
On the other hand, to suggest, as Colin did yesterday, that the country will be fine either way with either guy as president, is not only on the face of it absurd considering that it has been preceded by 8 years of Bush, but also totally without substance. The difference between candidates is viscerally palpable, and the difference between the motivation of their supporters could not be more stark.
To address the first point, McCain wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely, whereas Obama wants to end our occupation as soon as is safely possible. McCain wants to tax health care benefits in order to allow people to pay absurdly high premiums to health insurance companies that are already bloated with mismanagement and corporate malfeasance. Obama want to move toward universal coverage for all U.S. citizens. McCain wants to continue to allow corporate loopholes so that most corporations can avoid paying taxes, and to cut taxes for the most wealthy Americans. Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class and restore Clinton era taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. McCain's answer our energy crisis is to build more nuclear power plants and to "drill, baby, drill!" Obama wants to invest in green technology and alternatives to fossil fuels. So, to suggest the country is going to be fine either way is to completely ignore easily understandable differences between the candidates.
It is also an insult to either side's supporters, whose election rationale and motivation could not be more philosophically divergent. If you are voting for McCain, you are fundamentally motivated by fear and greed: Obama is a terrorist, Obama is going to raise my taxes, Obama is going to take away my guns, Obama is black, Obama is a socialist, Obama is (insert spurious allegation here), etc. If you are voting for Obama, then you are likely motivated by hope and change: better educational and vocational opportunities, a solution to our health care and energy crises, a foreign policy that will center on peace and restore our reputation to the rest of the world, and a domestic policy that focuses on the middle class rather than the upper class. Clearly, neither side believes that everything is going to be just fine if their candidate is not elected, so to suggest that either way the election is going to be a wash is to completely ignore easily understandable differences between the supporters of both parties. And when you consider that we are on the brink of an economic depression, it is downright incindiary.
Furthermore, there is considerable historical evidence to suggest that presidents have a sizeable impact on the nation's direction. Bush's legacy should need no explanation, but anyone who would argue that his administration has not had a tremendouse effect on the direction of this nation's economy, polity, and society is simply not to be taken seriously, because they are clearly either joking or a raving psychotic. One could argue that Bush 1 and Clinton had little effect, but that would be ignoring our first war in Iraq, the telecommunications act of 1996 (which has allowed for a monstrous consolidation of both radio and television affiliates), and the insertion of tabloid tactics into mainstream politics. I don't think anyone on either side would argue that Reagan was not a transformative president, good or bad, and think of some of the other president's we've had in the somewhat recent past: Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt. All of them had a significant impact on the face of this nation, so again, to argue that the country will be just fine either way is ludicrous, intellectually lazy, and quite franky, wrong.
Yes, maybe it is irrelevant to someone that is as rich as Cowherd, who will, either way, still be able to afford to shop at Whole Foods, drive a nice car, and make a lot of money talking about something that is largely unimportant, namely sports. But before we carry that logic too far, remember, that even the rich have a consideration to make, and that is that on the cusp of a revolution, the rich rarely recognize the danger of their good fortune. If McCain is elected, and the country continues to slide into economic trouble, the chance that a revolution could occur becomes much more likely, because the fact is that the fundamentals of U.S. society are broken, from health care to education to energy to the economy. When you couple this with a quickly eroding middle class and an ever widening gap in the distribution of wealth in this country, a president that is in all likelihood going to exacerbate these problems could spell a disaster--even for the wealthy. Historically speaking, when a society reaches an economic tipping point, a simple crisis or panic can trigger a sweeping revolution, especially when those at the bottom feel they have no other recourse, as they obviously will if McCain is elected in what now looks to be an unlikely win, after two previously questionable elections in 2000 and 2004. And in any revolution, it is the rich, fat aristocratic class that finds their houses torched, their families taken, and their necks stretched or severed.
So look, Cowherd, the fact that you say, as I am listening to you this morning (yeah, I know, I can't take my own medicine), that you are in the middle, and not sure who you are going to vote for mean that you're either lying, or a complete moron. Now the fact is, I know you aren't a complete moron, so that means you are lying, and that is the worst thing that you can do to an intelligent listener. What I like about you is your clear, logical thinking, objectivity, and ability to tell the truth in the face of rabid fans (fanatics as you call them) that don't want to hear it. Your political stance is none of the above, and that is my biggest complaint with the media in general. Sitting the fence between day and night is not objective--its foolish, and patronizing. Oranges and apples don't taste the same, and everyone knows it, so stop lying, or apply for a job on Fox News--their viewers enjoy being lied to.
And if you can't tell me the truth about politics, stick to sports. We'll both be better off.
It is also an insult to either side's supporters, whose election rationale and motivation could not be more philosophically divergent. If you are voting for McCain, you are fundamentally motivated by fear and greed: Obama is a terrorist, Obama is going to raise my taxes, Obama is going to take away my guns, Obama is black, Obama is a socialist, Obama is (insert spurious allegation here), etc. If you are voting for Obama, then you are likely motivated by hope and change: better educational and vocational opportunities, a solution to our health care and energy crises, a foreign policy that will center on peace and restore our reputation to the rest of the world, and a domestic policy that focuses on the middle class rather than the upper class. Clearly, neither side believes that everything is going to be just fine if their candidate is not elected, so to suggest that either way the election is going to be a wash is to completely ignore easily understandable differences between the supporters of both parties. And when you consider that we are on the brink of an economic depression, it is downright incindiary.
Furthermore, there is considerable historical evidence to suggest that presidents have a sizeable impact on the nation's direction. Bush's legacy should need no explanation, but anyone who would argue that his administration has not had a tremendouse effect on the direction of this nation's economy, polity, and society is simply not to be taken seriously, because they are clearly either joking or a raving psychotic. One could argue that Bush 1 and Clinton had little effect, but that would be ignoring our first war in Iraq, the telecommunications act of 1996 (which has allowed for a monstrous consolidation of both radio and television affiliates), and the insertion of tabloid tactics into mainstream politics. I don't think anyone on either side would argue that Reagan was not a transformative president, good or bad, and think of some of the other president's we've had in the somewhat recent past: Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt. All of them had a significant impact on the face of this nation, so again, to argue that the country will be just fine either way is ludicrous, intellectually lazy, and quite franky, wrong.
