How About a Little Fire, Strawman?

Believe it or not, since the presidential elections, I've made a conscious effort to avoid blogging about politics (with a few minor exceptions) for three reasons. First, my opinions are seldom supported by factual evidence; therefore, they shouldn't change anyone else's opinions. Second, despite any evidence to the contrary, I try to be funny, and I know many readers of mine disagree with me politically, which can interfere with the yuk yuks. Third, it's often pointless since political discourse has consisted of the "yes to change" and "no to change" crowd arguing back and forth for centuries. Look at the Greeks. They bitched about the same basic stuff... only with togas and pederasty.

But then I have to listen to Mr. Employer blather on about politics, and it riles me up something fierce. It's not that I particularly care about what he says (I'm sympathetic to conservative political causes even if I have no tolerance for their social ones), it's his argument strategy. You would think as an Ivy League graduate (University of Pennsylvania) that he would not only be able to observe everyday logical fallacies, but that he might be able to avoid them most of the time as well. And yet, whenever Mr. Employer wants to talk politics, I am cordially introduced to his friend, Mr. Strawman.

Put simply, a strawman is an argument in which you portray your opponent in a laughably simplistic way and then argue against an exaggerated (or outright wrong) version of his or her position. The idea being that you've created a man made of straw, fought it, and declared victory while never touching your true opponent. For instance:
"We can't have cake for dessert. If we ate cake all day, we'd all get diabetes."
The strawman argument is essentially the grownup version of a parent telling a child, "If your friend jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" in response to a completely different request. Pundits or comedians sometimes use strawmen in a *wink wink* sort of way where they know it's absurd, but they're making a larger point. Mr. Employer, however, genuinely seems to believe in the ridiculous opponent he's trying to argue against.

A few days ago, he was arguing about the new health care plan. I don't pretend to understand it, and I'm sure it's riddled with flaws (many government programs are), but to hear him tell it, you'd think that Obama and his "socialist buddies" are deliberately working to overthrow American democracy as we know it. His basic argument:
"If this new health care system is implemented, we're going to have the same system as Canada, and that system has flaws X, Y, and Z."
From my limited understanding of the new health care proposals, there are some major differences between what the new health care plan and what Canada has. But still, look at his argument. He's not arguing against the new health care plan, he's bitching about Canada's. When I pointed this out, he wasn't pleased, but insisted, "We'd be well on our way to that sort of system in no time." In addition to inviting his relative Uncle Slippery Slope to his party of rhetorical fail, he doesn't seem to want to explore the social, economic, cultural, and political differences between the United States and Canada that might create a few differences in how our medical care might work.

In the world of Mr. Employer, all democrats are freedom-hating, dictatorial, socialist, business-challenged, minority-loving conspirators who are working to undermine the honest and true hard-working American businessman (i.e. him).** He does this bullshit all the time. Last week it was welfare reform. To hear him tell it, you'd think that everyone below the poverty line is an unethical, lazy, and mooching liar who will simply suckle the federal welfare tit for all eternity... and enjoy it! (Though who wouldn't enjoy eternal tit sucking, no matter how metaphorical it might be?) When I asked about, for instance, coal miners who work 12-hour days and still make shit for wages, he promptly started on a tirade about how the environmental whackos are keeping clean coal from revolutionizing our energy policy.

He drives me fucking mad when he's talking politics. Typically I don't argue with him because it's entirely pointless. Sometimes my silence leads to hilarious examples of overgeneralizations on his part. One time he was bitching about atheists and said, "Atheists really have no basis for their morality... they don't have a reference like you and me." My inner one-upper wanted so badly to scream, "I'M AN ATHEIST, YOU DUNDERHEAD!" But then I realized that he wasn't going to be convinced, and I'd only piss off my primary source of income. So as has become my mantra, I wisely remained silent.

Once again, I have no quarrel with conservative policies. I can appreciate the view even if I disagree with it. But if you want to argue, learn how to do it. Otherwise, do what I do and keep your mouth shut.

Unless you have a blog... then you can blather on for an eternity with your ill-informed opinions.

** Not to be confused with the opposing strawman that paints all Republicans as women-hating, money-grubbing, tree-burning, Bible-thumping, Klan members.

------------------------------------------
"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." -- Albert Einstein (apparently never having met Mr. Employer)

Man of the People

Democracy is overrated.

I spent this afternoon at a nearby college library researching the No Child Left Behind Act for the final paper of my online course (which must incidentally be a minimum of 10 pages long - the same length as a paper for a graduate English course, but that's another rant). In my reading, I learned some interesting facts from the a report published by the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 1998:
>> 10 million high school students cannot read at the basic level.
>> More than 25 million students do not know basic U.S. history.
>> More than 20 million high school students cannot do basic math.
Not too long ago, in a source I've since forgotten (because I wasn't planning to do any citations with it), I learned that 2/3 of Americans don't know that the United States has three branches of government. I thought that was American Civics 101!?

Rampant ignorance hardly surprises me. In simply observing the world, one can conclude that most of the world simply isn't that educated. I'm not talking about intelligence here; statistically speaking, approximately 49% of the American public should be of above average intelligence. A person can be smart and still uneducated, and according to just about every measure American public schools, our country isn't exactly a crew of scholars.

Which brings me back to my original statement about democracy. The common wisdom in America is that we have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." But the much ballyhooed "people" don't inspire me with a lot of confidence. In fact, most of the founding fathers felt the same way. That's why we don't really have a true "democracy" in this country - we have a republic. We elect who we feel is the most qualified to represent our interests and make intelligent decisions on our behalf.

