It's been awhile since I've written anything. I guess I've been too busy basking in the afterglow of the Obama victory. Usually, I only write when I see something that I find to be outrageous. The whole "Blame Black People for Prop 8" was close, but as a black man, I'm used to being a scapegoat. The new "Obama's Not Really Black" isn't really so new, so I didn't find it outrageous enough. Even the mainstream media's attempts to tie Obama to Blagojevich didn't do it for me.
Obama won, handily. So what could possibly kill my mood?
Rick Warren.
If you're unfamiliar with Rick Warren, stop being lazy and get your google on. Mr Warren is one of the biggest evangelical ministers, if not the biggest, in America. Among other things, he helped the forces of evil get Prop 8 passed. He's a pro-life, socially conservative, right wing ideologue. And Obama has chosen him to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
Well, I'm just here to tell you that I don't give a fuck. I don't care. I'm not bothered by it, and I'm certainly not outraged by it. What bothers and outrages me is the response by so-called progressives.
Listen. Progressives, at least 43% of the country did not vote for Obama, and don't share your progressive ideals. Unfortunately, you need a large chunk of those people behind you before you can move any sort of real progressive agenda forward. Republican politicians aren't like punk-ass Democratic pols who roll over like dogs when they're told. Cooperating with them by making it less politically dangerous for GOP pols to support progressive ideas is the only way we can get America out of this mess.
Listen. GLBT people, over 50% of Californians, for whatever reason, voted against you having the right to get married. And that's liberal California. Imagine the rest of the country. It's not right, it's not fair, and I'm shocked that it's legal. But that's the way it is. For now, you're going to have to get over it and focus your energies into winning the next battle.
You can complain, cry, and get hysterical if you want. The reality is that America is still a very divided nation. Obama told us for 2 years what his vision of change was. He said something to the effect of our politics being to small for our problems. And he was right. And him picking Rick Warren, as much as some of us may dislike him, is right.
For at least the last 16 years, but far more during the last 8, American politics has consisted of two people in a room screaming at each other. In the last 8 years we've fallen hard because we had a government that pandered to one side of the room.
We all know that, yet some progressives are arguing that Obama should do exactly the same thing, even though we've already seen how far it's gotten us.
So progressives, get out of the echo chamber, and start having actual conversations with people who don't agree with you. Rick Warren represents many mainstream Americans. More Americans than you'd like to admit. Warren, by accepting Obama's invitation, legitimatizes Obama in a way that not even winning the election could.
Progressives, the election of Obama was us winning a huge battle, but the war never ends. So stop being assholes and start fighting your actual enemies, rather than your general. Cheney admitted to war crimes this week. Maybe you could start there.
12.19.2008
9.10.2008
Mystery Babylon...
...aka Sarah Palin
I'll admit it. Sarah Palin terrifies me. Well, it's not actually her that terrifies me, and it's not the cynical mindset that has produced the Governor and her mythology, it's the consequences of that mindset that terrifies me.
I was born in 1976, so I came to geo-political awareness in the '80's. The biggest pictures I have in my mind from those days are Ethiopia and HIV/AIDS. Those years, 1980-1992, represented famine and plague, so Reagan and Poppy Bush were the horsemen. The Bush/Cheney years are consumed by war and terror, so W is the third horseman. The fourth and final horseman is death, and you are forgiven for thinking that Old Man McCain is the horseman of Death. McCain is not Death, but he is Death's horse. Sarah Palin is Death.
I don't mean to get all religilous on you, as it's not really my intent. For a little while now, we've seen the Religious Right compare Obama to Hitler and the anti-Christ. We've heard the Greedy Old Plutocrats (and a great number of Hillary supporters) mock him as the "Messiah." So what do we do when so many so called conservatives are literally referring to Sarah Palin as "Saint Sarah" and "Sister Sarah?" Literally. They're calling her a gift from God, while missing the complete irony that they said the same thing about W, and we all know how well that's been going.
Pakistan's getting testy. Russia grows bold. China is ascendant. The Bush Administration has played the worst game of chess in all of political history. Cheney is the most powerful VP ever. McCain is a sickly, doddering old man. In this time of crisis, do we really want an incurious, Dominionist Christian, noob anywhere near the nuclear trigger?
Her supporters say yes. All the experience she needs is evidenced by the fact that she can see Russia from land in Alaska. This is why Sarah Palin is death. Ignorance and ambition is a powerful combination. Unfortunately, it's not a good powerful.
People who know better are trying to tell us that since most Americans don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, it's not important for Sarah Palin to know it. Other people have said it, so I'll echo the sentiment: I want my President to be demonstrably better than me. Someone who had the wisdom, judgement, and/or guidance to avoid life's many pitfalls. It's not OK for the President or VP to have a pregnant, unmarried teen daughter just because that's a situation many Americans deal with. It speaks to her leadership. If her own daughter doesn't respect the values that her mother teaches her, how can we expect a foreign leader to.
I've seen the diaries and blogs from Democrats that say that we shouldn't attack Sarah Palin, as Obama's not running against her. I say that people who follow that thought process are either naive or fools. Obama should not attack her. We should take every opportunity to spread the truth about her, her policies, and record.
I've also seen the blogs and diaries from Democrats saying that we shouldn't attack Palin, because the Freepers will get mad at the Netroots. Listen, the conservatives are going to attack DailyKos, HuffPo, etc. no matter what you do. Stop being cowards. You cave to extremists, and they haven't yet stopped beating you up. If you're going to go down, go down fighting.
There are certain people who don't want to debate you, they want to argue. There are people who don't want to fight you, they want to kill you. That's what Progressives just don't get. You do what they want, no matter how much you disagree, and they still call you godless traitors that deserve to be killed. Stop it. Man up, or woman up, or transgender up. Whatever you need to do to get some steel in your spine, you should do. We're in trouble, America is in trouble, and cowering everytime Sean Hannity raises his voice is not helping.
Sarah Palin brings the Irrationalists back to the party. She gives them open license to spit hate and spew venom. The lull in the culture wars is over, and if our side doesn't win this particular battle, then everything is lost. The only hope that John McCain has of winning this election is Sarah Palin. She is his sword and his aegis. Ignore her at your peril.
I'll admit it. Sarah Palin terrifies me. Well, it's not actually her that terrifies me, and it's not the cynical mindset that has produced the Governor and her mythology, it's the consequences of that mindset that terrifies me.
I was born in 1976, so I came to geo-political awareness in the '80's. The biggest pictures I have in my mind from those days are Ethiopia and HIV/AIDS. Those years, 1980-1992, represented famine and plague, so Reagan and Poppy Bush were the horsemen. The Bush/Cheney years are consumed by war and terror, so W is the third horseman. The fourth and final horseman is death, and you are forgiven for thinking that Old Man McCain is the horseman of Death. McCain is not Death, but he is Death's horse. Sarah Palin is Death.
I don't mean to get all religilous on you, as it's not really my intent. For a little while now, we've seen the Religious Right compare Obama to Hitler and the anti-Christ. We've heard the Greedy Old Plutocrats (and a great number of Hillary supporters) mock him as the "Messiah." So what do we do when so many so called conservatives are literally referring to Sarah Palin as "Saint Sarah" and "Sister Sarah?" Literally. They're calling her a gift from God, while missing the complete irony that they said the same thing about W, and we all know how well that's been going.
