Rollin' Down Highway 41

Another day, another musing. Time for another column of shorter thoughts. As always, bonus points to whoever figures out why I used the title I did.

1. So Rod Blagojevich got nailed for corruption. Is anyone actually surprised by this? Just look at the guy. Doesn't he have that "I'd shake down your kids for their lunch money" look to him? People act as though they're shocked - SHOCKED - that he would try to ransom a Senate appointment. Haven't they been paying attention? He was already under investigation for about twelve other forms of corruption; the only shocking thing is that he was stupid enough to do this now. He must have known that Fitzgerald was still listening in on his conversations. And what kind of idiot speaks so candidly about making an under-the-table deal when he's already under investigation? Even Mafia guys know to speak in code unless they're in a safe house. Didn't he watch any of The Sopranos?

As for the Senate seat, the state pretty much has to have a special election. I can't foresee the people of Illinois being willing to let anyone in that administration appoint someone for the remainder of what used to be President-elect Obama's term. That said, I'm in favor of the lieutenant governor's suggestion of a temporary appointment until such a special election can be held. There's really no excuse for Illinois being underrepresented in the Senate for the minimum 4 months it would take until the election is held (as they'll almost certainly piggyback it onto the usual local election primaries in April; this would save up to $25 million) when there's an easy way to solve it. Of course, the Republican Party is painting with a broad tar brush yet again, claiming that anyone who stood in line with Blagojevich's aides for a cup of coffee at Starbucks is equally corrupt, and as such no one in the administration should be trusted with the power to make this decision. Naturally there's no evidence for this, but hey, evidence is the standard of proof of the last century, right? Honestly, what's the worst that could happen? Congress has an equally difficult time getting the necessary things accomplished because of pointless partisan filibustering? If there's going to be an election in April, what would they stand to lose? If the guy that gets appointed is corrupt, the voters will get rid of him. Simple enough.

2. Off and on, I read Ruben Navarette's column, either on CNN or when it's in the local paper. I don't always agree with his viewpoint (in fact, I'm usually about 80-20 against), but usually I can at least respect his opinion, as it comes from thought and reasoning (a rarity in conservative writing these days). In fact, in some regards I consider him one of the very few who is pretty much right on regarding immigration. That being said, his last column actually bothered me quite a bit, though not for the reasons you may think. As you can read, he argues that Bill Richardson would have been a superior choice for Secretary of State. In that regard, we're on the same page; I said for months after Biden was named VP that if Lugar didn't want the job, it should go to Richardson, as his years as UN ambassador and his numerous negotiations in the Middle East made him the most qualified candidate. Navarette, however, argues that Richardson - and the Hispanic community in general - deserve better than what they've been given because of their support of Obama in the general election. In essence, he claims that Obama "owes" the Hispanic population for their support, and failing to name Richardson Secretary of State (and, to this point, failing to name any other Hispanics to Cabinet posts) is an insult to the community. That is utter hogwash. This is the problem I've long had with the Cabinet: rather than appoint the people most qualified for the positions, politicians feel they need to hit every demographic group to show their "desire for equality." In some cases, the two coincide. I don't think anyone had a problem with Colin Powell as Secretary of State; Condoleezza Rice, on the other hand... No one group of people is owed anything by the President; their support was freely given in the hope that said President would best represent the wishes of the constituency. Instead of complaining about the people put into these jobs, perhaps Mr. Navarette should be more concerned about what these people are going to do. The best way to ensure that your community is best represented is to make your policy wishes known and to fight for them; that, rather than fighting the choices of who will enact said policy (especially given that most potential choices have relatively similar views), presents the greatest opportunity for effecting change.

3. The auto "bailout" is a touchy subject with me. First of all, I come from a family of unionized labor, so my opinions on the subject are naturally going to be colored by my experience. Second, it's not really a bailout at all. The companies aren't asking to just be given money with no expectation of return payment; they're asking for a bridge loan, something that the government has done for them before. Third, the fact that is even a discussion at all bugs the hell out of me. The federal government gives $700 billion to Henry Paulson to do with as he sees fit, and now we have no idea where huge chunks of that money went, and Congress is balking at $15-30 billion? I think Jon Stewart said it best: "When the auto industry f**** up, WE STILL GET CARS!" I'm not saying that there shouldn't be conditions attached; a good chunk of their problems were obviously self-inflicted, and there need to be drastic changes in their business model if they're going to succeed and pay back said money. However, when you're facing a 3 million job sinkhole (thank you Rachel Maddow, that's a good way to put it), you don't just let it swallow the city! If you think things are bad now, what do you think would happen if unemployment were to jump 1-2% literally overnight?

4. On a related note, Senate Republicans killed the last attempt to lend money to the automakers following two things that seem astonishing to the outside viewer. First, they tried to directly force the UAW and its related unions to accept substantial wage cuts, using the threat of vetoing the loan as leverage...no, let's call it what it was: extortion. The claims that UAW workers make drastically more than Japanese workers are so far off base as to be laughable. In actual wages, all the major auto companies pay about the same; the numbers the Republicans used for their arguments included both pensions and health benefits. Anyone with even basic knowledge of how health care works globally knows that the average health care plan has a drastically higher per person cost here as opposed to most other countries. You can thank the insurance companies for that. Forcing people who are already making the industry standard to cut wages (because any person who would willingly sacrifice health benefits must need them to treat that massive head injury they must have sustained) by holding the prospect of losing their livelihoods over their heads isn't just low, it's criminal.