I always grumble when I hear people talk about how elected officials should listen to their constituencies and do whatever they want. It sounds nice in theory, but think about the complications in practice. In determining policies and laws, officials should ideally be poring over dozens if not hundreds of documents to research all the angles and points of view. Then intelligent decisions can be made by people who actually know what they're talking about. Remember, 2/3 of the American public doesn't even know that we HAVE three branches of government, so putting stock in their opinion of government issues seems unwise to me.

If you want a nice counterexample, take a look at California. They really do have a democracy with regards to all laws. Whenever some new legislation is introduced, Californians go to the polls to vote on it. Again, this sounds great in theory, but remember the blithering idiots who are voting. For instance, when Proposition 8 (regarding gay marriage) came up for a vote, do you think every Californian considered the legal, historical, sociological, and political implications of the decision? Or do you think most of them just said, "I hate those fucking faggots!" or "Gay people seem nice to me!" and cast their vote accordingly?

Now lest you think I put myself above everyone else, let me just say that I have very little understanding of most political issues. I stay reasonably well-informed with regards to what's happening in the country and the world, but when it comes to specific legislation, I'm just as ignorant as the next guy. I put a lot of faith in my elected officials to make the right calls. And I don't care how informed you are; on some level everyone does. We all can't be informed on every single area that the government handles. There are government agencies overseeing the economy, global warming, education, health care, agriculture, industry, transportation, parks, international relations, and countless other issues that concern all of us. We elected people we find to be credible and intelligent, and we trust them to wade through the mountains of legal mumbo-jumbo in order to make the right calls.

I don't want the government to listen to me. I don't know shit! I approach government this way: I observe my elected officials and if their results are positive, I just might reelect them. I try not to get hung up on specific policies because there could be 100 different perspectives that I failed to consider in forming my opinion. Should our sales tax be increased to 23% so that we can reduce income and property taxes? Hell if I know. Don't ask me about it, Mr. Elected Official, and don't look at the opinion polls. Go ask some economists with twelve degrees and look at some industry reports. Quit using "the will of the people" as an excuse for making bad policy. People are fucking dumb.

Of course, this whole argument is undercut by the corrupt, ignorant, glory-seeking, money-grubbing, ass-kissing, philandering politicians who litter our public offices.... and that doesn't even include Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford!

I suppose we could always try to educate the masses... though that would be a job for those educator-types who want to be high school teachers. And we all know how loony those people are!

-----------------------------------
JP realizes that he's practically declared his full support for some sort of bourgeois dictatorship, so feel free to completely disregard his entire argument.

Rule Britannia!

I was watching The Daily Show last night, and as anyone might expect, they took great pleasure in mocking the slipshod "Tea Parties" that cropped up around the country on April 15 to protest taxes. Admittedly, referring to these wingdings as "teabaggers" was a joke so obvious that I think every eighth grader in the country could have thought it up. Nevertheless, there was one brilliant segment where John Oliver, The Daily Show's lanky and snarky British correspondent, went to one of the Tea Parties to essentially berate them for failing to understand just how truly awesome the British were at oppression. He chided them for comparing their perceived injustices to those of the colonists under British rule, and he was offended as an Englishman that they think present-day America even comes close.

Instead of pondering the historical and social implications of English and American tax systems, my infantile and wayward mind starting thinking about other things that the British have that Americans don't that we really should (because the king of England really needs to start housing troops in my lodgings). Here's the list I came up with:

Fish and Chips: I really don't much like seafood, but the British cook it just the way I like it - batter-dipped and deep fried until the only thing you can taste is sweet delicious cholesterol! It's the one British foodstuff that I heartily support.

Cutesy Swear Words: In England, calling some random stranger a "bloody wanker" is way worse than referring to your dear old granny as a "fucking cunt." Lines like "Don't get your knickers in a twist" sound a lot more civilized than "Don't lose your shit, dude!" And there's nothing better than British people always referring to their ass as their bum. A very proper English gentleman could be walking down the street earning all sorts of respect, but then he falls on the ground and declares, "Blimey, I fell on me bum!" Suddenly he's got all the class of a four year old.

Welsh Jokes: The Welsh are like the English hillbillies. They're the butt of the joke that always works.
"I say my good fellow, what do you call a bloke who rapes his mum, falls on his bum, and is always a dum dum?"
"I haven't the slightest, sir!"
"A Welshman! Har har har!"
As a man who's part Welsh, I find such jokes to be crass and tasteless... which is why we need to bring them to America!

Royal Titles: This is the famous thing where the king or queen puts the sword on your shoulder and lets you put "Sir" or "Dame" before your name. It's a great concept, but let's take that tired old idea and do it America-style! We could have a reality show called "Who Wants to be in the Order of Chivalry?" It could be hosted by Sir Mix-a-Lot (he's not doing much these days) and feature all sorts of random trials like eating a goat's placenta and running through a tepid pool of vomit. We're going to bring some class to that old tradition.

Parliament: They get to wear wigs, and most of the time the House of Lords and the House of Commons just stand there literally screaming and shouting at each other for no good reason. Essentially, they're just like Congress only a lot more entertaining.

Villainous but Sophisticated Accents: Do you need to sound incredibly evil while still giving off an aura of intelligence and wit? Then you need a proper British accent. Your average cockney accent is nice if your goal in life is to be an award-winning soccer hooligan, but if you watch Die Hard and fantasize about one day being Alan Rickman or you wonder why every Imperial officer in Star Wars sounds inherently vile but cunningly calculating, then start doing your best Patrick Stewart imitation this instant. You could have the IQ of a cantaloupe, but with your sporty new British accent, you'll be a Mensa member in no time.

Bathroom Language: Which sounds better: "I'm in line for the shitter," or "I'm in the queue for the loo"? I thought so!