Pakistan's getting testy. Russia grows bold. China is ascendant. The Bush Administration has played the worst game of chess in all of political history. Cheney is the most powerful VP ever. McCain is a sickly, doddering old man. In this time of crisis, do we really want an incurious, Dominionist Christian, noob anywhere near the nuclear trigger?
Her supporters say yes. All the experience she needs is evidenced by the fact that she can see Russia from land in Alaska. This is why Sarah Palin is death. Ignorance and ambition is a powerful combination. Unfortunately, it's not a good powerful.
People who know better are trying to tell us that since most Americans don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, it's not important for Sarah Palin to know it. Other people have said it, so I'll echo the sentiment: I want my President to be demonstrably better than me. Someone who had the wisdom, judgement, and/or guidance to avoid life's many pitfalls. It's not OK for the President or VP to have a pregnant, unmarried teen daughter just because that's a situation many Americans deal with. It speaks to her leadership. If her own daughter doesn't respect the values that her mother teaches her, how can we expect a foreign leader to.
I've seen the diaries and blogs from Democrats that say that we shouldn't attack Sarah Palin, as Obama's not running against her. I say that people who follow that thought process are either naive or fools. Obama should not attack her. We should take every opportunity to spread the truth about her, her policies, and record.
I've also seen the blogs and diaries from Democrats saying that we shouldn't attack Palin, because the Freepers will get mad at the Netroots. Listen, the conservatives are going to attack DailyKos, HuffPo, etc. no matter what you do. Stop being cowards. You cave to extremists, and they haven't yet stopped beating you up. If you're going to go down, go down fighting.
There are certain people who don't want to debate you, they want to argue. There are people who don't want to fight you, they want to kill you. That's what Progressives just don't get. You do what they want, no matter how much you disagree, and they still call you godless traitors that deserve to be killed. Stop it. Man up, or woman up, or transgender up. Whatever you need to do to get some steel in your spine, you should do. We're in trouble, America is in trouble, and cowering everytime Sean Hannity raises his voice is not helping.
Sarah Palin brings the Irrationalists back to the party. She gives them open license to spit hate and spew venom. The lull in the culture wars is over, and if our side doesn't win this particular battle, then everything is lost. The only hope that John McCain has of winning this election is Sarah Palin. She is his sword and his aegis. Ignore her at your peril.
9.04.2008
Hillary v3.0
You must give credit where credit is due: Hillary v3.0 came out and did what her masters programmed her to do. Namely, make baseless hit and run attacks against Obama, and then hide behind the concrete walls of the sexism card and the blame the media card. Watching Sarah Palin tonight finally allowed me to figure out the whole of McCain's strategery.
First, they tried to cast her as Hillary v2.0, to try and pull in independent women and Hillary dead-enders. That strategy was quickly abandoned after Palin was booed for trying to conjure up a Hillary glamour. Sarah Palin was then broken down and reconstructed into Hillary v3.0 in order to capitalize on Obama's perceived weakness against a white woman.
McCain can't match rhetoric or wits with Obama, so he needs a surrogate, and who better than Hillary. Unfortunately for McCain, Hillary wouldn't go for it, and neither would the GOP faithful, no matter how much they like to invoke her name these days. So now you may ask, why Hillary?
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary and her supporters released a litany of accusations against Obama, filled with venom and bile. Obama did not return too many of her hits for a variety of reasons, but mostly because he knew what it was: a trap.
Hillary tried, and succeeded at some level, to restart the dreaded Culture Wars. What better way than to show America an angry black man belittling a white woman? Now you may be thinking that America isn't like that anymore, but you would be thinking wrong. America hates angry black men even more than it hates black men. You think I'm wrong? Try comparing Rev Wright's sermons to Hagee's, then, look at the coverage. When you're done with that, compare Wright's sermons to Parsley's, Falwell's, and Pat Robertson's. Better yet, go look at Fred Phelps'. White people treat Farrakhan as if he is Satan himself, but people only complain about Fred Phelps...well, pretty much never, even though I've never seen Farrakhan or Wright protesting at a soldier's funeral. And neither of the two ever had to be bribed to not protest at a funeral for murdered Amish girls. But I digress.
McCain did indeed watch Hillary and learned, but he didn't pay attention to the end of the lecture. Hillary didn't lose because she re-ignited the Culture Wars a little to late. In McCain's view, she lost because she didn't go far enough. So McCain, being an old soldier, decided to do what old soldiers do best: escalate the war.
He sent his Hillary v3.0 onto the field for a test exercise. She hit her targets well. However, it remains to be seen as to how well she'll do in a less controlled situation. She has shown that she can give a good scripted punch, but will she be able to do it off the cuff? More importantly, can she take a hit? I'm sure that over the following days, we'll see the Democrats coming out in force, but I wonder how effective they'll be? I'm not too concerned about Team Obama, as I'm sure that they've already come up with a counter strategy.
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over the next few weeks. I eagerly await her first serious interview.
First, they tried to cast her as Hillary v2.0, to try and pull in independent women and Hillary dead-enders. That strategy was quickly abandoned after Palin was booed for trying to conjure up a Hillary glamour. Sarah Palin was then broken down and reconstructed into Hillary v3.0 in order to capitalize on Obama's perceived weakness against a white woman.
McCain can't match rhetoric or wits with Obama, so he needs a surrogate, and who better than Hillary. Unfortunately for McCain, Hillary wouldn't go for it, and neither would the GOP faithful, no matter how much they like to invoke her name these days. So now you may ask, why Hillary?
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary and her supporters released a litany of accusations against Obama, filled with venom and bile. Obama did not return too many of her hits for a variety of reasons, but mostly because he knew what it was: a trap.
Hillary tried, and succeeded at some level, to restart the dreaded Culture Wars. What better way than to show America an angry black man belittling a white woman? Now you may be thinking that America isn't like that anymore, but you would be thinking wrong. America hates angry black men even more than it hates black men. You think I'm wrong? Try comparing Rev Wright's sermons to Hagee's, then, look at the coverage. When you're done with that, compare Wright's sermons to Parsley's, Falwell's, and Pat Robertson's. Better yet, go look at Fred Phelps'. White people treat Farrakhan as if he is Satan himself, but people only complain about Fred Phelps...well, pretty much never, even though I've never seen Farrakhan or Wright protesting at a soldier's funeral. And neither of the two ever had to be bribed to not protest at a funeral for murdered Amish girls. But I digress.
McCain did indeed watch Hillary and learned, but he didn't pay attention to the end of the lecture. Hillary didn't lose because she re-ignited the Culture Wars a little to late. In McCain's view, she lost because she didn't go far enough. So McCain, being an old soldier, decided to do what old soldiers do best: escalate the war.
He sent his Hillary v3.0 onto the field for a test exercise. She hit her targets well. However, it remains to be seen as to how well she'll do in a less controlled situation. She has shown that she can give a good scripted punch, but will she be able to do it off the cuff? More importantly, can she take a hit? I'm sure that over the following days, we'll see the Democrats coming out in force, but I wonder how effective they'll be? I'm not too concerned about Team Obama, as I'm sure that they've already come up with a counter strategy.
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over the next few weeks. I eagerly await her first serious interview.