The second thing is that said Senate Republicans were warned by Dick Cheney (honestly, how many of you thought that I'd be siding with Dick Cheney, well, ever?) that if they failed to work to push the auto loans through, "it'll be Herbert Hoover time." You know what the sad thing is? THEY TOOK IT AS A COMPLIMENT! Think about that for a second. There is actually a segment of our Congress that thinks that Herbert Hoover made the right moves in the early 1930s. They honestly believe that taking no action is the best way to overcome certain economic collapse, that if we just get out of the way, things will fix themselves. You want an example of how ass-backwards this is? Bush and Cheney both think these guys are completely wrong, and they've been championing the free market for the last 8 years! Shouldn't someone be looking into recall votes for these guys? Heck, shouldn't there be protesters sitting outside their houses right now?

All right, that ended up being longer than I thought it would be. I've got a lot of other thoughts, but they'll have to wait for another night. Part 2 should be coming within the next couple nights.

P.S. If you've been reading these, please feel free to post a comment, either here or on my Facebook page. I'd like to know if people are actually reading these, and I'm always interesting in fomenting discussion.

Between Barack and a Hard Place

"Betrayal is the only truth that sticks." - Arthur Miller

I have known the name Joe Lieberman since I was seven years old. At the time, the only reason I knew his name was because of my status as an avid gamer. Repeatedly, his name came up in discussions about censorship of video games and TV, and as I was a fan of both, I resented his insinuation that I couldn't tell the difference between reality and fiction. Even at such a young age, my first thought about Joe Lieberman was "Doesn't this guy have anything better to do?" He was my first introduction to the concept of legislating to counteract an unwillingness to be a good parent and to the idea that someone who didn't know anything about me could somehow know what was best for me.

Needless to say, I haven't cared for Joe Lieberman for quite some time.

As the years passed, Lieberman for the most part harped on about the same things, pursuing a Democratic domestic agenda while simultaneously brandishing a Republican foreign policy (this is something he himself has said). For the most part, I was free to ignore him, as much of Congress ignored his moralizing in favor of doing their own moralizing. Then, in 2000, Al Gore chose him as his running mate. I was conflicted (which ultimately didn't mean a whole lot, since I couldn't legally vote yet). I liked Al Gore. Despite the fact that he was incredibly boring at times I knew that he was a fellow intellectual, and at the time he was essentially the only one speaking out on climate change. Unlike some people I know, I could divorce the individual from his family (specifically Tipper, whose pursuit of censorship in music I consider as abhorrent as Lieberman's positions). I couldn't, however, divorce him from Lieberman. This was his choice to serve in the second-highest office in the land: a man diametrically opposed to several of my own positions. For that reason, I couldn't put my support behind Gore. Of course, I couldn't support Bush either, so I was left without any option.

Following the election Lieberman disappeared from the public eye for a time, until the buildup for the war in Iraq began. Lieberman became the Administration's "go-to Dem." On the war, he sided, and continues to side, with the Administration on all matters; he was the one who sponsored the Senate resolution giving President Bush free reign to use the military as he sees fit in Iraq. He declared his support for Alberto Gonzalez's definition of the Geneva Conventions, effectively permitting the use of torture. Time and again he has voted to uphold the Patriot Act and reauthorize funding for the War without any conditions. My general distaste for Lieberman grew into a bitter loathing; to me, he represented the absolute worst the Senate could offer: a yes man with no interest in finding his own answers, only in trusting the words of a patently untrustworthy conservative hegemony. I began to find amusement in his failures. His inability to draw more supporters than Al Sharpton in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries amused me, as did his loss to Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary. For a time, I thought that people had finally seen him for the wolf he is.

Then something unexpected happened. Lieberman reneged on a promise not to run if he lost the primary, and under the mantle of "Connecticut for Lieberman" party candidate, he won reelection, largely in part to the support of conservatives. At this point, he became Public Enemy #1 in my eyes. Yet the Democratic Party continued to tolerate his shenanigans, agreeing to allow him to maintain his seniority and all his committee positions in exchange for his continued caucusing with the Democrats, thus granting them a slim majority. There's an old saying, that the enemy of an enemy is a friend. What then, is the friend of an enemy who gives you an advantage over said enemy?

For some reason Lieberman once again disappeared, for the most part, from public view, despite some pretty crazy goings-on. Then came the 2008 campaign and the candidacy of John McCain. It's not much of a surprise that Lieberman backed McCain, as the two are old friends and share similar views on the use of the military in foreign affairs. What did come as a surprise was his grandstanding for McCain. His repeated campaigning for McCain, his perpetuation of the myths about Obama, his stunning support of Sarah Palin...all of this, coupled with his speech at the Republican National Convention (a slap in the face to his party if there ever was one), convinced me that Lieberman no longer viewed himself as a Democrat. Apparently several Democrats thought the same thing, for following the election several members of the Party wanted him out of his position as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, a post which had allowed him over the past four years to prevent Congress from performing the oversight duties necessary to keep the Bush Administration in check. However, in part because of their desire to possibly hold a filibuster-proof majority, in part because of the mercy of President-elect Obama (God, I love typing that), they ultimately decided to do nothing.