-----------------------------------
Mind your bloody manners in the comments section you silly sots, or the constabulary and fire brigade will spank you in the bum with their torches.

It Doesn't Make Cents to Me, Part 2

As I indicated in a previous post, when it comes to matters involving anything vaguely economical, my intelligence drops to the level of a starfish. Back in October, I expressed my frustration over not understanding how the economic collapse happened. Now I'm equally befuddled by the prospective solutions, so I will make yet another desperate plea:

Would somebody please explain the economic stimulus debate to me in 500 words or less?

As my befuddled economically-challenged brain understands it, the premise behind the stimulus bill makes sense. During times of high unemployment, people don't spend anything because they want to hoard what they have. This is not good for the economy because people have to spend money in order to make the economy go. With people saving their money because they think they're going to die, the economy starts to go down the shitter even further resulting in even higher unemployment. In order to alleviate these concerns, the government is going to spend a shitload of money at once to kind of jump-start the economy so that it doesn't stagnate.

If a gold star is warranted for being somewhere in the ball park on this summary, I'd appreciate being given that little reward. If I'm way off base, I'll take a very sensual spanking.

More conservative advocates want the government stimulus to instead come in the form of tax breaks for individuals. I do not understand this plan. Wouldn't the amount that each person receives be relatively small? Given such a small tax break, doesn't it seem more likely that individual taxpayers will simply put that money into savings (given the dire economic situation) instead of spending it? All that people hear right now is that they need to SAVE SAVE SAVE their money! If they get a tax break, isn't that exactly what they'll do?

I really enjoy telling people that I think they're stupid even when I don't understand their argument (makes me feel good about myself), but in this case I'm not going to do that. I truly don't believe that those people who support the tax breaks are incompetent, so I want to know what the reasoning is behind that notion. I'm looking to you, brave and discerning FoxNews viewers. What's the reasoning behind the conservative plan?

I rather like the people on TV who claim that a depression is necessary and that we shouldn't do anything. First, apathy comes naturally to me, so I'm totally on board. Second, the vast majority of people don't want to listen to these negative Nancies, so I root for the underdog. And third, there's a certain poetry to two decades of prosperity being rewarded with a giant economic comeuppance. With my twenty years spent in school receiving excellent grades and being told that I'd be going places in my life and then languishing in unemployment forever, I see my life as a microcosm for American society as a whole. Misery loves company.

So let's play a little game we're going to call: EDUCATE THE ECONOMIC SIMPLETON. The winner will get to have Carl Kasell record the greeting on his or her home answering machine.
(If you get that obscure reference, you're probably an economically-challenged humanities major like me.)

My brain is like an open vessel awaiting your soluble and quenching truth.

-------------------------------------
The Economy: Once you understand it, you've probably overdosed on LSD.

Lamentations of the Loser

Curse you, Barack Obama!! You have outwitted my campaign and bested me in the general election. Even the surefire addition of Jean-Luc Picard to the "JP For President" ticket failed to garner the interest of voters.

Oh sure, your charming demeanor, solid economic policies, compassion for the ills of the poor, commitment to improving health care, and commanding stage presence may have swayed voters. But you're the President-Elect of the United States of America. You don't have the long-standing and biologically-innate ability to easily turn a blind eye to inner-city education, third-world countries, and brown people. Goddamn it! As a giant white male in the target demographic of 18-40, I can ignore all of those things without breaking a sweat and still have enough ignorance left over to completely keep sexual discrimination, gay rights, and social security reform from ever entering my mind.

And yes, your victory speech last night may have actually inspired millions across the country and given hope to disillusioned and disenfranchised people everywhere. But where were the awkward pauses and insincere smiles that people expect from their President? I didn't see that, sir, and I'm disappointed! As President, I would have been NOTHING but awkward pauses and phony facial expressions. I could pull funding for child cancer research and grin about it until next Thursday. I know how to behave like a real President of the United States.

I will say this in your favor though, President-elect Obama: you also defeated Virgil! That makes the defeat so much easier to swallow.

With 349 electoral votes and 53% of the popular vote, you certainly know how to make the voters sit up and say, "I loves me some chocolate!"

That's probably why I voted for you too. Damn you, Barack Obama!!

------------------------------------------
Self-Loathing: Proving to be a greater detriment to voting for oneself than any existential crisis could ever be.

VP Pick: Jean-Luc Picard

My fellow Americans, it is my honor and privilege to introduce my running mate in my campaign for President of the United States of America: Captain Jean-Luc Picard. This may be a late pick, but I guarantee that he has the leadership qualities and executive experience that our country needs from its Vice President.

Captain Picard found the previous administration's actions to be shameful and un-American, and he doesn't want our opponents to continue those failed policies.

But what does Jean-Luc Picard bring to the table?

Jean Luc-Picard is a gripping public speaker and accomplished diplomat.

Jean-Luc Picard understands that we must move forward!

Jean-Luc Picard supports your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.


Captain Picard knows the alphabet and can incorporate it into a showtune.

Captain Picard doesn't take shit from our nation's enemies.

JP and Jean-Luc Picard: The future that your country deserves.
The change that we need.

Make it so! Vote on Tuesday!

------------------------------------

I'm JP, and I approved this message.


Paid for by the United Federation of Planets

JP: Leadership for America

A VISION OF THE FUTURE

JP's opponents, Batmite and Virgil (and then Virgil again), are both willing to say anything necessary to be elected. But only JP uses the straight talk that real Americans respect.

Virgil voted 90% of the time to increase the salaries of female bloggers who moonlight as college instructors. She spends taxpayer money on extravagant hats and buddies who wear designer sunglasses.