9.01.2008
"Conservative" Pretzel Logic
In the last few days, I've been lurking around some of the "conservative" sites. I do this often, because I like to know what the other side is thinking. Almost universally, the "conservatives" LOVE Sarah Palin. They love her so much, they've managed to create their own logic. It goes like this:
1. Palin has more experience than Obama because she has "Executive" experience.
The first problem with this logic is that if we use executive experience as the metric, then she is the most qualified person on the field, as neither Obama or Biden have executive experience. Then again, neither does McCain. So, why isn't she on top of the ticket?
Let's talk about executive experience. Let's talk about a black guy who has gone from some random senator the first black man in the US to secure a major party's nomination. Along the way, he beat one of the biggest names in US politics. In order to do that, he had to build an organization which in two years raised a record amount of money and made Barack Obama into a household name. You can't do that if you don't hire the right people. That's a big function of being an executive.
The executive position is a position of leadership. Obama convinced 2 million people to donate to his cause. On his way to the nomination, he secured 18 million votes. Palin got 114,697 votes in her gubernatorial bid. Who's the better leader? Who's the better executive? Even better, who would you want to run your campaign?
2. Palin has more foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia.
I don't know much about the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug region of Russia, but I doubt that it's a major Russian military staging platform. I do know that in case of a national emergency, the POTUS is the CIC of the National Guard. I don't know if Gov. Palin has ever dealt directly with any leader from any other nation, but I'm quite confident that she's never had a conversation with Vladimir Putin.
It's real simple, people. The Alaska-Russia foreign policy shtick only works for the intellectually dishonest, low information, and/or low interest voters. It doesn't hold water. Obama went to the Middle East and Europe, and he had almost twice as many people come to a speech in Berlin than she had people come out to vote for her in Alaska.
If the metric of Palin's foreign policy experience is the distance between Alaska and Russia, let's step it up. The capital of Alaska is Juneau. Juneau is 2,578 miles away from Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and 4,550 miles away from Moscow, the capital of Russia. On the other hand, Moscow is 4,998 miles from Chicago, but Ottawa is 645 miles away from Chicago, leaving us with a difference of 1,485 in the distances between the capitals. Advantage, Obama.
I live in Philadelphia, PA, only 340 miles from Toronto. Thus, I must have foreign policy experience.
The metric is ridiculous on it's face, as is anyone who would use distance as a metric for who has more foreign policy experience.
3. I like that person, so it's OK.
I'm no moral absolutist, and I have no interest in beating up on a teenaged girl in a tough spot. Who I do want to beat up on are the hypocrites who say that teenaged girls having out of wedlock children is OK, but only for the people they like. The same people who went nuts over whether or not People magazine was glorifying Jamie Lynn Spears' "immoral behavior" and then blamed People magazine for the 17 girl high school pregnancy pact are the same people willing to give the Palin family a pass. I'm not just talking about the conservatives, either.
Similarly, Bill Clinton getting a blowjob is bad. John Edwards having and affair is bad. But John McCain? He was a POW! How DARE you! There were extenuating circumstances. Hey Sean Hannity, what's more important: country or family?
4. Playing the Cards
"Woe is me, woe is me," cried the Republican mouthpieces, "Obama played the race card." How about "He's an affirmative action candidate!" What Obama said:
Yet, when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's VP selection, it was obvious that the selection had more to do with gender than anything else. Today, we had Laura Bush talking about the sexism that the Democrats need to avoid. We've got all of the Republican Stepford Pundits talking about misogyny in every criticism of Palin. The same Palin, who not so long ago, called Hillary a whiner. It's difficult to say as to whether or not Palin will be a whiner, as her first major interview is a softball from People magazine. There's no word on when they'll allow her out of her undisclosed location.
I can't help but wonder though: If she's so ready, and so experienced, why not let the media size her up? Why wasn't she on Meet the Press, or any of the other Sunday talk shows? We all know why, but if anyone says it, then they're sexists.
These people fuck me up. Twisting themselves into every position possible to make their case for how unfit Obama is to be president. Then twisting themselves into every other position to make the case for how prepared Palin is, even as both possibilites can't both be true at the same time.
Let's be honest, compared to McCain's resume, Obama's is razor thin. But that's why he's getting my vote. It's not Palin's lack of experience that worries me. Everybody has to start somewhere. As recently as December 2007, I thought Obama was joking. By February 5, I was a believer. Sarah Palin won't get the chance to really prove herself in that way. Not just to me, or Progressives in general, but to a lot of Americans, regardless of political ideology. And in the end, isn't America what it's really all about?
1. Palin has more experience than Obama because she has "Executive" experience.
The first problem with this logic is that if we use executive experience as the metric, then she is the most qualified person on the field, as neither Obama or Biden have executive experience. Then again, neither does McCain. So, why isn't she on top of the ticket?
Let's talk about executive experience. Let's talk about a black guy who has gone from some random senator the first black man in the US to secure a major party's nomination. Along the way, he beat one of the biggest names in US politics. In order to do that, he had to build an organization which in two years raised a record amount of money and made Barack Obama into a household name. You can't do that if you don't hire the right people. That's a big function of being an executive.
The executive position is a position of leadership. Obama convinced 2 million people to donate to his cause. On his way to the nomination, he secured 18 million votes. Palin got 114,697 votes in her gubernatorial bid. Who's the better leader? Who's the better executive? Even better, who would you want to run your campaign?
2. Palin has more foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia.
I don't know much about the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug region of Russia, but I doubt that it's a major Russian military staging platform. I do know that in case of a national emergency, the POTUS is the CIC of the National Guard. I don't know if Gov. Palin has ever dealt directly with any leader from any other nation, but I'm quite confident that she's never had a conversation with Vladimir Putin.
It's real simple, people. The Alaska-Russia foreign policy shtick only works for the intellectually dishonest, low information, and/or low interest voters. It doesn't hold water. Obama went to the Middle East and Europe, and he had almost twice as many people come to a speech in Berlin than she had people come out to vote for her in Alaska.
If the metric of Palin's foreign policy experience is the distance between Alaska and Russia, let's step it up. The capital of Alaska is Juneau. Juneau is 2,578 miles away from Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and 4,550 miles away from Moscow, the capital of Russia. On the other hand, Moscow is 4,998 miles from Chicago, but Ottawa is 645 miles away from Chicago, leaving us with a difference of 1,485 in the distances between the capitals. Advantage, Obama.
I live in Philadelphia, PA, only 340 miles from Toronto. Thus, I must have foreign policy experience.
The metric is ridiculous on it's face, as is anyone who would use distance as a metric for who has more foreign policy experience.
3. I like that person, so it's OK.
I'm no moral absolutist, and I have no interest in beating up on a teenaged girl in a tough spot. Who I do want to beat up on are the hypocrites who say that teenaged girls having out of wedlock children is OK, but only for the people they like. The same people who went nuts over whether or not People magazine was glorifying Jamie Lynn Spears' "immoral behavior" and then blamed People magazine for the 17 girl high school pregnancy pact are the same people willing to give the Palin family a pass. I'm not just talking about the conservatives, either.
Similarly, Bill Clinton getting a blowjob is bad. John Edwards having and affair is bad. But John McCain? He was a POW! How DARE you! There were extenuating circumstances. Hey Sean Hannity, what's more important: country or family?
4. Playing the Cards
"Woe is me, woe is me," cried the Republican mouthpieces, "Obama played the race card." How about "He's an affirmative action candidate!" What Obama said:
"We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? He’s got a feisty wife.”Did Obama play the dreaded race card? Or was he telling the truth? I guess it depends on your position. When I see this, this, this, and this, I think we can all lean towards truth. It's not all conservatives, and certainly not everybody who won't vote for Obama, but there is enough outright racism for him to make that assertion. And that doesn't even account for all of the "subtle" stuff.