By now, most people know that Lieberman didn't lose his chairmanship and chalk it up to Democratic mercy, as I've suggested above. What they don't know is the third part, that Lieberman told Harry Reid that if his chairmanship was stripped, he would leave the Democratic caucus for the Republicans. In essence, Lieberman held the Democrats hostage, playing political games with a position that holds far too much significance for that sort of nonsense. Maybe taking his position is vengeful. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the notion that he should keep the position simply because he has it now. He's done nothing with a position that presented the prime opportunity for Congress to check the absurd excesses in executive power the Bush Administration has built up over the last eight years. Why not give it to someone else who might, you know, hold some hearings once in a while?

I'm not going to knock Lieberman for his support of McCain. I will knock him for his choice to get in the mud with him, though. There's a big difference between supporting a candidate and actively trying to slander the opposing candidate. Sooner or later he should have to pay, not just for this, but for all of his other failings: his refusal to take on an Administration so off-course they couldn't find their way back to the road with three maps and a GPS, his concentration on legislating morality at a time where far more important matters deserved the scrutiny of a United States Senator, his shifty manner of ignoring his own proclamations. What does it take for people to notice that the snake in their midst is a snake? Moreover, what does it take for them to do something about it? The Democratic Party has been bitten by the snake and still refuses to cut off the head.

Hopefully, someday someone in Washington will grow a pair and put an end to this chicanery. Until then, here's hoping that Connecticut, and America, see him for what he is: pathetic.

Sing My Song

I've decided that, rather than blather on about the bailout, this post is going to be more in the form of "Ramblings;" those familiar with Bill Simmons will know what I'm talking about. I'm going to hit a lot more subjects with much shorter paragraphs. Grab something sturdy and hold on. Oh, and 20 points to the first person who gets why I went with that title.

1. I understand the necessity of the bailout as far as unfreezing credit markets goes. I understand the concept of directly purchasing stakes in the banks to restore confidence and enable flexibility. I even understand that the complexity of the problem (seeing as the problem lies in at least four separate areas of credit) requires an immediate response of massive proportions. What bothers me about this bailout, like most things this administration has done, is the precedent. Pumping substantial money into businesses that by all rights deserve to fail for their irresponsible speculation and mindless greed functions against the basic principles of capitalism. Those who know me should know by now that I'm not the world's biggest defender of capitalism because it leads to problems like this where a whole industry can go under thanks to rampant greed and unchecked idiocy. The issue is that the people in charge of this bailout ARE the world's biggest defenders of capitalism. Deregulation and government promotion of the laissez-fair attitude are part of what got us into this mess in the first place; for years now, President Bush has pushed his tax breaks with the tagline "Don't worry, the market will fix itself." Well, that's what the market's doing now; the ones who stupidly pursued securities in risky mortgage debt are failing, while those that kept their assets in more stable funds remain solvent. So what's our solution? Give money to the people who made bad choices! If these people can be paid off for their ignorance, what's the limit? Will we subsidize the oil companies when the first cars that run on compressed air and magnets are released? Will we have to pay when retailers underperform this Christmas? Will we be paying for farmers who can't grow crops? (OK, that last one was a bad example.)

Again, I understand the bailout's necessity. I just hate the precedent it sets.

2. I might hate nearly every appointment President Bush has made, as most smack of cronyism (Alberto Gonzalez and Harriet Miers, anyone?) or just flat-out arrogance (John Bolton, Samuel Alito). The one appointment I can't disagree with, however, is Robert Gates, who has done a nice job as Secretary of Defense. Intelligent, measured, willing to disagree with or even ignore the claims of the power-hungry executive branch, he is a marked improvement over his predecessor. Then again, a severely impaired box turtle with a very busy schedule could do a better job than Rumsfeld did. I hope the next administration keeps him on in some form, preferably as a foreign policy advisor. I don't expect him to stay Secretary of Defense, but there's no reason to just kick him to the curb.

3. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again, but undecided voters have to be the dumbest people on Earth. I can offer some level of grudging respect to McCain supporters; at least they know what they want, even if it is the most blindingly incompetent campaign of all time. How in the name of Vishnu can people not know what they want from their candidate at this point? Even worse, how can they watch the staggering ignorance coming out of the McCain campaign (more on this to come) and put any trust in his side to do anything they claim? I think Stephen Colbert said it best tonight when he discussed Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama (more to come on this, too): "You want a transformative figure? Vote for McCain! This campaign has transformed him into everything he used to hate!" You've had nearly two years to hear anything and everything about these candidates, and if that wasn't enough, you've had three debates to figure out where they differ on the issues (when they aren't talking about Bill Ayers). If you haven't picked by now, you should be required to forfeit your right to vote. You obviously can't make up your mind based on the facts, so disenfranchisement will save you from making a decision that's obviously beyond your thinking capacity.