Yes, maybe it is irrelevant to someone that is as rich as Cowherd, who will, either way, still be able to afford to shop at Whole Foods, drive a nice car, and make a lot of money talking about something that is largely unimportant, namely sports. But before we carry that logic too far, remember, that even the rich have a consideration to make, and that is that on the cusp of a revolution, the rich rarely recognize the danger of their good fortune. If McCain is elected, and the country continues to slide into economic trouble, the chance that a revolution could occur becomes much more likely, because the fact is that the fundamentals of U.S. society are broken, from health care to education to energy to the economy. When you couple this with a quickly eroding middle class and an ever widening gap in the distribution of wealth in this country, a president that is in all likelihood going to exacerbate these problems could spell a disaster--even for the wealthy. Historically speaking, when a society reaches an economic tipping point, a simple crisis or panic can trigger a sweeping revolution, especially when those at the bottom feel they have no other recourse, as they obviously will if McCain is elected in what now looks to be an unlikely win, after two previously questionable elections in 2000 and 2004. And in any revolution, it is the rich, fat aristocratic class that finds their houses torched, their families taken, and their necks stretched or severed.
So look, Cowherd, the fact that you say, as I am listening to you this morning (yeah, I know, I can't take my own medicine), that you are in the middle, and not sure who you are going to vote for mean that you're either lying, or a complete moron. Now the fact is, I know you aren't a complete moron, so that means you are lying, and that is the worst thing that you can do to an intelligent listener. What I like about you is your clear, logical thinking, objectivity, and ability to tell the truth in the face of rabid fans (fanatics as you call them) that don't want to hear it. Your political stance is none of the above, and that is my biggest complaint with the media in general. Sitting the fence between day and night is not objective--its foolish, and patronizing. Oranges and apples don't taste the same, and everyone knows it, so stop lying, or apply for a job on Fox News--their viewers enjoy being lied to.
And if you can't tell me the truth about politics, stick to sports. We'll both be better off.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Everyone is just killing the Pac 10
Alright, I've had all about I can stands and I can't stands no more...everyone in the media is just absolutely killing the Pac-10--including people like Colin Cowherd and our local show on 1080, which by the way, is captained by the biggest pair of ass-clowns I've ever heard, hands down. I mean, Isaac Ropp and Big Suk are by far the most unoriginal, redundant, trite, moronic assholes in all of sports commentary...and I'll let you in on a little secret: generally sports commentary is bad; it is the lowest of the low of all forms of journalism, which in this day and age, is also atrocious. There is no way to accurately describe how truly bad it is without unleashing a volley of adjectives, such as: bandwagon, white bread, classless, ultraemotional, substanceless, waffling, narrow-minded, shallow, repetitive, unintelligent, and gullible. Let's not forget, it is this media genre that gave us the term "playmaker." What the fuck does that even mean? If we are to take it for face value, then my 9 year old cousin is a playmaker. I honestly cannot think of a more boneheaded term. All it does is allow some fucking moron sports commentator who has absolutely no qualifications other than that he used to play said sport, avoid taking any creative responsibility for actually analyzing his medium in an intelligent manner. I want to rip the testicles off of Mark Schlereth, just so I can listen to the meathead they trotted in to sit next to him, who will no doubt be wearing some ridiculous suit say, "oooh. Now, that guy's a real playmaker."
Anyway, geting back to the original point, look, I'll admit, the Pac-10 is down (down is another moronic term meaning that the teams aren't as good, allowing the idiots another escape from real analysis of individual teams) this year, no doubt. But lets not act like a bunch of lemmings and act rashly which the sports media is so apt to do--last year I recall many commentators saying that the Pac-10 was only behind the SEC in terms of overall conference strength, and lets not forget that since 2002, the only teams to beat USC (other than Texas in 2006), who is without a doubt the best college football program in this century so far, are Pac-10 teams. The Big 12 is admittedly great this year, but they have at least 4 Heisman candidates at quarterback, by far the most impactive position on the field. Put those guys on Pac-10 teams, and suddenly we're fucking great. And this is to totally skip over the fact that no one plays defense in that conference, and none of those teams really played anyone significant in their out of conference schedule (they were 2-1 against ranked teams; wins against Illinois and TCU; loss against Central Florida). If you have questions about the out of conference schedule played by Pac-10 teams, see my earlier post.
The only team in the SEC that hasn't lost is Alabama...so I don't see how that makes any of those other teams better than USC, and the fact is, it really helps your conference when everyone starts out ranked (at the beginning of the year, six SEC teams were in the top 25), and then plays no one difficult out of conference for the first three games; which is basically the same exact thing the Big 12 did.
You see, the real problem with college football, is that teams are ranked at the beginning of the season based purely on speculation, the previous season, and popularity. This allows the conferences that are media darlings (such as the SEC), the luxury of avoiding having to schedule difficult opponents in their out of conference schedule, which thereby makes their conference look more powerful than it actually is because everyone can just pile up a shitload of wins before starting conference play. Conversly, it forces conferences that are not so popular (like the Pac-10, sans USC) to schedule difficult games, often times going cross country, in order to gain recognition. Then, when they lose those games, and everyone goes back to the conference and beats the crap out of each other, you end up with a bunch of good football teams that have mediocre records. Hence the Pac-10 gets killed, the Big 12 is great, and the SEC is still really good, according to the faggots.
In any case, I'll be really interested to see what happens when it comes to bowl season. Oh, and do me a favor would you? Email 1080 the fan and tell them to get rid of those ass-clowns.