Yet, when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's VP selection, it was obvious that the selection had more to do with gender than anything else. Today, we had Laura Bush talking about the sexism that the Democrats need to avoid. We've got all of the Republican Stepford Pundits talking about misogyny in every criticism of Palin. The same Palin, who not so long ago, called Hillary a whiner. It's difficult to say as to whether or not Palin will be a whiner, as her first major interview is a softball from People magazine. There's no word on when they'll allow her out of her undisclosed location.
I can't help but wonder though: If she's so ready, and so experienced, why not let the media size her up? Why wasn't she on Meet the Press, or any of the other Sunday talk shows? We all know why, but if anyone says it, then they're sexists.
These people fuck me up. Twisting themselves into every position possible to make their case for how unfit Obama is to be president. Then twisting themselves into every other position to make the case for how prepared Palin is, even as both possibilites can't both be true at the same time.
Let's be honest, compared to McCain's resume, Obama's is razor thin. But that's why he's getting my vote. It's not Palin's lack of experience that worries me. Everybody has to start somewhere. As recently as December 2007, I thought Obama was joking. By February 5, I was a believer. Sarah Palin won't get the chance to really prove herself in that way. Not just to me, or Progressives in general, but to a lot of Americans, regardless of political ideology. And in the end, isn't America what it's really all about?
8.30.2008
Speaking of Strategery...
By now, you've seen or heard about McPander's VP selection. I won't go into great detail about Sarah Palin, as there are many other places that you can go to get all of the pertinent information. What I will say is that this is strategery at it's finest.
Strategery is not synonymous with failure, so don't ever get that idea in your head. Strategery leads to long term failure, as it favors a short term gain. The best example of strategery I can present to you is the man who inspired the term: George W Bush.
I was sure that McCain was going to get the nod in 2000. When W came on the scene, I thought it was a joke. Well, it was a joke, and the joke was on us. We, we being me and many who had similar thoughts, broke rule #6: Don't underestimate your opponents.
W was a lightweight who only was even considered because of his name. It was an emotional appeal for those who hated Clintonism. I didn't think that anyone was that gullible. Yet, look who's been President for the last eight years.
So, don't underestimate strategery. Don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Don't underestimate disaffected Hillary deadenders. Don't underestimate America's penchant for shooting off its own foot.
Certainly Mrs Palin comes with her own set of issues. Certainly, she's a cipher. Certainly she turns the prospect of a McCain win from a disaster into the fucking Apocalypse. But don't count on Americans to realize it. Don't make the W mistake.
Instead, spread the truth.
Tell people that McCain has spent the last 3 months questioning Obama's experience. "He's the world's biggest celebrity, but is he ready to lead." At least he's a celebrity, who the hell is she?
She's an unknown governor from the 47th least populous state who used to be the mayor of a town of less than 10,000, and John McCain would put her a step away from the Presidency. If something were to happen to McCain, do you really think that either party would respect the rules of succession?
In many ways, she's the anti-Obama. A white female of the same generation. A woman with a colorful life story. Photogenic, made for our media obsessed age. Someone from a middle class background who was unknown only a few years ago. At the same time, unlike Obama, she's a highly partisan religious extremist. Unlike Obama, she won't have time to become familiar with the national stage, and all the media scrutiny that comes with it.
On Monday, the media will be uprooting her entire life. By Monday night, the tabloids will be digging through her trash.
Over the next week, every unemployed papparazzo will be taking pictures of her children.
In a little over a month, she'll have to goe toe to toe against Joe Biden in what will probably be the most watched Vice Presidential debate ever.
She may turn out like Katherine Harris, but then again, she may rise to the challenge. So I say to you, don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Remember George W Bush.
McAilin'/Phalin' '08
Strategery is not synonymous with failure, so don't ever get that idea in your head. Strategery leads to long term failure, as it favors a short term gain. The best example of strategery I can present to you is the man who inspired the term: George W Bush.
I was sure that McCain was going to get the nod in 2000. When W came on the scene, I thought it was a joke. Well, it was a joke, and the joke was on us. We, we being me and many who had similar thoughts, broke rule #6: Don't underestimate your opponents.
W was a lightweight who only was even considered because of his name. It was an emotional appeal for those who hated Clintonism. I didn't think that anyone was that gullible. Yet, look who's been President for the last eight years.
So, don't underestimate strategery. Don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Don't underestimate disaffected Hillary deadenders. Don't underestimate America's penchant for shooting off its own foot.
Certainly Mrs Palin comes with her own set of issues. Certainly, she's a cipher. Certainly she turns the prospect of a McCain win from a disaster into the fucking Apocalypse. But don't count on Americans to realize it. Don't make the W mistake.
Instead, spread the truth.
Tell people that McCain has spent the last 3 months questioning Obama's experience. "He's the world's biggest celebrity, but is he ready to lead." At least he's a celebrity, who the hell is she?
She's an unknown governor from the 47th least populous state who used to be the mayor of a town of less than 10,000, and John McCain would put her a step away from the Presidency. If something were to happen to McCain, do you really think that either party would respect the rules of succession?
In many ways, she's the anti-Obama. A white female of the same generation. A woman with a colorful life story. Photogenic, made for our media obsessed age. Someone from a middle class background who was unknown only a few years ago. At the same time, unlike Obama, she's a highly partisan religious extremist. Unlike Obama, she won't have time to become familiar with the national stage, and all the media scrutiny that comes with it.
On Monday, the media will be uprooting her entire life. By Monday night, the tabloids will be digging through her trash.
Over the next week, every unemployed papparazzo will be taking pictures of her children.
In a little over a month, she'll have to goe toe to toe against Joe Biden in what will probably be the most watched Vice Presidential debate ever.
She may turn out like Katherine Harris, but then again, she may rise to the challenge. So I say to you, don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Remember George W Bush.
McAilin'/Phalin' '08
8.29.2008
Strategery...
...boxing, Bush, Barack, and Big Brother.
Have you ever been in a fistfight? As an adult? Not one of those "I got drunk and had a tiff with my friend that our friends broke up after a few shoves" fight. I'm talking about a fight where you honestly felt that your life may have been in jeopardy. I'm talking about a fight where teeth are lost and bones are broken. I'm talking about a serious life or death street fight.
How about boxing? How about martial arts? While not as serious as a street fight (or a bar fight) as far as life or death goes, there's still the possibility of your demise.
A fist fight, be it in the street or in the ring, is the ultimate test of strategy. Every wrong move made is countered instantly with pain. Every correct move is a reward, because you cause pain to your opponent. In a physical confrontation, you get instant feedback. It may sound barbaric to some of you, but it's life.
No matter what kind of fight you're in, there are rules:
Each fight has it's own strategy. Obviously, the more familiar you are with your opponent, the better shape you're in. Watch what he does. Learn his tendencies. Know his weaknesses. When there is no familiarity, stand back for a minute. Deflect blows. Avoid bad positions. Keep your balance. Take mental notes. Obviously, strategy means nothing in a fight if you don't have the skills to test your strategy.
There are all sorts of strategy games, but my favorite test of strategy is US Electoral Politics.
