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?