Anyway, geting back to the original point, look, I'll admit, the Pac-10 is down (down is another moronic term meaning that the teams aren't as good, allowing the idiots another escape from real analysis of individual teams) this year, no doubt. But lets not act like a bunch of lemmings and act rashly which the sports media is so apt to do--last year I recall many commentators saying that the Pac-10 was only behind the SEC in terms of overall conference strength, and lets not forget that since 2002, the only teams to beat USC (other than Texas in 2006), who is without a doubt the best college football program in this century so far, are Pac-10 teams. The Big 12 is admittedly great this year, but they have at least 4 Heisman candidates at quarterback, by far the most impactive position on the field. Put those guys on Pac-10 teams, and suddenly we're fucking great. And this is to totally skip over the fact that no one plays defense in that conference, and none of those teams really played anyone significant in their out of conference schedule (they were 2-1 against ranked teams; wins against Illinois and TCU; loss against Central Florida). If you have questions about the out of conference schedule played by Pac-10 teams, see my earlier post.
The only team in the SEC that hasn't lost is Alabama...so I don't see how that makes any of those other teams better than USC, and the fact is, it really helps your conference when everyone starts out ranked (at the beginning of the year, six SEC teams were in the top 25), and then plays no one difficult out of conference for the first three games; which is basically the same exact thing the Big 12 did.
You see, the real problem with college football, is that teams are ranked at the beginning of the season based purely on speculation, the previous season, and popularity. This allows the conferences that are media darlings (such as the SEC), the luxury of avoiding having to schedule difficult opponents in their out of conference schedule, which thereby makes their conference look more powerful than it actually is because everyone can just pile up a shitload of wins before starting conference play. Conversly, it forces conferences that are not so popular (like the Pac-10, sans USC) to schedule difficult games, often times going cross country, in order to gain recognition. Then, when they lose those games, and everyone goes back to the conference and beats the crap out of each other, you end up with a bunch of good football teams that have mediocre records. Hence the Pac-10 gets killed, the Big 12 is great, and the SEC is still really good, according to the faggots.
In any case, I'll be really interested to see what happens when it comes to bowl season. Oh, and do me a favor would you? Email 1080 the fan and tell them to get rid of those ass-clowns.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The final debate and Einstein's wisdom
Well folks, it's finally over. The 49th presidential debate ended just over an hour ago, and surprise, surprise, the pundits pontificated that McCain did just wonderfully, and if he had this type of performance in the other two debates (both of which they, at the time, called a draw), this would be a totally different race. This analysis again, has been roundly proven a fraud by (gasp!) actual undecided voters. Here's the link to one of the polls:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/15/politics/horserace/entry4525171.shtml
Never mind that if you are actually still an undecided voter you are an absolute moron--the point is that the poll is at least, hypothetically speaking, unbiased. So again, unless you are going to Keith Olbermann or Jon Stewart for your news, you are not getting the truth, but rather, a careful tightrope walk intended not to scare away conservative viewers or precious corporate sponsors.
The honest, truthful analysis of the debate is simply, as Eugene Robinson, an MSNBC political correspondent and writer for the Washington Post that voters heard in this debate the same thing that they have always heard from recent Republican candidates: I want to cut taxes (for the rich), I want to reduce the size of government, specifically spending (let's see: Reagan, Bush, W...), and you shouldn't vote for my opponent because he has character issues (in their latest charade, he's a terrorist--oooohhhh, spooky, just in time for Halloween), is going to raise your taxes (even though this one has said specifically, time and time again, that he won't), and doesn't have enough experience (wait a second--you're a really old man and you chose "hockey mom" and religious extremist Sarah Palin to be your vice president?).
I would love to skewer that platform again, but for your sake I won't. The Republican economic and governmental philosophy has been put into play and IT HAS FAILED. It essentially boils down to how Albert Einstein famously defined insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. That is clear to pretty much everyone who has been even mildly paying attention to what is going on in the world lately and does not currently have Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or some other paid character assassin screaming in the background of their living rooms right now. It's like that line W once butchered: fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me...right?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/15/politics/horserace/entry4525171.shtml
Never mind that if you are actually still an undecided voter you are an absolute moron--the point is that the poll is at least, hypothetically speaking, unbiased. So again, unless you are going to Keith Olbermann or Jon Stewart for your news, you are not getting the truth, but rather, a careful tightrope walk intended not to scare away conservative viewers or precious corporate sponsors.
The honest, truthful analysis of the debate is simply, as Eugene Robinson, an MSNBC political correspondent and writer for the Washington Post that voters heard in this debate the same thing that they have always heard from recent Republican candidates: I want to cut taxes (for the rich), I want to reduce the size of government, specifically spending (let's see: Reagan, Bush, W...), and you shouldn't vote for my opponent because he has character issues (in their latest charade, he's a terrorist--oooohhhh, spooky, just in time for Halloween), is going to raise your taxes (even though this one has said specifically, time and time again, that he won't), and doesn't have enough experience (wait a second--you're a really old man and you chose "hockey mom" and religious extremist Sarah Palin to be your vice president?).
I would love to skewer that platform again, but for your sake I won't. The Republican economic and governmental philosophy has been put into play and IT HAS FAILED. It essentially boils down to how Albert Einstein famously defined insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. That is clear to pretty much everyone who has been even mildly paying attention to what is going on in the world lately and does not currently have Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or some other paid character assassin screaming in the background of their living rooms right now. It's like that line W once butchered: fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me...right?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The Palin Game
I think it would be apropos at this stage in the game to point out several facts that seem to have been overlooked to this point:
1) the Vice President is the President of the Senate, and
2) is next in line should the president become incapacitated or die while in office.
3) John McCain is 72 years old, and unwilling to release his medical records.
If the alarm bells aren't going off yet, they should be, because if McCain is elected, Sarah Palin will fill that office, become the president of the Senate, and become president of the United States of America and leader of the free world if at anytime, a 72 year old man unwilling to release his medical records, is incapacitated.
Yet somehow, we're supposed to be glad that she actually sounded like a reasonably intelligent person in last night's debate. We're supposed to be thrilled that she had a basic understanding of some of the day's issues. Never mind that she elected to spew GOP talking points instead of answering honest questions that are of grave importance to our country's future. No, no, we're just supposed to lap up the fact that she didn't totally self implode and contradict herself, like she did when she was interviewed by Katie Couric.