Presidential politics is a street fight. It's a life or death situation. When was the last time you saw Walter Mondale? Michael Dukakis? Ross Perot? Bob Dole? Losing the fight doesn't always mean political death, but it always brings about a profound change. Al Gore, for instance. In the past, it was easier to come back and run again, but these days, it's a little different.
Understand, the election is a referendum on ideology. The candidate, for good and for ill, is the personification of his ideology. In these Rovian days, if you can make the election about a candidate, then all of his or her perceived personal failings become tied to that candidate's ideology. The more you concentrate on the candidate, then the election becomes referendum on the candidate rather than the ideology. This has a dual effect of destroying the candidate while simultaneously dismissing the ideology. An example:
See how easy that was? Want me to do it again?
Obviously, it's a bit more complex than that. It takes a lot of money and a lot of liars to make black into white. It takes endless repetitions that start as secretive whispers and eventually become "conventional wisdom." It takes bullying, and needs those who are being bullied to be frightened. Most of all, it requires a lie so incredible that people can't help but to believe it.
During the Democratic Primaries, Barack Obama was in a fight with Hillary Clinton. To many people, Hillary was beating up on Obama, and he was too weak to fight back. Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him. His response, at best, was perceived as tepid. This is because more Americans watch "Big Brother" than play chess.
I never learned how to play chess, but I understand the game. Like any test of strategy, you have to understand the goal(s) while staying 3 or more steps ahead of your opponent. Hillary may have won the battle of personal rhetoric, but she lost the war.
While she was throwing the kitchen sink, she never really thought about where it would land, regardless of whether or not it hit her target. In terms of a street fight, she ran into it, both arms flailing wildly, hoping for a lucky hit. That's not strategy, although many people think that it is. The Kitchen Sink "strategy" is actually "strategery."
Reality shows are lessons in expert strategery. I don't watch TV, except when I visit my family on Sundays. There is always a reality show on. Lately, they've all been addicted to "Big Brother," a game where people routinely fuck up their winning strategies over some personal bullshit. When called on that personal bullshit by a former ally, the accused often falls into the refrain of "It's not personal, it strategy. This is a game, and I'm trying to win," or some such nonsense. It's not strategy, it's strategery.
He beat Hillary by letting her make the election about him. At the start of the primary season, she was inevitable. When she saw there was competition, she panicked. Ideologically, there's not much daylight between the two. They were rivals, not opponents. She treated him like an opponent, and tarnished herself in the process. Had he treated her like she treated him, he would have faced a wide backlash. He understood this. He also understood that she was trying to bait him. He didn't fall for it. He understands strategy.
Fast forward to August. Obama has won his fight against Hillary, Bill, the GOP, the BBQ media, the PUMA's, and many of his own nervous supporters. Now, he must fight all the same people again, except you can exchange Hillary and Bill for John McCain.
John McCain's campaign claims to have watched the Obama/Hillary fight and learned how to beat Obama from Hillary's mistakes. It's interesting that they use the same strategy. First, they try to make the election about him, and not his ideas. Then, the Kitchen Sink.
Much like Hillary before him, McCain comes in arms flailing, hoping to get a lucky shot. Obama dodges when he can, and takes hits when he can't. When it's prudent, he gives a quick jab. For many of his supporters, that isn't good enough. Nevermind that it's August, and the general population isn't really paying attention. Nevermind that every McCain attack is more ridiculous than the last. Never mind that McCain is spending $10 million more than he's bringing in. Nevermind that the last thing America wants to see is an angry, indignant black man yelling at an old white man. Nevermind all that, let's panic instead.
While McCain has been telegraphing every move, Obama has been watching, waiting to strike when he could cause the most damage to his opponent while causing as little collateral damage as possible. McCain's been putting himself out on a limb, throwing punches that don't connect, while opening himself up to counter punches. Obama could play gotcha games, but what would be the point? Instead of gotcha's, we watch McCain dig himself deeper into a hole, thinking that he's safe. He's free to contradict himself, change positions, and lie about it. While he's doing that, all of this is going into the record.
Obama's strategy is simple. It starts with a single idea: People don't know the real John McCain. Let him put himself on the record. Let him define himself. You might think that's dangerous, and in many cases, I would agree. John McCain is a special case. John McCain is not the same as he was when he faced off against Bush in 2000. At least then, he had some core principles. Over the last 8 years, he's kissed the rings and asses of the people he used to despise.
McCain was never a maverick. He was a guy who wasn't an extremist, but made some questionable calls, all while spinning himself as a moderate. He is a guy who, while still not an extremist, is more than willing to spout extremist rhetoric, and still try to spin himself as a moderate. The extremist rhetoric scares the moderates, and the moderate rhetoric angers the extremists.
Obama is smart enough to know that there are people who would never vote for him. The challenge is to get the votes of the people who can vote either way. So, he let McCain tie himself closer to extremist right-wing ideology. He let McCain sing a the praises of BushCo.
Then, on August 28, 2008, Barack Obama fired his first salvo. He didn't cause a fatal wound, but he seriously damaged the right-wing ideology, and by implication, John McCain. This is a reversal of the Rove doctrine on a level that will fly above the heads of most observers. An example:
"He just doesn't know."
"He just doesn't get it."
Now that we've seen Obama throw some excellent punches without putting himself at risk, I hope we'll see less of the concern trolling recently put out by weak kneed, weak willed progressives. I hope they can now begin to understand that strategy is better than strategery. I hope we all spend a little less time watching "Big Brother," and more time learning how to play chess.
I know I will.
Have you ever been in a fistfight? As an adult? Not one of those "I got drunk and had a tiff with my friend that our friends broke up after a few shoves" fight. I'm talking about a fight where you honestly felt that your life may have been in jeopardy. I'm talking about a fight where teeth are lost and bones are broken. I'm talking about a serious life or death street fight.
How about boxing? How about martial arts? While not as serious as a street fight (or a bar fight) as far as life or death goes, there's still the possibility of your demise.
A fist fight, be it in the street or in the ring, is the ultimate test of strategy. Every wrong move made is countered instantly with pain. Every correct move is a reward, because you cause pain to your opponent. In a physical confrontation, you get instant feedback. It may sound barbaric to some of you, but it's life.
No matter what kind of fight you're in, there are rules:
1. Don't fight if you don't have to.
2. Don't fight someone you know you cannot beat.
3. If you find yourself in a fight you cannot win, cheat.
4. If you're fighting someone below your skill level, end the fight as quickly as possible.
5. If you have advance knowledge of your opponent, study him.
6. If you don't know your opponent, don't underestimate him. Take it slowly, and stay focused.
7. Never, ever, ever overestimate yourself.
Each fight has it's own strategy. Obviously, the more familiar you are with your opponent, the better shape you're in. Watch what he does. Learn his tendencies. Know his weaknesses. When there is no familiarity, stand back for a minute. Deflect blows. Avoid bad positions. Keep your balance. Take mental notes. Obviously, strategy means nothing in a fight if you don't have the skills to test your strategy.
There are all sorts of strategy games, but my favorite test of strategy is US Electoral Politics.
Presidential politics is a street fight. It's a life or death situation. When was the last time you saw Walter Mondale? Michael Dukakis? Ross Perot? Bob Dole? Losing the fight doesn't always mean political death, but it always brings about a profound change. Al Gore, for instance. In the past, it was easier to come back and run again, but these days, it's a little different.