Virgil pays extra-special attention to her kitty cat. Everyone knows that cat-lovers have suspicious motives and plans for global domination.

Virgil is a "community organizer" who wants to force YOU to learn how to read... taking away your freedom to choose how literate you want to be.
And this photograph is in black and white, which proves how evil she is.

Virgil: We can't afford to put the country in her hands.
Batmite: He's not even a citizen, and he's running a clean campaign. He'll never win anyway.

But JP looks really sexy in a suit, and he's secure enough to wear a purple tie.

JP has the strength of a Viking, the fortitude of a drunken Irishman, and the jolly disposition of a Hawaiian.

JP: Just look at that trustworthy baby face. Could this man possibly be capable of deceit?

Virgil wants to steal your money, burn down your house, and eat your babies.
Vote for the man who will give you money, an extra house, and free babies.
Vote JP in November!

------------------------------------------

I'm JP, and I approved this message.



Paid for by the Beautiful Bloggers of America

I Couldn't Agree More

I love this clip. It's certainly an honest goof, but he sounds so damned adamant when he says, "And I couldn't agree with him more!" His attempt to backtrack is awkward, but it's hard to fail in rural PA by going the "patriotic" and "god loving" route.

[Side Note: Why do the terms "god loving people" and "god fearing people" refer to the same people? If you love and fear the same individual, that makes you a battered housewife or someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.]

If you haven't been following the news, Senator John Murtha [Dem] of Pennsylvania got into some trouble recently for announcing that the the people in rural Western Pennsylvania are racist rednecks. I will say sincerely what John McCain said by accident: I couldn't agree with him more.

As a proud Western Pennsylvania resident, I feel reasonably qualified to speak on this matter. Racism is a difficult issue to discuss - not because it makes people uncomfortable, but because people are often talking about very different things. 00 The problem, of course, is the word "racist." The word carries with it images of cross burnings, lynchings, and KKK rallies. By this definition, very few people in Western PA seem to be racist (though I do know a few who would be right at home with folks like that). But there are hazier areas that are more difficult to understand.

People with racial prejudices often don't realize that they have them, or they feel that their opinions are based upon factual observations. I notice that a lot of white people in Western PA are often afraid that they'll inadvertently anger a black guy. They think that they'll end up dead as a result. The savvy racist might fear legal trouble should an "uppity nigger" decide to sue him because of some "political correctness bullshit."

A few years ago, my friends and I went to New York City to see a Pirates away game at Yankee Stadium (obviously not my idea... but I'm always up for a road trip). We tried to take a short cut, and we made an inadvertent trip down a few blocks in the Bronx. It was maybe 5pm, sunny, and fairly crowded outside. There were old guys hanging outside talking, an old woman in a wheelchair was rolling down the street, and kids were playing jump rope and basketball outside. Of course, they were all black. I will readily admit that I'd be nervous if we were traveling in a black neighborhood at night on a desolate street (I am, after all, a Podunk hayseed from Kittanning), but I couldn't see anything threatening about this particular neighborhood at this time of day. The kids playing basketball even offered to let us in on their game (I hesitated only because I could be schooled by white cancer patients; Bronx kids who play every day would mop the floor with me). But a few of my friends (I won't name names, but you know who you are :) ) were quietly flipping out. Good god, by their account, we were lucky to survive.

Now my friends are not stupid, and I don't believe they're overtly or malevolently racist. They're actually observant. If you pay attention to the news, crime statistics, or any bad 80s movie, the Bronx is associated with black people, and inner city black people in New York are associated with rampant crime, muggings, and violence. Their association is understandable. But consider the source. The media only focuses on violence and crime because they're deviations from the norm. Crime statistics don't take into consideration the economic standings of the people in their percentages. And no good buddy cop movie was ever made from two guys having a fun and uneventful day in Harlem. Hell, Demolition Man would just lose some of its cinematic brilliance with Stallone hashing out the finer points of Shakespeare with Wesley Snipes.

I don't believe that berating Western Pennsylvania for being racist is productive. Most people aren't consciously being racist, and hassling them about it isn't going to change anything. On the other hand, people in Western Pennsylvania need to look around their little towns and come to one obvious conclusions.... THERE ARE NO BLACK PEOPLE HERE!!!! Jesus, you're making judgments about people you've never met based upon biased sources. I wouldn't expect anyone to love all black people sight unseen, but keep a freakin open mind.

The problem is a lack of information. Racism is learned, but so is tolerance. Most people with prejudices are well-meaning but uninformed.... and WOW. I just realized that I sound like a goddamn after-school special. I think I'll just stop now before I start lecturing you all about the dangers of drugs.

Besides, everyone knows that those dirty people from India are the real threat. You're going down, Batmite!! :)

--------------------------------------------
John McCain: Missing the obvious chance to get out of his gaffe by simply shouting "LET'S GO STEELERS!!"

JP For President

Batmite says he'll raise your taxes in order to pay for his extravagant drinking habit and leather fetish. And Batmite even told the Associated Press that he wants to kill all redheads.

Under Virgil's economic plan, gang members would receive government benefits, and she would spread the wealth to anyone who wears a bandanna.

Worst of all, Virgil pals around with known suspicious bearded brown man Batmite. Batmite has gone on record as stating, "The Green Lantern Corps is fucking awesome!" Do we really want people in the White House who support a galactic police force that wants to take away your freedom?

Virgil and Batmite: Wrong on taxes. Wrong on the economy. Wrong on gang violence. And wrong on galactic security.

But JP is a man of the people who listens to the problems of real Americans.

JP is tough on environmental issues, and he voted repeatedly for Senator Fred Rogers's stricter sanitation laws in the Land of Make Believe.