Of course, the same pundits that suggested that Palin had a great showing are also the ones that said Barack Obama and McCain tied in the first presidential debate, and that Palin and Biden tied in this debate. Call me crazy I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the next debate will be a draw too if the talking heads have anything to say about it. However, in point of fact, public opinion polls show that viewers thought Obama won the first debate 51 percent to 38 percent, and that Biden won this debate 51 percent to 36 percent. But, maybe it was just that more Democrats were watching and actually paying attention than Republicans--it wouldn't be the first time. (we also like to cite our sources and do research)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html (Obama over McCain)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/debate.poll/?iref=hpmostpop (Biden over Palin)
The sad fact is that this horse race coverage that we get from the networks (aside from FOX--we know their stance--lie, and if people don't believe you shout them down and act outraged) has everything to do with making desperate attempts not to alienate people from either party and nothing to do with actually reporting the news or offering any kind of real analysis of the political situation in this country.
The real analysis is this: Sarah Palin is an absolute joke of a candidate. The fact that she sounded competent in last night's debate doesn't somehow mean that she is actually qualified to hold the office for which she is running, and it shouldn't make anyone feel all tingly and nice inside either. And when I say competent, I mean that her sentences were coherent and she didn't say anything completely ridiculous. Let's not forget that she failed to answer nearly every question that was asked of her, which seems to me the most fundamental directive in a debate. If I have a student that doesn't answer the question in an essay, he fails and is told to do it over. It is beyond me that for some reason people running for the highest political offices are given a pass when it comes to staying on topic.
Ultimately, we shouldn't even be talking about competence. The people running for these offices should be our best and brightest; they should be able to think about complex issues and solve complex problems. I don't give a damn if someone is attractive or if I can have a beer with them or if they're likeable--none of those things make them qualified to hold office. So the fact that Palin was able to read talking points off of three by five index cards for an hour and a half doesn't really comfort me at all.
Neither does the fact that Palin's husband belonged to an organization that hates the United States and wants, sincerely, to secede from the Union. Or the fact that he hasn't graduated from college. Or the fact that Palin's first passport was issued to her about a year ago.
Worse are Palin's religious values. According to one resident of Wasilla, "she asked the library how she could go about banning books," shortly after she became mayor, because she was worried about naughty words. She also made rape victims pay $1,200 in order for their attackers to be prosecuted because of her extreme views on abortion. And guess who has suggested that creationism be taught in public schools: Sarah Palin.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html (Farenheit 451)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/01/planned_parenthood_hits_mccain.html (rape victims pay)
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/politics/election2008/news-article.aspx?storyid=117977&catid=221 (creationism)
Look, we all love our mothers, and people are entitled to their religious views, but being a mom doesn't make you qualified to run for vice president, and when your religious views are way out of the mainstream and at odds with science, logic, and reason (three of the cornerstones of innovation and sound business practices I might add), you should be careful not to mix them with public policy. In most of the other civilized countries in the world, Palin's candidacy would be viewed for what it is: a fraud, and an indication that the party responsible is not to be taken seriously.
Given the last eight years of malfeasance, corruption, and incompetence, lets go ahead and elect people that are qualified to lead our country, and tell the GOP that until they start nominating people that have a genuine interest in doing what's best for this country, they should just do what Sarah Palin should have done: stay home.
Thoughtful...not if you're voting for John McCain
I had an interesting discussion the other day with some friends. I made a comment characterizing Republicans as making gut decisions, and shooting from the hip. My friend rightly corrected me, saying that there are some thoughtful people in the Republican Party, which of course there are, and I think his point, moreover, was that we should shy away from making blanket statements about people, even if we disagree passionately on their politics. A good, reasonable, rationale, thoughtful point...did I mention that he is a Democrat? Nevertheless that got me to thinking...at this point are there really any thoughtful people that plan on voting for McCain/Palin? Are there? Really?
Well, as any well educated person can tell you, that depends on the definition of thoughtful. Thoughtful is defined by Webster's as: 1. full of thought; employed in meditation; contemplative 2. attentive; careful; exercising judgment 3. anxious; solicitous; concerned. So, is anyone who is considering voting for McCain/Palin doing any of the things mentioned above? The short answer is no. The long answer...
No, of course not. For example, one pair of my grandparents are thoughtful people, but when it comes to politics, they are not thoughtful at all--they listen to right wing radio and FOX News, they believe president Bush has done a good job, they, like John McCain, probably still believe that the fundamentals of our economy are strong, they believe that privatization is the end all be all, and they don't believe that health care should be universal or run by the government, even though medicare is universal for the elderly and run by the government. Couldn't these things be said in general of most Republicans. Sure, they may be thoughtful people, but when it comes right down to it, in the realm of politics, they are most certainly not. John McCain intends to carry out the familiar neoconservative mantra if he becomes president, that is: cut taxes, run a deficit, privatize and deregulate, and start wars in places that are of strategic economic importance to U.S. interests. At one time, a "thoughtful" person could have been said to believe in these ideal and still be considered "thoughtful." Anymore, to continue to believe that these things will bring about a prosperous nation is about as far from thoughtful as one can get--it is downright ignorant. Bush has cut taxes, but that hasn't prevented our manufacturing base to continue fleeing overseas, or produced the magical "trickle down economic" benefits of which Reagan spoke (also known as voodoo economics, perhaps a more apt name), and to which many conservatives still adhere to, displaying the ultimate disregard for reason or logic, or thoughtfulness for that matter. A thoughtful person would note that tax cuts to the wealthy are not going to work very well if the industry in which they are investing EMPLOYS PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES. They are also not going to work very well when businesses are fond of furnishing their CEO's and other high on the corporate ladder with monstrous compensations packages, EVEN WHEN THAT BUSINESS FAILS.