4. As any of you who read the news know, former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama this weekend. Naturally, the first question Pat Buchanan had to ask was "Would he have endorsed Barack Obama if he was a white liberal Democrat?" You know, I've come to accept the fact that race is going to play a part in this election because this country is full of idiots who put race and\or religion at the top of their decision-making process. Voting for or against someone solely because they're black or Muslim (he's not, but why should it matter?) is the single most pathetic reason I can think of to justify casting a ballot, but I understand that it's going to happen, and despite my disgust that it's going to affect this race, I've made peace with it. To suggest that Colin Powell, a known conservative, former general, and a rather intelligent man, would be the type to make his decision based solely on race smacks of racism.

5. If you haven't seen Bill Maher's new movie "Religulous," do it, while you still can. Those who know me know that I don't ridicule faith in and of itself, but I do ridicule those who blindly accept it without asking tough questions about why they believe what they do. Maher asks those questions without reservation in this movie, which earns him my eternal respect. If you come out of this movie still believing whatever you believe, good for you; you've challenged your convictions and they've come out all the stronger for the challenge. If you don't believe following this, then you believed for all the wrong reasons, and you should be glad that the flimsiness of your faith was exposed now, when you can still find something that resonates more strongly with you. If you refuse to see the movie solely on account of "blasphemy," then you're a waste of brain matter; the inability to question your convictions indicates that you lack the mental fortitude to handle any sort of challenge to your established worldview.

6. Speaking of people who are a waste of brain matter, several people have asked my opinion on Sarah Palin. To fully divulge my opinion would require several hours of writing and more expletives than I care to put in one post. Suffice it to say, I think she is the most woefully unqualified, undeniably ignorant, unquestionably dangerous person ever to be put in this sort of position. She visits a faith-healer to cleanse her of witches, for Marduk's sake! Her pastor (who for some reason hasn't been scrutinized nearly as much as Rev. Wright, go figure) believes that Alaska is the last refuge for the true believers during the Rapture, and that people who voted for Kerry won't be saved! She wants to hunt elk from helicopters! The things that she claims to be against (say, for example, the Bridge to Nowhere) only meet her opposition when it becomes politically necessary; until they do, she's all for them! She doesn't answer the questions posed to her, but instead performs the Nixonian art of talking around the question until the interviewer becomes frustrated and gives up! Why are people letting her get away with this? This woman makes Dan Quayle look like the head of frickin' Mensa. I know what people are going to say: "But she's just like me! I've never gotten to vote for someone like me before." Guess what? There's a reason for that: YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED TO BE VICE-PRESIDENT! Do people understand that we could be one John McCain heart attack away from President Palin? Does that register with people? How can you not be terrified by that possibility?

7. Every day I read something about a soldier or an aid worker dying in Afghanistan. One more life lost because of this administration's arrogance and refusal to prioritize its own War on Terror ahead of conquering an oil state. May the fallen rest in peace, and may the idiots who put them in this position never rest until we fix this problem, get our men and women over there some help, and get them out.

All right, I'm starting to feel like Keith Olbermann, so I guess that's all for now. As long as I'm channeling him, might as well end the same way. Good night, and good luck.

Children, Children, Future, Future

To those turning in for my post on the bailout, I must apologize. Things have been a little unsettled and crazy this week (quitting your job will do that), so it's not quite ready yet. I should have it up in a couple days. In the meantime, I've decided to introduce you to the next great Role Model: Danny Donkey. Remember, the children ARE our future.

On One's Mission In Life

On Handling Bullies

On Waiting Your Turn

On Dealing With People

On Being An Activist

On Tough Decisions

Again, my latest vitriol should be ready soon. Until then, bang your head against a wall as you wish you had thought up the preceding concept.

Spin the Choice

Those of you who read this on a regular basis recognize that I was fairly excited for the possibility that this year's presidential race would be between Senators Obama and McCain, as I believed both were intelligent, sensible men who refused to "go with the flow" of partisan politics. I thought for quite some time that either would restore some integrity to an office that has sorely lacked it for the last 15.6 years (mind you, I thought Clinton did a fairly decent job, but his personal issues destroyed his credibility both as a leader and as a human being). And yes, I fully realize that this means I'm saying that there was some credibility to the office when Bush Sr. was in office; believe it or not, the more I look at his presidency, the more I can respect some of his decisions (did you know he was the one who signed the ban on further development of offshore oil reserves?).

My excitement, however, has waned, disappeared, and transformed into utter revulsion as Senator McCain has mutated into Right-Wing Man, Beholden Both to Special Interests And The Whims Of The Party. I watched him change his positions drastically from those he held as recently as 18 months ago (link here) to correspond to those of the Republican platform. I watched him embrace people (both literally and figuratively) that he publicly excoriated, and rightly so, in 2000 for the sole purpose of "rallying the base." And now, I watch as he runs what might be the worst presidential campaign since Walter Mondale ran on the "I Will Raise Taxes" platform. My dissatisfaction with Senator McCain and my disgust at what he has become cannot be measured.