And JP has the necessary leadership experience necessary to fight against an economic Wii-cession.

Vote for the blogger who has your best interests at heart.
Vote for real change!

------------------------------------

I'm JP, and I approved this message.


Paid for by the Blogging National Committee.

In the Ayers Tonight

Bill Ayers: Terrorist mastermind or gas station attendant?

According to the media, John McCain and Sarah Palin are ready for a month-long smear campaign against Barack Obama. As Palin so colorfully put it, "The heels are on, and the gloves are off." (Golly gee whiz don'tcha know) As one might imagine, McCain is in no particular hurry to talk about the economy, so he's planning to make personal attacks against Obama. This may sound ridiculously biased as I summarize it, but his campaign actually admitted this in public. They were proud of it. They "want to shift attention away from the economy" and "focus on the character" of Obama.

I don't particularly care about the negative campaigning. Politics is full of character assassinations; it pretty much comes with the territory. But their initial volley about Obama palling around with terrorists irritates me... not because it's sensational, but because McCain and Palin are adamently sticking to this story even though EVERY SINGLE news organization has reported that it's total bullshit.

Allow me to back up for a moment. In the last week, McCain and Palin have both been making much ado about Obama having met Bill Ayers in the past. Bill Ayers is a former 1960s anti-war activist who co-founded the radical left terrorist organization "Weather Underground," which was active in the '60s and '70s. Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol Building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. As you might be aware, all of these buildings are still there, so you can surmise that his bombs weren't particularly powerful or effective.

In fact, from what I can gather, Ayers and his bunch were about as effective at causing mischief as Dick Dastardly and his crew in Wacky Races. Despite bombing some of the most populated public buildings in the country, Ayers never actually killed anyone. Oh, they certainly caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage, but the entire organization never once killed a person. In fact, the only ones who ever died at the hands of "The Weathermen" were two of their own people as they tried to assemble a nail bomb. These people took their name from a Bob Dylan song for crying out loud. I wouldn't exactly be quaking in my boots over these guys.

Nevertheless, the government doesn't take kindly to having their shit blown up, so they pressed charges against Ayers and his wife, who went undergound for a decade to escape jailtime. When they turned themselves over to federal authorities in 1980, charges against them were dropped due to prosecutorial miscondunct.

This is when the guy really goes off the deep end: he decides to become a college professor. That's right! Billy boy pictured at the top is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago where he holds the honor of "Distinguished Professor." (Again, why can't I get a job??) Ayers has worked for years with the Chicago Mayor's office in shaping the city's school reform program, and he served on the board of directors of The Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty philanthropic foundation.

Here's where Obama comes in. Barack Obama also served on the board of directors of The Woods Fund of Chicago. As you recall, Obama used to be a community organizer in Chicago. You don't just snub the guy who's essentially driving education reform in your city. It's just not what you do if you're trying to organize a community. The Associated Press along with every major newspaper and news network in the country has reported this stuff, along with the fact that the board met no more than a dozen times between 2000 and 2002 (when Obama and Ayers were on the board together).

Of course, some media organizations are less reliable than others. I can always count on my local news to let me down. A few days ago, WPXI News in Pittsburgh (Channel 11) was ending every segment by saying, "New at 6:00, Sarah Palin is accusing Barack Obama of associating with terrorists!" By the time 6:00 rolls around, they finally get to this segment, and they go on to list the various smear tactics that McCain and Palin are employing without fact-checking a single one!! They don't mention what terrorist she was talking about or the fact that every other news outlet has decided that this accusation is bogus.

Now most politicians when confronted with their obvious bullshit have the common sense to say, "Aw shucks, you caught me," before too many people realize what happened. Or at the very least, they just stop saying it. I'm almost impressed by how adamently McCain and Palin are sticking to this. Palin declared the other day, "The Associated Press is wrong" though she failed to inform the rest of the country which secret sources she was using to refute them, and McCain said, "I don't need lessons in telling the truth to the American people." Their response to being called out on their nonsense is a resounding, "NUH UH!!!" One has to almost admire that kind of stunning bullshit.

I think this is why the election is interesting me so much. The political issues are nice, but the rhetoric of the campaigns and the media sensationalism is what really grabs you by the nuts and makes you go, "Hey, what the hell is going on??" Astute readers will note that I promised not to blog about politics anymore, and in my defense.... it's my goddamn blog, and the election coverage has my knickers in a twist. I suppose the bullshit wouldn't surprise me if I thought McCain was genuinely a slimey and dishonorable guy, but from what I've been able to gather from the internet and old media interviews, McCain used to be a very reputable and decent public servant. It makes me wonder if his "win at all costs" campaign strategy gives him pause at night.

Media analysts have determined that people often only read the headlines of newspapers and news websites (I admit to being guilty of this), so when a headline reads, "Barack Obama linked with terrorist?" or "Palin Associates Obama with Terrorism" your average person doesn't read the rest of the story to find out that the answer to the first headline is "NO" and the end to the second headline is "and she's full of shit." Your friendly Joe Six-Pack (that slovenly saucy All-American home slice we hear so much about) simply files "Obama = Terrorist" into his feeble little brain and goes onto beer number seven.

Stupid people make for great comedy, and politics just shines a bright light onto the best sources of entertainment that money can buy. I certainly don't have a boner for the democrats (that's why I'm registered independent), but they're not making such colorful asses out of themselves like the Republicans are.

---------------------------------------
Bill Ayers: Less of a threat to national security than Shaggy and Scooby Doo.

Political Musings

As part of my newly discovered interest in what's going on in the world (or perhaps just complete and all-consuming boredom... which is probably more likely), I watched the Vice Presidential debates tonight. I must admit, it was the first time that I actually watched a debate the whole way through from start to finish. Despite several audible rants at pixelated Palin regarding her use of the term "nucular" instead of "nuclear," I kind of enjoyed myself.