Understand, the election is a referendum on ideology. The candidate, for good and for ill, is the personification of his ideology. In these Rovian days, if you can make the election about a candidate, then all of his or her perceived personal failings become tied to that candidate's ideology. The more you concentrate on the candidate, then the election becomes referendum on the candidate rather than the ideology. This has a dual effect of destroying the candidate while simultaneously dismissing the ideology. An example:
Al Gore invented the internet. He's lying. He's a liar. Al Gore believes in global warming. Al Gore's a liar. Global warming is a lie. Al Gore is a Liberal. Liberals are liars.
See how easy that was? Want me to do it again?
John Kerry was in Vietnam. He hated the things he did in Vietnam. America sent him to Vietnam. He hates the things America asked him to do in Vietnam. John Kerry hates America. John Kerry is a Liberal. Liberals hate America.
Obviously, it's a bit more complex than that. It takes a lot of money and a lot of liars to make black into white. It takes endless repetitions that start as secretive whispers and eventually become "conventional wisdom." It takes bullying, and needs those who are being bullied to be frightened. Most of all, it requires a lie so incredible that people can't help but to believe it.
During the Democratic Primaries, Barack Obama was in a fight with Hillary Clinton. To many people, Hillary was beating up on Obama, and he was too weak to fight back. Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him. His response, at best, was perceived as tepid. This is because more Americans watch "Big Brother" than play chess.
I never learned how to play chess, but I understand the game. Like any test of strategy, you have to understand the goal(s) while staying 3 or more steps ahead of your opponent. Hillary may have won the battle of personal rhetoric, but she lost the war.
While she was throwing the kitchen sink, she never really thought about where it would land, regardless of whether or not it hit her target. In terms of a street fight, she ran into it, both arms flailing wildly, hoping for a lucky hit. That's not strategy, although many people think that it is. The Kitchen Sink "strategy" is actually "strategery."
Reality shows are lessons in expert strategery. I don't watch TV, except when I visit my family on Sundays. There is always a reality show on. Lately, they've all been addicted to "Big Brother," a game where people routinely fuck up their winning strategies over some personal bullshit. When called on that personal bullshit by a former ally, the accused often falls into the refrain of "It's not personal, it strategy. This is a game, and I'm trying to win," or some such nonsense. It's not strategy, it's strategery.
He beat Hillary by letting her make the election about him. At the start of the primary season, she was inevitable. When she saw there was competition, she panicked. Ideologically, there's not much daylight between the two. They were rivals, not opponents. She treated him like an opponent, and tarnished herself in the process. Had he treated her like she treated him, he would have faced a wide backlash. He understood this. He also understood that she was trying to bait him. He didn't fall for it. He understands strategy.
Fast forward to August. Obama has won his fight against Hillary, Bill, the GOP, the BBQ media, the PUMA's, and many of his own nervous supporters. Now, he must fight all the same people again, except you can exchange Hillary and Bill for John McCain.
John McCain's campaign claims to have watched the Obama/Hillary fight and learned how to beat Obama from Hillary's mistakes. It's interesting that they use the same strategy. First, they try to make the election about him, and not his ideas. Then, the Kitchen Sink.
Much like Hillary before him, McCain comes in arms flailing, hoping to get a lucky shot. Obama dodges when he can, and takes hits when he can't. When it's prudent, he gives a quick jab. For many of his supporters, that isn't good enough. Nevermind that it's August, and the general population isn't really paying attention. Nevermind that every McCain attack is more ridiculous than the last. Never mind that McCain is spending $10 million more than he's bringing in. Nevermind that the last thing America wants to see is an angry, indignant black man yelling at an old white man. Nevermind all that, let's panic instead.
While McCain has been telegraphing every move, Obama has been watching, waiting to strike when he could cause the most damage to his opponent while causing as little collateral damage as possible. McCain's been putting himself out on a limb, throwing punches that don't connect, while opening himself up to counter punches. Obama could play gotcha games, but what would be the point? Instead of gotcha's, we watch McCain dig himself deeper into a hole, thinking that he's safe. He's free to contradict himself, change positions, and lie about it. While he's doing that, all of this is going into the record.
Obama's strategy is simple. It starts with a single idea: People don't know the real John McCain. Let him put himself on the record. Let him define himself. You might think that's dangerous, and in many cases, I would agree. John McCain is a special case. John McCain is not the same as he was when he faced off against Bush in 2000. At least then, he had some core principles. Over the last 8 years, he's kissed the rings and asses of the people he used to despise.
McCain was never a maverick. He was a guy who wasn't an extremist, but made some questionable calls, all while spinning himself as a moderate. He is a guy who, while still not an extremist, is more than willing to spout extremist rhetoric, and still try to spin himself as a moderate. The extremist rhetoric scares the moderates, and the moderate rhetoric angers the extremists.
Obama is smart enough to know that there are people who would never vote for him. The challenge is to get the votes of the people who can vote either way. So, he let McCain tie himself closer to extremist right-wing ideology. He let McCain sing a the praises of BushCo.
Then, on August 28, 2008, Barack Obama fired his first salvo. He didn't cause a fatal wound, but he seriously damaged the right-wing ideology, and by implication, John McCain. This is a reversal of the Rove doctrine on a level that will fly above the heads of most observers. An example:
Modern conservatism is wrong. John McCain is an honorable man. John McCain is a modern conservative. John McCain is an honorable man, but he's wrong.See the difference? He doesn't make McCain out to be something other than an honorable American patriot who loves his country, but is doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
"He just doesn't know."
"He just doesn't get it."
Now that we've seen Obama throw some excellent punches without putting himself at risk, I hope we'll see less of the concern trolling recently put out by weak kneed, weak willed progressives. I hope they can now begin to understand that strategy is better than strategery. I hope we all spend a little less time watching "Big Brother," and more time learning how to play chess.
I know I will.
8.03.2008
Why Do the Faithful Need Proof?
It's been awhile, and I still haven't written any sort of intro, but I'll get to it one day. I was going to write a blog about politics, but today I've decided to switch it up. Don't worry though, I'll be getting back to that soon enough.
I was dicking around on youtube a few minutes ago, and I came across this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM17EQiZZd4
If you don't want to waste precious time watching the video, allow me to summarize:
Recently, Ben Stein (Bueller! Bueller!) decided to abandon his intellect and become a creationist, or rather, a believer of Intelligent Design (ID). He came out with a documentary called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." I haven't watched the documentary, as I've wasted enough of my life watching pointless crap already. You may wonder how I can be objective, having never seen the movie, to which I respond that I have no interest in being objective. Anyway, Stein is pitching his movie to Rush's more annoying half-brother*, Glenn Beck.
For those of you who are unaware, creationism is the belief that the Christian God created the universe in 6 days, 6000 or so years ago. That particular sect are better known as "Young Earthers." They believe that dinosaurs and homo sapiens were contemporaries, and go so far to say that there were even dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. No, I'm not kidding. Young Earthers are usually associated with Evangelical Christians of the Red State variety. Those are the people who believe that the King James Bible is the literal Truth, with no contractictions and no errors.
The Young Earthers aren't the only sect of creationists. There are also Old Earthers, who will concede that the Earth is far older than 6000 years, given the irrefutable evidence, but still contend that it is a creation of God.
The third sect is far more dangerous. The ID'ers are wolves in sheep's clothing. The ID'ers want to use science to prove the existence of God. I cannot respect the ID community. Not only are they intellectually dishonest, but they're faithless. Yes, faithless.