Why do I mention this? I do so because I'm about to use the rest of this post to catalogue Senator Obama's potential choices for vice president, including both front runners and dark horses, listing both strengths and weaknesses that each could potentially bring to his campaign. I simply wanted you to know, my readers, that I had not forgotten about Senator McCain, nor had I forgotten that he too must choose a VP soon. It's not that I don't care who he chooses, it's that I already know that there's no way the choice will be either interesting or independent. It will simply reflect who he believes will reach his new best friends, the standard Republican core of conservative voters. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he picked Michael Phelps.

With that out of the way, let us launch into a discussion of the pros and cons of potential Democratic VPs. You might want to save this for when you have some time to spare.

The Front-runners

Joe Biden (Sen., Delaware): One of the most experienced, well-respected, and likable members of Congress. Has experience on both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Foreign Relations. Pros: Tons of experience; highly intelligent and respected; several interesting ideas regarding Iraq and other foreign affairs. Cons: support for the Iraq war, both in the beginning and recently; strong personality may clash with Obama's; would seem to be a better Secretary of State pick.

Tim Kaine (Gov., Virginia): Current governor of a potential swing state. Has the credentials (worked as a Roman Catholic missionary in Honduras) to potentially sway Southern Christians toward voting Democrat. Delivered the rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union in 2006. Pros: Could draw Christian voters; most of his views are very similar to Obama's, specifically regarding abortion and same-sex marriage; recognized as a leader in the field of fair housing. Cons: Relatively inexperienced; not much popular appeal outside his home state.

Kathleen Sebelius (Gov., Kansas): Similar credentials to Gov. Kaine: governor of a battleground state, rebutted Bush's State of the Union in 2008, longtime association with Catholicism through education. Appears to be meant to bring back those voters who oppose Obama because he isn't Hillary. Pros: See above; views on gun control are relatively centrist. Cons: Views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty, while in line with the party in general, somewhat oppose Obama's and place her well to the left; some worry that her inclusion could present too radical a choice for voters (which I feel is ridiculous, but hey, most of the public's opinions are ridiculous).

Evan Bayh (Sen., Indiana): If there were a real-life Harvey Dent, this would be it. Experience as both governor and senator, with substantial popular appeal. Could single-handedly swing Indiana. Here's hoping no one throws acid in his face. Pros: "Pretty boy" appeal a la John Edwards (though these days, that association may not be a good thing); substantial experience; relatively moderate views; excellent ideas regarding education and fiscal responsibility. Cons: Supported both the Iraq war and the reauthorization of the Patriot Act; "pretty boy" appeal could be considered by idiotic public as lack of substance; ties to Hillary represent major hurdle.

The Dark Horses

Wesley Clark (Retired General): Intelligent and well-respected. Military experience a definite plus. Support of Hillary and numerous controversial comments, not so much. Not the best speaker, and lacks experience in most domestic issues. Pros: See above; gives Dems massive boost when it comes to national security issues. Cons: See above.

Jim Webb (Sen., Virginia): Former front-runner now relegated to the back burner since Gov. Kaine became a potential candidate. The fact that he has publicly stated he doesn't want the job doesn't help. Served in numerous roles during the Reagan administration. Rebutted Bush's State of the Union in 2007 to high regard and recognition. Probably the most independent of all possible candidates, as his allegiance lies with no one person or party. Pros: military service; Cabinet experience; independent streak. Cons: Numerous controversial incidents; doesn't want the job.

Bill Richardson (Former Gov., New Mexico): Tons of foreign policy experience and an automatic link to the Hispanic vote. Stellar record regarding fiscal responsibility. His ties to the Clinton administration hurt his chances, as does the possibility of his selection as Secretary of State. Pros: Excellent foreign policy experience; helps with the Hispanic vote; top-notch credentials regarding economics and energy. Cons: Lacks popular appeal; previous ties to Clinton administration (though his early support of Obama helps to move him away from them); like Biden, probably better suited to be Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton (Sen., New York): No. Just...no. Pros: Gains bitter middle-aged feminist vote; possibly gains bitter elderly vote. Cons: Loses everyone else; would constantly clash with Obama; choice would immediately increase likelihood of Obama's assassination by 40% (yeah, I made that number up, but it's probably pretty close).


So, with all that said, who's the right choice? That remains to be seen. Personally, I'd love to see him pick Chuck Hagel (Sen., Nebraska). As one of the very few moderate Republicans left and as a man unafraid to ignore the wishes of his party to serve the greater good, Sen. Hagel is one of the few men I respect and admire in the Senate, and it's unfortunate he won't be serving another term. His selection would show Obama's willingness to work in a bipartisan manner and would substantially help his credentials regarding national security. That being said, he's the leading candidate for Secretary of Defense in an Obama White House, so he's probably not very likely to be the choice. Honestly, any of the above candidates probably wouldn't be a bad choice (except for Hillary), as Obama has the personality and charisma to ensure his own ideas would be foremost (unlike Senator Kerry, who seemed a touch overshadowed by Senator Edwards at times) while also possessing the intelligence and forethought to take into account his VP's ideas and specific appeals and apply them to situations as best befits them. Whoever he selects, I expect that his decision will be based in careful assessment and rational discussion, and I expect that will serve him well as the slog to Election Day continues.