For whatever reason, I had completely ignored Senator Joe Biden thus far in the campaign. I'd venture to say that most Americans couldn't even identify the man if shown a picture of him (and that's certainly not true of Obama, McCain, or Palin). Oh sure, I knew the basics of the guy - old white senator from Delaware who likes to talk a lot and sometimes blabs before he thinks - but I never really took notice. Tonight I was rather impressed. He presented himself well, he spoke clearly, and he was respectful of Palin (and McCain when he spoke of him) even when he criticized them.

You can't watch a debate expecting to get the facts. That's a total fantasy. Each candidate was giving a performance, and the best you can do is judge how well they give the appearance of what you're looking for in a leader. I thought Joe Biden did that well. I was not as impressed with Sarah Palin.

I was not *unimpressed* with Sarah Palin... and I think a lot of pundits were underestimating her. She managed to move up the chain of power very rapidly for someone who was mayor of a town the size of Kittanning and governor of a state that has an alarming polar bear to human ratio, and anyone who can do that must be able to appeal to people somehow. But I have to say, I didn't like her approach. Her answers were brimming with cliches about small town values and what's happening in "the Main Street of Wasilla." For fuck's sake, she actually gave a "shout out" to her brother's 3rd grade class who was watching at home! The woman could give Wilford Brimley a run for his money in the "most folksy TV personality" department.

She loves to crush her small town values into my face. She actually said in an interview this week that Americans want to see the average Joe Six-Pack run for a position like the Vice Presidency. While there's nothing wrong with Joe Six-Pack (I actually know a guy who would literally fit this name), you don't give him control of the goddamn country. And we should really rail against this idea that the President or Vice President should be just like us. When we're talking about being the President of the United States of America (and as everyone has already pointed out at length, that's a strong possibility for Palin), that's a title that means something. You should represent the best that America has to offer. You should be able to lead the regular Joes... not be one of them.

I've met Joe Six Packs. Kittanning is filled with them. The next time I'm staring into my half-empty bottle of despair and Miller Lite at the bar, I'll lift my head out of the stygian failure of my own personal stupor to look around the establishment to see if I notice any Presidential material. Oh! I see a guy scratching his ass with a fork. I see another guy rubbing against a chain-smoking prostitute. And there's a group of guys staring at the news bellowing, "Why can't the niggers get their shit together!?" Oh yes... I love those small town values. Let's get these motherfuckers in the Oval Office!

And that's kind of my problem with McCain as well. I used to like McCain. I really did. He has appeared on television a lot over the last eight years, and while I didn't always agree with his views, his positions seemed well thought out and well argued. The McCain that I've seen running this year doesn't seem like the same guy. He seems like he's putting on a facade that doesn't quite work. He's trying to seem more conservative than he really is, and he's also throwing around this "small town values" nonsense. Just stop it.

But for quite some time, I didn't really care who got elected. Neither McCain nor Obama seemed like bad guys. But then McCain chose Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential pick. Now as I said above, I don't think Sarah Palin is necessarily a bad politician or a bad public servant, but I do NOT think she was a good choice. There were SO many other Republican women that McCain could have chosen if he really wanted a woman on the ticket. I think it shows bad judgment on McCain's part that he picked her for the Vice Presidential nomination. There's no guarantee that Palin would be bad at the job, but her credentials just don't impress me.

Take it from a guy who's actively trying to search for a job. I may be great at the position, but if my resume is not impressive and I come off like a dimwitted idiot in my interview, I shouldn't get the damn job!

And that is why (and I know that I'm going to take shit for this from my parents, my boss, and just about anyone in Kittanning) I plan to vote for Obama in November. I think he and Biden make a lot of sense. They're giving me real information, and they're not patronizing me.

I don't think Obama and Biden shit rainbows every morning or anything. I am well aware of Obama's weaknesses (he does seem to promise a lot more than any one person could ever deliver, but that goes with the territory of running for President I suppose), but he just strikes me as an educated and reasonable guy who tells you what he thinks, and he's really damned personable. When half of your job is to present America in a positive light, being really personable is a damned good trait. And on a completely shallow and somewhat racist level, I think having a brown guy as the face of America to the world is a good idea right now. Think about it. There's a lot of resentment toward our country in the Middle East (incidently filled with brown people), and the education system in a lot of these third-world countries is not very good... dumb people are probably as plentiful there as they are here (if not moreso). If right now they're thinking that America is filled with old white guys who hate their way of life, it might actually be a good thing for a brown guy with an Islamic-sounding name to be running the country. Maybe they'll be like, "Well shit, America's at least got a brown dude running it. Let's bomb the shit out of Denmark! Death to the Danish!"

(Incidentally, that's my battle cry at breakfast in the morning.)

Everyone can give me grief all they want, but I've investigated this shit to the best of my ability, explored both sides as well as I can, and I really think Obama and Biden are the better choice. You know, assuming I don't write in "Snagglepuss and Emilio Estevez" for the win.

Of course, I still have to find out if I'm registered to vote in my hometown. I registered four years ago, and that was in Erie. I don't remember what I put down as my "home" location at the time.... hopefully "Gotham City."

----------------------------
JP promises that more frivolous posts will be forthcoming... love sonnets to beef jerky, random ruminations about various kinds of Kleenex, diatribes against Pat Sayjak, etc. All of this political talk might force me to take a stand on something!

It Doesn't Make Cents to Me

Would somebody please explain the economic crisis to me in 500 words or less?