Oh, and technically you can run deficits as long as you can find people who are willing to buy your debt, but then, a thoughtful person might think--hmmm, what is going to happen if we have a national crisis, economic or otherwise, like we are having right now? Or what if those buying our debt decide to call it in? No, no, a thoughtful person would certainly not endorse such a policy, not indefinitely anyway.
And what of privatization and deregulation--isn't that the reason we are in the economic mess we are in right now, because we allowed mortgage and financial industries to do whatever they pleased without any oversight or regulations governing those actions? A thoughtful person would certainly not vote for someone like McCain who agrees with these economic philosophies, especially in sight of their recent failures.
As far as starting wars in places of strategic economic importance, a thoughtful person would never agree to such a premise. After all, aren't we ourselves, the United States, a place of strategic importance, full of natural and human resources, and close to large trading partners like Canada, Mexico, and South America? If the Chinese or any European country were to follow our example, they should start a war with us, for we are economically stategic in the world market. Or is it just places where we know that we can bully a petty dictator and win easily--wait a second, how's that going again--4,170 dead soldiers and a cost of $600 billion and counting for both. Again, I don't think a thoughtful person would consent to such a foolhardy venture, or future ventures, and McCain says he has no intent of leaving Iraq anytime soon.
Thus, in the end, I am left to conclude that Republicans are not thoughtful, nor is anyone considering voting for them this fall. If you are still unconvinced...consider the following:
1) Would a thoughtful person allow the chant "drill, baby, drill" to be uttered as the solution to our energy problems at his party's convention?
2) Would a thoughtful person that is in his eight decade pick a political neophyte (who has only recently travelled outside of North America, whose husband has not even graduated from college, and who is not even allowed to speak to the press) to be his next in line as leader of the free world?
3) Would a thoughtful person have no idea how to use a computer or email people?
4) Would a thoughtful person forget how many houses he had, or refuse to answer the question and what for someone from a focus group to tell him what to say?
5) Would a thoughtful person vote against veterans benefits packages time and time again, when he himself, is a veteran?
The answer is, again, no, and the person that has done all of these things is the Republican candidate for president, John McCain.
Pac 10 is terrible...keep eating your fried mayonaise balls southerners
Well, it's happening again. The East coast SEC slurping faggots are right back at it. The Pac-10 is terrible. One of the absolute worst. I guess after years and years of sending 6 or 7 teams to bowl games and winning a majority of them, we still have to fight this battle. It seems that unless we win and win constantly, our conference is just awful.
I guess we should just go back to scheduling cream puff teams for our non-conference games like the SEC does. And to what do we owe this reputation to? Let's go week by week: in week 1, the Pac 10 had no bad losses, and we had wins over an ACC team (Virginia), a Big 10 team (Michigan State), and an SEC team (Tennessee). Yeah, Washington State lost, but they're horrible, and have a new coach this year, and...they're god awful, and I don't even count them anymore.
OK, moving on to week 2, OSU loses to a damn good Penn State (now ranked 12) team full of felons, and Washington loses to BYU (now ranked 11) due to a horrible call at the end of the game. If Washington wins then suddenly the Pac 10 is great and BYU is overrated. But they lost, by one point, on a horrible call, so the Pac 10 stinks.
Now admittedly, weeks 3 and 4 look pretty bad. In week 3, Cal loses to Maryland, Oregon barely sneaks by Purdue, UCLA get utterly embarrassed by BYU (which doesn't matter if they don't benefit in the previous week from a horrible call), Oklahoma (ranked #2) beats Washington which is no suprise, and both Arizona schools lose. In week 4, Oregon loses (without their starting QB) to a very well coached Boise State team, and Arizona State gets beat by Georgia, but certainly not embarrassed.
But look at it with some perspective--out of conference losses go to: Oklahoma (#2), Georgia (#3), 2 to BYU (#11), Penn State (#12)Boise State (#19), and Oklahoma State--none of whom have lost yet, Maryland (3-1), UNLV (3-1), and New Mexico (1-3). Oh yeah, the Pac 10 is just horrible, the out of conference teams they've lost to have an overall record of 27-5. Yep, the Pac 10 is sure down this year. Jesus Christ, if we'd won half of those games people would have to admit we're better than the SEC. Of course they wouldn't. And they won't. Nope, we're terrible and I guess we'll have to live with that...at least until bowl season. Until then just settle in for a nice long year of listening to giant redneck faggot sucking sounds when people talk about the SEC. Maybe they can ruin another election for us too.
Bailout BS
For those people that are complaining about the fact the bailout wasn't passed, here's what it says it plain English--sent to me by my buddy Rob up in Maine:
By the way, I ran into a woman at work today that was complaining about our economy, and I told her I was glad it didn't pass, and then she said that she'd lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in the stock market. I told her that I was sorry for her losses, and that is of course not the reason that I'm glad it didn't pass, and I just left it at that, but what I wanted to say was...the stock market doesn't guarantee that you are going to make money. Just because some slick ass investment analyst comes and talks about this and that doesn't mean you are going to automatically get free money.
And I guess to some degree, this is what people are going to have to learn: if you vote for people that allow for banks and investment companies to do whatever they want, and you think that the housing market is always going to go up, then you better prepare yourself for the fact that the shit is going to hit the fan at some point. Republicans always talk about personal responsibility--well, maybe now that congress isn't just going to write blank checks for failures, maybe people will take some personal responsibility--for their vote, for their investments, etc.
It all comes back to the basic eyeball test--if it looks to good to be true, it probably is...and the other thing is that it would probably be a heck of a lot easier to write this $700 billion dollar check if George W. hadn't blown about that much already with his little adventure in Iraq, not to mention cutting taxes on dividends and Americans making over $250,000 a year. This is why you don't run a constant deficit or partake in voodoo economics, because when you really need the money, it's not there.