Besides, I doubt any of them will shoot an old man in the face.

TTRWPHLABAHCHMTWLR: Part I

The author would like to predicate this column by noting that he is an avowed moderate and as such has no inherent bias towards or against liberals, just against stupidity.

Some time ago I was looking at the Opinions section of the local newspaper (that last bastion of idiocy for the bored senior citizen or opinionated housebody) and I noticed a letter in which the writer made several blatantly ignorant statements that reminded me of why it's so difficult to get even slightly enlightened ideas across anymore. Thus, I'd like to present part one of my new ongoing threepart series, The Three Reasons Why People Hate Liberalism And, By Association, How Conservatives Have Made The Word Liberal Reviled:

1. Liberals Hate America

The idea, as I understand it, is that liberals find fault with America for something that happens, so they must hate it. This is also the idea behind "liberals who like things foreigners do." The simple fact of the matter is that this is a gross distortion of the facts, at the very least. There are some who take it too far (those who blame America for the violence in the world by claiming it's the result of our imperalistic hegemony come to mind), but finding fault in the way things are doesn't inherently imply disgust with the ideals of America, just with a single specific practice within the country. That's the way we grow as a nation: by finding the things about our country we don't like and changing them for the better. The statement that claiming our country isn't as good as it could be is treasonous both insults the intelligence and betrays the foundations of the country (lest we forget, a Mr. Jefferson believed that a revolution every so many years was a necessity and good for the health of the nation). Along with this concept comes something that's come up lately in the presidential race. Michelle Obama stated that lately, she hasn't been too proud to be an American, a point the McCain campaign seized on and fed into its grist mill of spin: "I'm proud of America every day! I've always been proud to be an American!" and so on. If you've always been proud to be an American, then you either haven't been paying attention or you haven't done enough reading. Maybe it's just my bleeding-heart nature clouding my vision, but Indian massacres and Japanese internment camps don't exactly scream patriotism and liberty to me. Oddly, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo don't seem to be helping. Ignoring the faults and disgraces of your people is both ignorant and dangerous. As the old saying goes, those who forget their mistakes are destined to repeat them, and while for some the idea of rounding up all Arabs and marching them to Oklahoma seems like the perfect solution to a "grave problem," to me such a notion offends every aspect of my being.

Yet somehow, this idea has actually worked! It kind of falls in with the "if you don't support us, the terrorists win" idea in its use of jingoism to cloak xenophobia in the clothes of patriotism. There's one hell of a logical leap between not liking the monitoring of library lists and strapping on a bomb and running into a crowded marketplace screaming Ahallu Ackbar, and anyone with half a brain would make this as much of a wide, ugly ditch as Lessing and Kierkegaard made rational religious belief. Fortunately for conservatives, there's an easy way to circumvent logic, especially among the dimwitted: utilize fear and patriotism as twin tools. People against Halliburton? They're spreading liberty into the Middle East. My Lai massacre got you down? Those boys are fighting for our freedom so we don't have to fight tyranny and evil here. See how easy it is?

As I've mentioned, some self-titled liberals take it too far and do blame America for everything (consumer culture, moral breakdown, global violence, etc.) without placing fair blame where it's due. These people need to understand how their ill-guided extremism does just as much damage as the "We're Never Wrong" attitude does (though since these people are often pacifists, the physical damage is usually negligible). Importantly, though, most liberals wouldn't be crazy or stupid enough to push the thought to these extremes. The reasonable notion of placing blame where it's due and seeking to fix that which ails the country should be one of the guiding principles by which people determine what it is they want from their lives and their government. But most people are too buried in their flag pins and pledges to pull their heads out of the sand and listen.

What would Fox News do without them?

Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

I must apologize to my readers (all three of you) for my lack of updates recently. School and work have come together in an unholy union of pure busy, so I haven't really had the time to write anything. Since both will be coming to an end shortly, I should have more updates relatively soon. In the meantime, enjoy a few links that have brought me great amusement in the last two months:

The Reason For My URL

Proof That Eliminating Characters Is The Best Way to Liven Things Up

IT'S PIKACHU!!!


I've Got Balls Of Steel! (Note: definitely NSFW)

How To Win An Oscar By Yelling For Two Hours

The Reason John Kerry Lost The 2004 Election

I Guarantee You'll Think Of This The Next Time You Have Thanksgiving Dinner

Metal Gear Primary: Solid Obama vs. Liquid Clinton...tell me that's not an evil laugh

Mace Obama Meets His End

I think that's enough for now. I should have something more substantial for you by the end of next week; until I find a job, I don't exactly have a ton to do.

The Anti-Variety Fair

On the off chance you haven't heard, Brett Favre retired from football on Tuesday. As a football fan, I can say that the game will be worse without him and that the state of Wisconsin will miss him immeasurably. That being said, did his retirement really require OVER 4 HOURS of continuous coverage on ESPN? Did it really need to be one of the lead stories on the evening news? The short answer is simply no. The long answer is actually yes.