While I don't follow the news, politics, stock tickers, or anything relevant to the world with any regularity, I try to stay relatively informed on a general level. I stop by CNN.com to browse through the big stories, I watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (because I'd much rather be entertained than knowledgeable), and I'll read a newspaper every once in awhile. The news often baffles me in a "how can people be so stupid?" kind of way, but I can usually grasp the gist of what they're talking about.

Until this stock market collapse hit the news.

I don't understand a word of it. As far as I gather, a bunch of companies who deal in mortgages went tits up because they were promising more than they could deliver. These companies are somehow vital to the American economy, so President Bush proposed to give them 700 billion dollars to bail them out. Congress didn't want the money to be given with no oversight, so they revised the bill. Congress then rejected the bill they wrote themselves and started blaming each other for failing to do anything.

What the fuck is going on???

I never understood economics, and I still don't. Just today I had to go to Wikipedia in order to find out what "finance charges" are and why they're on my credit card bill. Now I'm being told by everyone on TV that I should vote for the presidential candidate with the best economic plan. Far be it from me to disagree with the TV, but I don't know how to pull that off. I may know the syntactic differences between "money," moneys," and "monies," but I don't know how any of them factor into an economic plan. Obama or McCain could pop on TV and say, "My plan is to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow," and I'd be going, "You know what? This guy's using his head!"

Unless you have a degree in Finance (I'm looking at you, Virgil), I don't see how the vast majority of American voters can be expected to understand what's going on. Look, I'm really trying here. I want to understand, but I don't think there's much hope for me.

The economy is just too damn complex. For instance, I was listening to This American Life on the NPR podcast the other day (JP outs himself as a closet hipster), and I learned that apparently you can buy and sell stocks that don't exist, and that's totally legal (short selling). It's only illegal if you fail to deliver your hypothetical stocks to the buyer that you've never met (naked short selling). And that's just one of the bizarre little tidbits of finance that seem batshit insane to me.

As I understand it, economies must expand and contract. They can't just grow and grow forever. I also learned once that there are now safeguards in the stock markets to prevent a catastrophic collapse like the one that happened in 1929. It seems to me that the economy may take a downturn for awhile, but there doesn't seem to be a reason for this particular downturn to be the harbinger of the downfall of Western civilization. I truly don't understand how Merrill Lynch going out of business is going to shatter the economy. Why was our economy being balanced on the whims of a few CEOs in the first place then? Why would giving 700 billion dollars (under any conditions) to companies who fucked their shit up in the first place be a good idea? Isn't that like rewarding lousy work? Isn't that like giving a Masters Degree to someone who didn't do any of the reading for his classes?

Wait... never mind.

--------------------------------
The Stock Market - Much simpler when it was simply the place to buy your soup base.

A Completely Unwarranted Foray into Politics

Election time is about to kick into high gear with Barack Obama expected to announce his vice presidential candidate this week, and despite my best efforts to develop an interest in the candidates, their issues, and the political situation around the world, I just can't bring myself to give a shit.

This unbridled apathy has nothing to do with these specific candidates. I've NEVER been able to work myself into a frenzy about any political issue. Religious issues are another matter. I'll bitch and moan about organized religion and imaginary deities and debate such issues with anyone willing to put up a good fight until the day I die and go nowhere. But following politics seems like the biggest waste of time to me.

This is not to say that I don't have preferences. I tend to favor the democrats most of the time. This is mostly due to the republicans' gradual shift toward embracing fundamental religious values. Republicans love to say that God is on their side. Well you know what? If God is on their side, I want to be on the other side. I don't care who the opposition is. I like the idea of taking on God and his heavenly hierarchy.

But as far as the actual issues are concerned, I don't fully side with either political party. When left to their own devices, Republicans tend to develop a militaristic attitude toward foreign affairs and a penny-pinching mentality toward domestic economic policies. Democrats, on the other hand, will spend money on completely inane programs in an attempt to control things that can't (or shouldn't) be controlled.

I've read very intelligent, rational, and thought-provoking material from conservative and liberal writers. I like a writer who's willing to say, "Look, I think the opposition raises a good point, but this other way is the best solution that we can practically do at this time." The issues are complex, but voters don't want to hear about complexity. They don't want legislators to compromise; they want THEIR idea to be implemented NOW!

Take global warming for instance. Very few people are arguing these days that there is no climate shift, but there seems to be no agreement on what to do about it. Awhile ago, I learned about cars being powered by corn oil. I thought to myself, "Hey, this seems like a cool idea! Corn is a renewable resource that grows every year. This is great." Then someone brought to my attention the fact that the amount of farmland needed to produce enough corn for the number of cars in the world is staggering! According to Wikipedia (hardly a credible source, I know, but they cite other scientific studies), in order to use 100% solar energy to grow corn to produce ethanol, the consumption of ethanol to replace current U.S. petroleum use alone would require about 75% of all cultivated land on Earth, with no ethanol for other countries or sufficient food for humans or animals.

I don't know whether that's true or not, but I don't really care. The point is that it's a complex issue, and there will need to be compromise regarding the solution. So all of you guys out in the far-right and far-left fields, guess what? The right answer is somewhere in the middle. And you know what else? Sometimes the right answer is a compromise that pleases no one. Back in the 18th century, the drafters of the Constitution had long and heated debates over the legality of slavery in the newly formed United States. As you might imagine, the delegates from the Northern states favored abolition while the Southern representatives wanted to keep making black folk do their bidding. Neither side would approve the Constitution without their views being represented. Compromise was absolutely necessary. The damn country never would have been formed without the delegates agreeing to allow individual states to decide on the issue of slavery. This obviously came back to bite them in the ass 100 years later, but at the time, there was simply no other way to handle the situation. Sometimes the right decision is also the wrong decision. It sucks (and can create a cognitive dissonance that might cause you to piss your pants and punch a kitten in frustration), but it's often true.