So I guess, excuse me for being crass about this issue. I'm sorry that people lost their asses yesterday. I'd rather that hadn't happened. But the American economy doesn't run on hope and bailouts for failing companies. It runs on innovation, sound investments, manufacturing, hard work, and ingenuity, none of which our commanders in the executive branch give a damn about. And you can't blame this on the Democrats--plenty of Republicans voted against this bill as well, and even so, blaming Congress at this point is like blaming a police officer for arresting someone that makes a habit of driving drunk--sure, they've probably gotten home safe before, and maybe they could've gotten home safe this time, but eventually, they were going to get caught or get in an accident.
Happy Landings,
JA
Monday, September 15, 2008
Horrified
I don't have anything great to say this time--just that I'm scared to death. John McCain is winning in the polls. He is actually in the lead. How is that possible? Are they real or is there that big of a media conspiracy? I guess I just thought there was no way McCain could actually win, but apparently I was wrong. Does anyone know anything about this anomaly?
If John McCain wins this election, then you can just go ahead and put a fork in American democracy. It's over. There is no good or rational reason to believe that McCain is going to do anything other than what Bush has done, and Bush enjoys some of the lowest approval ratings in the 20th century. Yet somehow Republicans and Independents are still willing to elect this guy...hey assholes, ever heard of buyers remorse? I apologize for the language, but this is incredible. It's like watching a dog eat his own vomit because he's too damn dumb to remember why he threw it up in the first place.
I'm sorry but if this continues I'm leaving. I can't live through another 4 years of cronyism and do-nothing politics. And it is just goddamn depressing. Maybe that's not the right attitude, but like I said, if McCain wins there is no more democracy, because it means that Americans are too dumb and/or too confused by a fourth estate (the media) that increasingly resembles People and the National Inquirer to vote for their best interests. It means that "drill, baby, drill" beat out change, hope, and feeling positive about other people. It means that playground politics and he-said, she-said sound bytes are more important than addressing real issues such as energy, health care, and foreign policy. It means that intellect, knowledge, and problem solving don't matter--AND I'M A FUCKING TEACHER!!! If John McCain wins this election it means that I don't matter, and if that's the case, I'm going to take my talents somewhere I do.
If John McCain wins this election, then you can just go ahead and put a fork in American democracy. It's over. There is no good or rational reason to believe that McCain is going to do anything other than what Bush has done, and Bush enjoys some of the lowest approval ratings in the 20th century. Yet somehow Republicans and Independents are still willing to elect this guy...hey assholes, ever heard of buyers remorse? I apologize for the language, but this is incredible. It's like watching a dog eat his own vomit because he's too damn dumb to remember why he threw it up in the first place.
I'm sorry but if this continues I'm leaving. I can't live through another 4 years of cronyism and do-nothing politics. And it is just goddamn depressing. Maybe that's not the right attitude, but like I said, if McCain wins there is no more democracy, because it means that Americans are too dumb and/or too confused by a fourth estate (the media) that increasingly resembles People and the National Inquirer to vote for their best interests. It means that "drill, baby, drill" beat out change, hope, and feeling positive about other people. It means that playground politics and he-said, she-said sound bytes are more important than addressing real issues such as energy, health care, and foreign policy. It means that intellect, knowledge, and problem solving don't matter--AND I'M A FUCKING TEACHER!!! If John McCain wins this election it means that I don't matter, and if that's the case, I'm going to take my talents somewhere I do.
If you like Bush, vote for McCain
Lately I've been hearing a lot of small little snippy "he-said, she-said, they did, they didn't" type of stuff about both sets of presidential and vice presidential candidates. The problem with this is that it dilutes the issues that are really important in this election, and becomes a distracting buzz that can be difficult and frustrating to deal with. This email is meant to cut through all of that, and provide the reader with a clearer picture of what this election is really all about.
Essentially everything boils down to this: if you like what president Bush has done, you should vote for John McCain. If you don't like what president Bush has done, you should vote for Barack Obama.
For example, if you think that we should continue to spend $2 billion a week on the war in Iraq, then you should vote for John McCain, who has no plan for troop withdrawal according to his website.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/ (link to article with 2b estimate)
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm (John McCain's website with his plan for the war)
Please remember that when you make your decision on this issue, we have so far spent about $600 billion on the war, and long term estimates by pulitzer prize winning economist, Joseph E. Stiglitz, puts the total cost at around $4 trillion when it is all said and done. The congressional budget office puts that number between $1 and $2 trillion. If spending between 2 and 4 trillion dollars on the war in Iraq is OK with you, then you should vote for John McCain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html (link to article)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/03/19/business/20080319_COSTS.html (link to graph)
And FYI, I did search the wall street journal as well, but was unable to find any relevant articles on the war's cost. Also, remember that our current debt stands at 9.4 trillion, and that our trade deficit is 62.3 billion dollars. If this is OK with you and you have no problem with that, then vote for John McCain.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm (national debt)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avmDj_C7d8IU&refer=home (trade deficit)
If you are satisfied with the fact that total spending on health care was $2.3 trillion in 2007, or $7600 per person, then you should vote for John McCain. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product in 2007--if that's just fine with you, vote for John McCain. His proposals for health care reform are similar to Bush, and his plans to bring competition to health care markets will do nothing to reduce the amount of money spent on the administration of care, or to pay top corporate lawyers salaries to deny their clients coverage.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml (health care facts)
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm (John McCain's health care proposals)
Finally, if you are comfortable with the erosion of our civil rights, the intrusion of fundamentalist religious causes into the judicial arena, and the establishment of bigotry in the U.S. constitution against gays and lesbians, you should vote for John McCain. It is all right on his website.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm
Again, if none of this bothers you--if this type of agenda sounds like a good idea, then you should certainly vote for John McCain--at least you understand and support what you are voting for--and it is likely that Barack Obama is not the candidate for you.
However, if you would like to see real health care reform, an energy policy that involves more than simply "drill, drill drill," a plan for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and a plan for the economy that would cut taxes for middle class families, then you should vote for Barack Obama. It is all right on his website.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
So to conclude, the question of who to vote for this fall is very simple: if you like what Bush has done, then you should vote for John McCain. He has plans to carry on a similar administration. If, on the other hand, you would like to see a change of policies when it comes to issues like the economy, health care, Iraq, civil rights, and energy policy, then you should vote for Barack Obama. When talking politics with friends I encourage you to simplify the conversation in this manner. It is simple, accurate (according to both candidate's websites), easily stated, and really not all that controversial. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Essentially everything boils down to this: if you like what president Bush has done, you should vote for John McCain. If you don't like what president Bush has done, you should vote for Barack Obama.