Let me explain. A while back, news media (especially the cable news networks) noticed that their ratings seemed to spike whenever they talked about something that A, people had some familiarity with, B, had some level of shock value, C, involved a celebrity, and/or D, didn't make people feel stupid. It's sort of like Fry said in an episode of Futurama: "Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." For the most part, this is 100% true regarding the populace in general, and the networks picked up on it. So, rather than research and air important stories (say, something regarding the rebuilding of New Orleans, or bringing to light the abysmal constitution of the American health care system), "serious" journalists bring us such wonders as "Britney's Latest Meltdown" or "Paris's Night in Jail" or my personal favorite, "Is Anna Nicole Smith Still Dead?"

However, I can't really blame the news networks for noticing a trend and capitalizing on it. All told, they're still part of a business, and they'd be stupid to ignore something that fills their coffers. No, the blame for this lies solely on the American public. We see this tripe on a daily basis...and we take it, we feed on it, we gorge ourselves on what is the cotton candy of information (easy to swallow, no real substance). No one calls them out for burying us under so much unnecessary garbage that we don't see the things happening in the world around us. No one questions the decisions made because no one has the information needed to comprehend those decisions, and no one cares enough to find the info on their own; they're too busy with "George Clooney's Latest Lady: Will He Finally Settle?" In a world where there are so many things we should be concerned about, so many things that should matter to us, why are so many people so very ignorant when it comes to the important stuff?

There are some people out there who want as much information as possible. Yours truly tries to read at least three newspapers every day and reads both Time and Newsweek on Sundays, and I still consider myself somewhat ignorant (in part because one of those newspapers is the school paper, and there aren't words for how dreadful that is). There are documentary filmmakers who dig and dig on some of these issues, brining as much to light as possible, and they should be commended for it. Only thing is, the vast majority of people never hear about any of those films, and many of the ones they do hear about get pushed aside as being "politically driven." That's another interesting topic, the concept that anything can be given political motives unless it shows no preference in any way, but that belongs in another column.

So to expand on my long answer from the beginning, yes, the networks do need to spend that much time on a relatively trivial subject because it sells, and they know that people aren't going to ask them to put the same kind of emphasis on the important things. Should they spend that much time? Hell no. Until the public develops a thirst for knowledge, though, those of us who want meaty issues will have to dig through "Rosie and Donald's Latest Spat" for real news.

Annie Get Your Kalashnikov

For the last two weeks people have been arguing (rather ineffectively, I might add) in the opinions section of the school newspaper about the 2nd Amendment, gun control, and the expiring ban on the sale of assault weapons. I'd like to start off by saying that I don't disagree with the 2nd Amendment. If you want to have a gun to protect your family from the King of England or hunt dangerous or delicious animals, fine, whatever. Assault weapons, however, are another matter. It's ludicrous for anyone not in the military to have assault weapons. What could you possibly need them for that you wouldn't be able to accomplish with conventional firearms? Among the arguments I've heard in favor of allowing the assault weapons ban to expire is one that genuinely astonished me: "I've been using automatic weapons for hunting and recreational shooting for years." Now that's just lazy! Are you seriously telling me your aim is so bad that you can't take out a squirrel without whipping out a minigun? If you really need an AK to take out ordinary game, do yourself a favor. Sell your auto, go to an army surplus store, and get yourself a bolt-action .22. Spend a few weekends practicing with it until you become relatively consistent, and then start hunting again. There should be a lot more satisfaction in taking something down with a single, clean, lethal shot than in spraying rounds into the bushes, and (assuming it is a clean kill) whatever you're hunting will ostensibly suffer less from one shot to the head than from taking 17 shots to the torso and being left to bleed to death. You also won't be picking bullets out of your dinner.

The second argument I see fairly often is in favor of their use in defending your family. Again, by no means do you need that much firepower to stop an intruder! If you're genuinely concerned that you won't take down an attacker with a simple handgun, get a shotgun or a high-caliber Magnum and PRACTICE. When you use a gun that requires you to AIM, there's less of an opportunity for stray bullets to fly into other rooms and wound people you care about.

The last argument, besides being the weakest, is also the most presumptuous: "It's my constitutional right to own a gun; Congress can't tell me I can't have the one I want." That is beyond preposterous, and I think what amuses me the most about this is that the same people who push this viewpoint are some of the ones who push the war on drugs. If you said to them, "Well, what right is it of Congress to keep heroin or crack from me?", they'd likely cite corrupting moral influences, degradation of society, drugs making baby Jesus cry, etc, etc. Yet they can't see how those same arguments apply to them. Primary weapons of choice in drive-bys are typically automatics (Uzis, MAC 10s, other machine pistols). Drive-bys destroy the security and peace of a neighborhood. Automatics convey a feeling of invincibility ("You can't stop me, I got more bulllets!") that leads to further deaths. You wanna tell me that's not corrupting?

Personally, I'm not a big fan of guns at all; give me a well-made sword or knife any day of the week. However, if you're going to own a gun, you might as well be safe about it, and a part of that is learning the intricacies of firing it. Practice is vital for any firearm, both for improving accuracy and for ensuring that you don't hurt someone you care about. With a handgun or a standard rifle, there are numerous questions: "Do I have my target lined up?", "Am I steady?", "Am I braced to handle the kickback?", "Do I have a clean shot?", etc. With an assault weapon, the only concerns are "How many bullets?" and "Is the safety on?"