That's why I don't want to vote for a single party. I think both parties are needed. The democrats keep the republicans from shitting all over the Bill of Rights and from pissing off the rest of the world, and the republicans keep the democrats from pulling all power away from the state governments and from coming up with new ways to spend money that don't make any damn sense.

And I just don't care. The struggle of "Conservative" vs. "Liberal" will continue to be waged no matter who wins, and the struggle itself is what is most important. If you study the history of any country, you'll see the same arguments going on at any time. Roman and Greek philosophers would lament high taxes, the ineffectiveness of the Senate, the corruption of the emperor, unethical wars, etc. It's the same shit we bitch about today. Take a look at some of Mark Twain's stuff. A lot of his political and social commentary still holds water over a century later.

Hell, back in 1776 when Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, he said that the best government would be run by a benevolent dictator. A representative democracy was simply the best thing that they could come up with that had any chance at stability. Everything happens really slowly, but that same tedious process of debate and investigation that annoys so many people is what keeps a few people from making trendy but ill-considered government changes.

That's why it won't matter. Hell, George W. Bush has one of the worst presidential approval ratings in history, but he didn't really fuck up the country THAT much because the other side was there to bitch him out. And if my predictions are correct, Obama will be elected in November (because the economy is in a recession and people always demand political change during a recession), and the cycle will begin anew. The wind will continue to blow back and forth, and when I'm on my deathbed, the political climate will probably look a lot like it does right now.

Or maybe sadistic emperor penguins will be ruling the world. I dunno. This is why I don't blog about legitimate topics. I seldom know what the hell I'm talking about.

-------------------------------------------
Politics: A topic that should be left to bloggers who actually have a readership of more than 20 people.

Have Carrot - Will Travel

There's a bakery in Morgantown that makes really good bread. It also has a reputation for being kind of a yuppie hangout. The last few times I've been in there, there has been a prominent sign advertising a vegetable-powered bus. The details behind this mysterious Veggie Bus were scarce until The Daily Athenaeum (WVU's newspaper) reported on the sale.

The caption below the picture says: "California natives Brandi Chalker and Wes Middleton are selling their vegetable oil powered school bus after a three-month cross country adventure brought them all the way from their home in San Francisco, Calif. to Morgantown. The bus, which can run on either vegetable oil or diesel fuel, is one of a growing number of cars running on alternative, eco-friendly fuel sources."

First of all, does it surprise anyone that these two are from San Francisco? And this couple looks like every stereotype of hippies ever created. "Hi there! We're walking tropes who never bathe try to impress others with our stylishly low-class clothing."

Secondly... a three month cross-country adventure?? I suppose unemployment or tending the hemp gardens leaves a lot of time to cruise across the nation in a veggie-powered school bus. Either that or these two have very generous (and perhaps clueless) parents who are footing the bill, making their clothing choice all the more perplexing.

I also love that they're selling it. If it's such a great ride, why do they want to get rid of it? The bakery has been advertising this thing for months, and no one seems to want it. It couldn't be that the interior likely reeks of a hobo cleansed in patchouli oil?

It's people like this that give liberals a bad name. Using vegetable oil to power vehicles would probably be something to seriously consider, but when the children of love here are pimping their veggie-bus out to the locals, it makes everyone look bad. You want to convince people that this is a valid machine for the future? Then take a fucking bath and put on a suit or something. Do you two have any idea what kind of horrible cliche you look like?

Maybe these two should be advertising Brandi's ample veggie-powered bust. I'm sure it's gotten a lot more mileage than the veggie-powered bus ever will.

---------------------------------
Hippies: Making government oppression seem like a good idea since 1960.

Right Said Fred

"My balls are THIS BIG!"

Fred Thompson is a former Republican senator from Tennessee, and he's currently planning to run for President of the United States in 2008. But to Law & Order aficionados (such as myself), he will always be District Attorney Arthur Branch. On the other hand, as an equally avid Hunt for Red October fan, his bit role as the admiral of the USS Enterprise is also lurking in my mind.

I'm not a very political person. I'm with Lewis Black when it comes to political parties: the Republicans are the party of bad ideas, and the Democrats are the party of no ideas. I'm not sure what I think of Fred Thompson as the President. He's a southern republican (and we all know how THAT worked out last time). But on the other hand, he must be a Law & Order fan, so he scores a few points with me.

His character on Law & Order is mixed bag as far as I'm concerned. On the one hand, the guy certainly has a commanding presence. Even that magnificent bastard Jack McCoy hesitates before squaring off with him. On the other hand, he seems to be an amalgamation of southern cliches. Most conversations with his character amount to McCoy asking about a legal strategy, and Thompson replying with some folksy Southern wisdom like, "Well y'all know it's like my grandpappy used to say - a polecat in the collard greens is worth two coons in the holler."

He hasn't officially announced his candidacy for the Presidency, but he has said that he's "testing the waters." At first I was very annoyed at this news. I was under the impression that all TV stations must give equal air-time to all political candidates. I was concerned that this would seriously curtail my enjoyment of Law & Order reruns given how many episodes that southern sumbitch appears in.

But then I found out that this equal air-time law only applies to the big networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and CW). So TNT, USA, and BRAVO (which run the three Law & Order series like porn at a frat party) can continue to show episodes with that good ol' boy Freddy to their heart's content.

So here's to you, Fred Thompson! If there's going to be a close-minded Southern Republican windbag running for President, I hope it's you.

---------
Fred Thompson - Making people from the North feel like a bunch of pussies since 1942.