For example, if you think that we should continue to spend $2 billion a week on the war in Iraq, then you should vote for John McCain, who has no plan for troop withdrawal according to his website.
http://www.boston.com/news/
http://www.johnmccain.com/
Please remember that when you make your decision on this issue, we have so far spent about $600 billion on the war, and long term estimates by pulitzer prize winning economist, Joseph E. Stiglitz, puts the total cost at around $4 trillion when it is all said and done. The congressional budget office puts that number between $1 and $2 trillion. If spending between 2 and 4 trillion dollars on the war in Iraq is OK with you, then you should vote for John McCain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/
http://www.nytimes.com/
And FYI, I did search the wall street journal as well, but was unable to find any relevant articles on the war's cost. Also, remember that our current debt stands at 9.4 trillion, and that our trade deficit is 62.3 billion dollars. If this is OK with you and you have no problem with that, then vote for John McCain.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
If you are satisfied with the fact that total spending on health care was $2.3 trillion in 2007, or $7600 per person, then you should vote for John McCain. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product in 2007--if that's just fine with you, vote for John McCain. His proposals for health care reform are similar to Bush, and his plans to bring competition to health care markets will do nothing to reduce the amount of money spent on the administration of care, or to pay top corporate lawyers salaries to deny their clients coverage.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/
http://www.johnmccain.com/
Finally, if you are comfortable with the erosion of our civil rights, the intrusion of fundamentalist religious causes into the judicial arena, and the establishment of bigotry in the U.S. constitution against gays and lesbians, you should vote for John McCain. It is all right on his website.
http://www.johnmccain.com/
Again, if none of this bothers you--if this type of agenda sounds like a good idea, then you should certainly vote for John McCain--at least you understand and support what you are voting for--and it is likely that Barack Obama is not the candidate for you.
However, if you would like to see real health care reform, an energy policy that involves more than simply "drill, drill drill," a plan for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and a plan for the economy that would cut taxes for middle class families, then you should vote for Barack Obama. It is all right on his website.
http://www.barackobama.com/
http://my.barackobama.com/
http://www.barackobama.com/
http://www.barackobama.com/
So to conclude, the question of who to vote for this fall is very simple: if you like what Bush has done, then you should vote for John McCain. He has plans to carry on a similar administration. If, on the other hand, you would like to see a change of policies when it comes to issues like the economy, health care, Iraq, civil rights, and energy policy, then you should vote for Barack Obama. When talking politics with friends I encourage you to simplify the conversation in this manner. It is simple, accurate (according to both candidate's websites), easily stated, and really not all that controversial. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
As few of you know, I have recently become a huge a huge Colin Cowherd fan. His show, "The Herd" is aired on ESPN Sports Radio everyday from 6am-10am. He's an Oregon native and as some of you may remember he used to be the sports anchor on KATU. The appeal of listening to "the Herd" is that Colin is able to transcend the realm of sports by very insightfully relating events that happen on, off, or around the field to real life. He usually begins his rants with "often in life..." and then goes on like a proud father teaching his sons a lesson with a pipe in his mouth and the evening newspaper in his lap. His show is classy, he doesn't tolerate nonsense, and he dispels common myths, misnomers, and mob mentality as a matter of course and principle--and he does it with style. Lighthearted, humorous, self-deprecating, "the Herd" is something I look forward to every tired morning before and on my way to work. Until today that is...until today.
Thursday, Colin began on a rant that he often trots out and that I don't really agree with--the old siding with the muckety-muck argument. Cowherd really enjoys sucking up to big business, executives, and CEO's, and though I disagree, I generally just ignore it and let it pass--there's no way I'm going to agree with everything someone in talk radio says (after all, it is a cult of personality), and in any case the rants are usually short lived anyway.
But today the rant took a turn for the worse. It also took a turn for the ignorant and the anti-intellectual. Cowherd said, and I'm paraphrasing here so bear with me, he said that, "it's easy for the 40 year-old Starbucks guy with a ponytail and an exotic snake at home to vote for Obama, but when you own a business and Obama's going to raise taxes to 39%, it's not so easy."
Obviously, there are a number of things wrong with Colin's statement. First off, I'd argue that $12 an hour, 40 year old Starbucks guy has a lot more to lose in this election than business owning, vacation house, trophy wife, dockers wearing CEO guy, considering that John McCain has no plan to address our health care problem, our energy or economic issues, and plans to privatize social security. It also makes democrats look as if we're a bunch of wierdos who are out of the mainstream, and while we certainly have our share of the wierdos, at least they're generally peaceful and well educated, unlike the gun owning crazies and fundamentalist Christians on the right. Moreover, considering that the economy is failing and that we're in a recession, trade deficit, and budget deficit due to nearly three decades of conservative economic policies (I include Clinton in this), it would seem to me that business owning CEO guy has a lot to lose as well if McCain is elected.
But all of that doesn't bother me as much as one simple fact: the President has no power to levy taxes. It is right in the Constitution, article 1 section 7. Presidents are credited with tax cuts because they often propose them and sign them into law. Bush, for instance is hated by liberals for his tax cuts, but they were in fact passed by a Republican congress, not Bush himself.
My confrontation with a townie
Now that Barrack Obama finally has the Democratic nomination, I was ready to sit back, enjoy life, and wait for the good times to start rolling. Unfortunately, the vacation was short lived as I ran into several older gentlemen that believe McCain would become our next president. "Ha," I laughed, "that's a good one--can I buy you a beer?" When they said no, I knew they were Republicans. We proceeded with an argument on politics, and here's how it went: Me--facts, Them--that sounds like a left wing conspiracy, Me--more facts, more strategy, Them--left wing, Me--what does that even mean?, Them--?, Me--what has Bush done that is so great?, Them--Bush isn't even a right wing guy, Me--?, Them--that sounds like a left wing conspiracy...