If you want to fire randomly into the distance without regard, play HALO. If you want to be a responsible firearm owner, pass on the assault weapons.

Super Tuesday (or, How To Give Away the Presidency Without Really Trying)

Note: The author would like to go on record as saying this post is not meant to endorse any specific candidate. That column, "132 Reasons to Vote for Obama," will come later.

The Democrats are in one of the most enviable positions a political party can be in. Their dominating victory in the 2006 midterms showed that the American public was sick of the direction the Republicans were steering the country, and the current president enjoys some of the worst approval ratings since Truman (who, unlike this president, was a highly principled and intelligent man caught in Dean Acheson's sphere of Communist propaganda, but that's another story). For years, people have assumed that the Democratic candidate would win the 2008 election. In fact, it's been a given.

Now, there's a possibility they might very well screw it up.

Think about that for a second. How often do you see someone in a situation where they can't possibly lose choke the opportunity away due to sheer stupidity? Granted, sheer stupidity has been on the rise in the last decade, but with an opportunity this golden, even morons have enough common sense to make one right choice.

Yet it could very well happen tomorrow. Democratic primary voters could very well botch the easiest victory in American political history with their selection. It all starts and ends with Hillary Clinton.

I'd like to take a second to mention that this post is not meant (at least, not entirely) to bash Hillary. Granted, she was the worst part of the Clinton administration, and her health care plan accomplished basically nothing, and she's just a generally sour person, and she's been one of the most Republican Democrats in the Senate since elected (the title of "most Republican" goes to Joe Lieberman, and before anyone writes in, I know he ran as an independent last time; he couldn't win his own party's primary, shouldn't that have clued people in?), and basically every other Democrat disagrees with most of her proposals (even Gravel, and he's a nutcase); that doesn't mean that I'm denigrating her for those things here or railing against her on those grounds. No, my reasons are entirely statistical and logical, two things sorely lacking in the political system these days.

According to the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, if the election were held today, both Clinton and Obama would beat Romney handily in the general election (Clinton by 8%, Obama by a whopping 21%). However, if John McCain were the Republican nominee (and it's beginning to appear he will be), Clinton would lose by 5%, while Obama would run in a virtual dead heat. Other polls (CNN, NBC News, Wall Street Journal, Reuters) show nearly identical results. Admittedly, polls are unreliable, and a lot can change between now and November. However, it should be noted that Hillary started this campaign as the prohibitive favorite, with no one else in either party even close to her. Within two months she's fallen into a deadlock with her primary rival, and a Republican has moved past her in national opinion. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something? Obama started the campaign with relatively little support beyond Oprah and grassroots fundraising, and in every state where he's been given time to campaign, he's surpassed Hillary or at the very least erased her lead. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something? Both Obama and McCain draw a large number of independents to their side, and both candidates have won contests largely on the strength of those independent voters; Hillary can't even beat Edwards among independents. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something? Both Obama and McCain (Obama far more so than McCain) have actively sought young voters and have succeeded in making the college-age block an important aspect of their support, a task that neither party has done successfully before. Hillary's primary supporters? Age 65 or older. Rather than energizing new voters to become Democrats for the foreseeable future (as Obama has, in a way that no candidate has since Kennedy), Hillary has staked her claim on voters who may very well be dead before November. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something?

Perhaps the most damning evidence of all, though, comes from that "bastion of the truth," Fox News (quotes = sarcasm, for those not familiar with my work). In an interview conducted over the weekend, Ann Coulter (along with Rush Limbaugh, one half of the Scylla and Charybdis of the conservative punditry) actually said she'd actively campaign for Hillary if McCain received the Republican nomination. Think about that. The Democratic candidate for President of the United States may very well be promoted by the shrillest woman on Earth, who has asked that women be denied the right to vote "because women are voting so stupidly," who has stated that Jews are "imperfect Christians," who has accused John Edwards and his wife of using their son's death to their advantage (a similar theme to her claim that the widows of September 11th victims were "enjoying their husbands' deaths"). This is actually acceptable to you, Howard Dean? Do you relish the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with a woman you asked your party's candidates not one year ago to denounce in order to promote a woman whose philosophies contradict those of the party's platform in numerous ways?

The simple fact of the matter is that none of the signs point to Hillary's campaign being a success. Nothing, not even trotting out Bill (who has lost some of my respect, I'm sorry to say), has worked for her thus far. She's had 2 years to prepare, to solidify her status as the front-runner and guarantee her status as the next President. She has uniformly failed.

What makes anyone think she'll figure it out now?

Groundhog Day

Well, I finally got around to getting a blog set up. Apparently some people occasionally enjoy hearing what I have to say. Shocking as that is, I'd be crazy not to oblige them, and I've been wanting to start writing again for a while, so I figured there's no time like the present. I probably won't update often (about once a week or so), but my updates will probably be semi-lengthy. Don't expect me to post sob stories about my life or things happening in it; no one cares about that sort of thing, and I don't feel comfortable sharing it. Basically, this will be my ranting space. Hopefully I'll have some insight or evidence that'll keep people interested.