Listen, I'm an agnostic, but these days many would call me an atheist. I don't believe in a supernatural deity. No burning bushes, resurrections, angels, whatever. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a being described by the Abrahamic religions does not exist. At the same time, I realize that I'm just a man with finite capabilities and understanding. I recognize the fact that I could and might be 100% wrong. I do not believe that I am wrong, and I am willing to bet my eternal soul on it.
That being said, I am faithless. If I can't see it, or if there is no logic to support something that I can't see, then it's not real. I need proof, evidence, or a convincing argument. Reason is my religion, evidence and proof are the wine and the wafers, and logic is the prayer. Because I am faithless, I can recognize faithlessness in others. But for now, let's get back to the video.
About halfway into the video, Beck shows a clip of Stein talking to Richard Dawkins, high priest of militant Atheism. During the clip, Dawkins tells Beck that if we as humans do have an intelligent designer, it could possibly be an extra-terrestrial intelligence. When the clip is done, Beck and Stein have a good laugh. Beck is incredulous. "...or a space alien! Who created the space alien?"
There are two problems with Glenn Beck's incredulity. Firstly and simply, if God exists as the Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe, then by the necessity of basic logic, God is a space alien. Do I really have to explain it? Okay. If God created the Earth, then logically, God cannot be from Earth, making him/she/it an alien by default. Got it? Good.
Secondly, Beck wants to know who created the "space aliens." That's a fair question. An even fairer question is "Who created God?" Now, the devout will tell you that God has always existed. That's an article of faith. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, nor do I care to try. If you believe that God exists, then that should be good enough for you. My belief is good enough for me.
Unfortunately, what I've been seeing lately is a big push by the believers. They're pushing into government and education. The Intelligent Design movement has been trying to sneak into public school curriculum as regular science. They say that it's not religion, as they don't say who the intelligent designer is. At the same time, ask anyone of those ID'ers who they think the designer is, and the ones who don't dodge will say "God." It's stealth creationism, and these people want to teach it along side evolution.
According to the ID crowd, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, and should be taught in public schools as an alternative to Evolution. By changing "God" to "Intelligent Agent," they hope to bypass the establishment clause in the Constitution. Fortunately, the courts have ruled against them, at least for the time being.
They're still out there, launching an assault against science and reason. What's more, they're making youtube videos that purport to prove the existence of God. I've watched many of these videos, and they make me wonder:
If you claim to be a person of faith, then why do you need to prove the existence of your god? Doesn't that miss the point of faith?
As I wrote earlier, as a faithless person, I need evidence. A lot of it. Not anecdotal crap about how you prayed for money and the next day you got a promotion. Not a piece of toast with a burn pattern that kind of looks like Jesus if you look at it the right way. Shit, Elvis got one of those. Show me half of the homosexual population instantaneously turn into pillars of salt. Show me half of feminists growing Moses beards overnight. Even better, let's see God do something positive and cure little children of cancer, AIDS, diabetes, and/or autism.
But if you're faithful, then why do you need evidence? Why do you need to fake footprints to prove that dinosaurs walked with man? Why do you need to bore me with a fallacious philosophical treatise about chocolate bars and infinity? Why is Kirk Cameron your best known spokesman? And why can't you teach your children about your god at your home and your church?
I was dicking around on youtube a few minutes ago, and I came across this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM17EQiZZd4
If you don't want to waste precious time watching the video, allow me to summarize:
Recently, Ben Stein (Bueller! Bueller!) decided to abandon his intellect and become a creationist, or rather, a believer of Intelligent Design (ID). He came out with a documentary called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." I haven't watched the documentary, as I've wasted enough of my life watching pointless crap already. You may wonder how I can be objective, having never seen the movie, to which I respond that I have no interest in being objective. Anyway, Stein is pitching his movie to Rush's more annoying half-brother*, Glenn Beck.
For those of you who are unaware, creationism is the belief that the Christian God created the universe in 6 days, 6000 or so years ago. That particular sect are better known as "Young Earthers." They believe that dinosaurs and homo sapiens were contemporaries, and go so far to say that there were even dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. No, I'm not kidding. Young Earthers are usually associated with Evangelical Christians of the Red State variety. Those are the people who believe that the King James Bible is the literal Truth, with no contractictions and no errors.
The Young Earthers aren't the only sect of creationists. There are also Old Earthers, who will concede that the Earth is far older than 6000 years, given the irrefutable evidence, but still contend that it is a creation of God.
The third sect is far more dangerous. The ID'ers are wolves in sheep's clothing. The ID'ers want to use science to prove the existence of God. I cannot respect the ID community. Not only are they intellectually dishonest, but they're faithless. Yes, faithless.
Listen, I'm an agnostic, but these days many would call me an atheist. I don't believe in a supernatural deity. No burning bushes, resurrections, angels, whatever. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a being described by the Abrahamic religions does not exist. At the same time, I realize that I'm just a man with finite capabilities and understanding. I recognize the fact that I could and might be 100% wrong. I do not believe that I am wrong, and I am willing to bet my eternal soul on it.
That being said, I am faithless. If I can't see it, or if there is no logic to support something that I can't see, then it's not real. I need proof, evidence, or a convincing argument. Reason is my religion, evidence and proof are the wine and the wafers, and logic is the prayer. Because I am faithless, I can recognize faithlessness in others. But for now, let's get back to the video.
About halfway into the video, Beck shows a clip of Stein talking to Richard Dawkins, high priest of militant Atheism. During the clip, Dawkins tells Beck that if we as humans do have an intelligent designer, it could possibly be an extra-terrestrial intelligence. When the clip is done, Beck and Stein have a good laugh. Beck is incredulous. "...or a space alien! Who created the space alien?"
There are two problems with Glenn Beck's incredulity. Firstly and simply, if God exists as the Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe, then by the necessity of basic logic, God is a space alien. Do I really have to explain it? Okay. If God created the Earth, then logically, God cannot be from Earth, making him/she/it an alien by default. Got it? Good.
Secondly, Beck wants to know who created the "space aliens." That's a fair question. An even fairer question is "Who created God?" Now, the devout will tell you that God has always existed. That's an article of faith. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, nor do I care to try. If you believe that God exists, then that should be good enough for you. My belief is good enough for me.
Unfortunately, what I've been seeing lately is a big push by the believers. They're pushing into government and education. The Intelligent Design movement has been trying to sneak into public school curriculum as regular science. They say that it's not religion, as they don't say who the intelligent designer is. At the same time, ask anyone of those ID'ers who they think the designer is, and the ones who don't dodge will say "God." It's stealth creationism, and these people want to teach it along side evolution.
According to the ID crowd, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, and should be taught in public schools as an alternative to Evolution. By changing "God" to "Intelligent Agent," they hope to bypass the establishment clause in the Constitution. Fortunately, the courts have ruled against them, at least for the time being.
They're still out there, launching an assault against science and reason. What's more, they're making youtube videos that purport to prove the existence of God. I've watched many of these videos, and they make me wonder:
If you claim to be a person of faith, then why do you need to prove the existence of your god? Doesn't that miss the point of faith?
As I wrote earlier, as a faithless person, I need evidence. A lot of it. Not anecdotal crap about how you prayed for money and the next day you got a promotion. Not a piece of toast with a burn pattern that kind of looks like Jesus if you look at it the right way. Shit, Elvis got one of those. Show me half of the homosexual population instantaneously turn into pillars of salt. Show me half of feminists growing Moses beards overnight. Even better, let's see God do something positive and cure little children of cancer, AIDS, diabetes, and/or autism.