Well, at this point I challenged them to a debate, and asked for a crowd to join me to decide the winner. Unfortunately they declined, however, I did glean some incredibly valuable information from these gentlemen. The first is that the right wing argues that any progressive talking point (health care, energy policy, Iraq, etc.) sounds "just like something a left wing extremist would say." At the same time, they say that there are normal democrats out there, but that the media is so far left because of control that comes from the far left extremists, that normal democrats don't get to have their say. If you are not laughing yet, you should be. Obviously, this Republican talking point is an attempt to categorize mainstream American opinions as far-left, thereby marginalizing them. The trick is to ask these folks what mainstream democrats believe in, or even, what they believe in...if they are anything like the people I met, they won't be able to tell you anything--in fact, this question will fool them, because they've been trained for so long simply to hate other people and ideas, that supporting something is a totally foreign concept.
The other thing to do is to play dirty. I know that being Democrats, you are probably not inclined to stoop to this level, but let me remind you of a few things: the Republican party exists because white Southerners are still pissed off that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act (in short because of lingering racism going back to slavery), conservative Christians don't want to support a pro-choice agenda, and rich people vote for their own best interests (its easy to afford health care, high gas prices, and inflation when you have millions). Republicans represent the worst, most selfish, ignorant segments of American society, and will stop at nothing to win an election--even if that means cheating and belittling our Constitution and/or our Democracy.
Ready? OK. So the strategy is to go ahead and play the race card. Not because it is unjustified--precisely because it is--you see, the right wing is going to try and start manufacturing all these bogus stories about Obama's lack of experience, his this, his that, reverend Wright, etc, etc. The point is that most, if not all of these claims are going to be total BS that is meant to give racist Americans "legitimate" reasons not to vote for Obama. Call them on it. Tonight, one of the guys I was arguing said that Barrack, "was a nobody, a nothing." I asked him what he meant, and in the middle of his tirade, he uttered the n-word. Good night, game over, TKO. The bartender asked him to leave and he walked out with his tail between his legs. Call them out on their racism...because many Republicans are racist. Pull the race card on them. Play to win. This election is critical to the future of our country. We need Barrack in the oval office.
Well, at this point I challenged them to a debate, and asked for a crowd to join me to decide the winner. Unfortunately they declined, however, I did glean some incredibly valuable information from these gentlemen. The first is that the right wing argues that any progressive talking point (health care, energy policy, Iraq, etc.) sounds "just like something a left wing extremist would say." At the same time, they say that there are normal democrats out there, but that the media is so far left because of control that comes from the far left extremists, that normal democrats don't get to have their say. If you are not laughing yet, you should be. Obviously, this Republican talking point is an attempt to categorize mainstream American opinions as far-left, thereby marginalizing them. The trick is to ask these folks what mainstream democrats believe in, or even, what they believe in...if they are anything like the people I met, they won't be able to tell you anything--in fact, this question will fool them, because they've been trained for so long simply to hate other people and ideas, that supporting something is a totally foreign concept.
The other thing to do is to play dirty. I know that being Democrats, you are probably not inclined to stoop to this level, but let me remind you of a few things: the Republican party exists because white Southerners are still pissed off that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act (in short because of lingering racism going back to slavery), conservative Christians don't want to support a pro-choice agenda, and rich people vote for their own best interests (its easy to afford health care, high gas prices, and inflation when you have millions). Republicans represent the worst, most selfish, ignorant segments of American society, and will stop at nothing to win an election--even if that means cheating and belittling our Constitution and/or our Democracy.
Ready? OK. So the strategy is to go ahead and play the race card. Not because it is unjustified--precisely because it is--you see, the right wing is going to try and start manufacturing all these bogus stories about Obama's lack of experience, his this, his that, reverend Wright, etc, etc. The point is that most, if not all of these claims are going to be total BS that is meant to give racist Americans "legitimate" reasons not to vote for Obama. Call them on it. Tonight, one of the guys I was arguing said that Barrack, "was a nobody, a nothing." I asked him what he meant, and in the middle of his tirade, he uttered the n-word. Good night, game over, TKO. The bartender asked him to leave and he walked out with his tail between his legs. Call them out on their racism...because many Republicans are racist. Pull the race card on them. Play to win. This election is critical to the future of our country. We need Barrack in the oval office.
Obama's so dangerous I just peed my pants
I have some really, really important information for you about Barack Obama, so listen up. First off, if he's elected, he's going to raise your taxes. By 50%. He's also going to give Iraq to Al Quada, because he feels bad about the war. Oh and if that's not bad enough, there's more. Since Obama is also a racist, who hates white people, if elected, he's going to enslave all European Americans to amend for slavery. Then he's going to take all of the houses of the white people and invite illegal immigrants to come live in them, declaring to the white people, "You just got screwed, Hacienda style...bitches!" After that he's going to disband the military and turn over the security and control of our country to the Black Panthers, arming them with light sabers, who he's going to use to kill all the members of the house of representatives, the senate, and the supreme court, Anakin Skywalker style. And yes, they are going to kill the younglings. Then he's going to hold the biggest interracial porn shoot ever, with the white female slaves mind you, on the white house lawn, and he's going to force Steven Spielberg to film it, calling it "Encounters of the Black Kind." He's also announced plans to establish worship of the Dark Side of the force as the state religion, and to immediately use all of NASA's researchers to begin searching for Clingon warships. Once he has allied the Clingons and the Black Panthers fighting force, he's going to invade Europe, using the white slaves as human shields. After he's conquered Europe, he's going to use all of the US and Europe's Nukes to try to destroy the sun, because he's always hated tanning. Then he's going to escape to another galaxy with the Clingons, leaving us all to die of starvation on a dark and desolate planet. His final words will be, "How's that for Change...bitches!"
Just thought you should know.
Just thought you should know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)