But if you're faithful, then why do you need evidence? Why do you need to fake footprints to prove that dinosaurs walked with man? Why do you need to bore me with a fallacious philosophical treatise about chocolate bars and infinity? Why is Kirk Cameron your best known spokesman? And why can't you teach your children about your god at your home and your church?
5.15.2008
The Forest for the Trees
Again, I skip out on the whole introduction thing, but I'll get to it soon enough. Today, I'd like to talk out some things that are difficult for me to wrap my brain around. I didn't want to write about Hillary Clinton again, seeing as she's lost, but circumstances force me to. "What circumstances," you ask? Read on.
In the last few days NARAL Pro-Choice America has endorsed Barack Obama. Many women are in a rage. Many women's groups are in a rage. Why? Because they feel that said endorsement is disrespectful to Senator Clinton and the voters. They also feel like the timing was bad, as there are 3 weeks left to go in the primaries. They want to know what the hurry is. Huh?
This is where facts and the ability to interpret said facts becomes important. Firstly, the Democratic primaries started in January. That was 5 months ago. Endorsing after 20 weeks with 3 weeks left is hardly rushing.
Secondly, while a math teacher can be sexist, math itself is an abstract concept, and therefore cannot be sexist. This race has been over, mathematically, for at least 2 months. I remember watching Chuck Todd on MSNBC in March, talking about Hillary's steep uphill climb to the nomination. It's now May, and the mountain is no longer steep, it's absolutely vertical.
Thirdly, NARAL endorses and supports pro-choice candidates. Obama is just as committed to choice as Hillary. Actually, maybe more so, as he has more legislative experience than she does. If you want to play the "present vote" game, I won't play with you until you learn the facts.
So now we come to the parts that I don't understand: Why are so many Hillary supporters so averse to voting for Obama? If you're a Hillraiser, then it stands to reason that you are a Democrat. If you are a Democrat, then John McCain's platform doesn't appeal to you. Both Obama and Clinton have said that their policy positions are 95% the same. How aligned are McCain's with theirs? Not very. So, doesn't it then make sense to vote for the person closest to the person you support?
Even with as much dirty shit as Hillary has pulled, I'd still vote for her enthusiastically over McCain. Seeing her transgressions rightly punished is not worth seeing the country go through another 4 years of fear-mongering and fiscal irresponsibility. I do not think that she will make a better President than Obama, but I KNOW she'll be better than McCain, and that's what's important.
I read this article yesterday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/you-broke-it-you-own-it_b_101673.html
Actually, I tried to read it, but it hurt my head, and not in the good way that Scientific American does. Mrs. Breitweiser is one of the 9/11 widows so shamefully slandered by Ann Coulter a few years back. She and her fellow widows got the government to form the 9/11 Commission. She is an American hero. and we all owe her a great debt. However, she is a prime example of not seeing the forest for the trees.
The main thrust of her argument is that Hillary is the best, Obama sucks, and everybody who votes for Obama sucks. Also, there's a threat to the delegates who are elected officials. It's pretty fucking pathetic. I don't have the time, patience, or will refute her tirade of baseless assertations, but I'll offer this to Mrs. Breitweiser and those who find themselves in agreement with her:
If Hillary Clinton is more "electable" than Barack Obama, why can't she beat him? She's lost every metric. Delegates. Popular vote. States won. Money raised. Number of donations. Number of donors. She's lost a 20 point national polling lead. She's lost name recognition. She lost the anti-war vote. She lost the African American vote. She lost the youth vote. She lost the establishment vote.
I look at it like this, if she can't beat a black guy with a Muslim name, who happens to be a speech plagiarizing empty suit that no one ever heard of before Iowa and who can't win "ïmportant" states, who also happens to be supported by terrorists at home and abroad, and has an angry Black radical preacher, then how the fuck is she going to beat genuine war-hero, bonafide POW, White, male, John McCain? How is she more electable?
Furthermore, if you are one of those people who won't vote for Obama because you're not convinced that he can beat McCain in the fall, then you are an asshole. A stupid asshole, at that. If you're truly worrying about a McCain Presidency, then you should be doing everything in you power to make sure that such a thing never comes to pass. Instead, you, and assholes like you, talk about how Obama's not going to win, and how all of the Obama supporters will be to blame. Actually, I changed my mind, you're not assholes, you're dumb fucks. Dumb, because you recognize neither the irony nor the self-fulfilling prophecy. Fucks, because if you do recognize these things, you take no action against them., and instead, act like petulant children. Yeah, I know it's not very unifying, but I'm not Obama, and you all really are beginning to piss me off. Besides, if you let some anonymous internet post dissuade you from voting for the good of the country, then you deserve the Imperial Theocracy McCain and friends want to give you.
Do you see the infrastructure crumbling? The ever widening gap between the haves and the have-nots? The foreclosures? The weak dollar? The signs of peak oil? Over 4000 dead troops? Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's? The shitty school systems? The corporate takeover on our everyday lives? No. All you see is that your preferred candidate isn't going to be President. All you can see is trees.
In the last few days NARAL Pro-Choice America has endorsed Barack Obama. Many women are in a rage. Many women's groups are in a rage. Why? Because they feel that said endorsement is disrespectful to Senator Clinton and the voters. They also feel like the timing was bad, as there are 3 weeks left to go in the primaries. They want to know what the hurry is. Huh?
This is where facts and the ability to interpret said facts becomes important. Firstly, the Democratic primaries started in January. That was 5 months ago. Endorsing after 20 weeks with 3 weeks left is hardly rushing.
Secondly, while a math teacher can be sexist, math itself is an abstract concept, and therefore cannot be sexist. This race has been over, mathematically, for at least 2 months. I remember watching Chuck Todd on MSNBC in March, talking about Hillary's steep uphill climb to the nomination. It's now May, and the mountain is no longer steep, it's absolutely vertical.
Thirdly, NARAL endorses and supports pro-choice candidates. Obama is just as committed to choice as Hillary. Actually, maybe more so, as he has more legislative experience than she does. If you want to play the "present vote" game, I won't play with you until you learn the facts.
So now we come to the parts that I don't understand: Why are so many Hillary supporters so averse to voting for Obama? If you're a Hillraiser, then it stands to reason that you are a Democrat. If you are a Democrat, then John McCain's platform doesn't appeal to you. Both Obama and Clinton have said that their policy positions are 95% the same. How aligned are McCain's with theirs? Not very. So, doesn't it then make sense to vote for the person closest to the person you support?
Even with as much dirty shit as Hillary has pulled, I'd still vote for her enthusiastically over McCain. Seeing her transgressions rightly punished is not worth seeing the country go through another 4 years of fear-mongering and fiscal irresponsibility. I do not think that she will make a better President than Obama, but I KNOW she'll be better than McCain, and that's what's important.
I read this article yesterday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/you-broke-it-you-own-it_b_101673.html
Actually, I tried to read it, but it hurt my head, and not in the good way that Scientific American does. Mrs. Breitweiser is one of the 9/11 widows so shamefully slandered by Ann Coulter a few years back. She and her fellow widows got the government to form the 9/11 Commission. She is an American hero. and we all owe her a great debt. However, she is a prime example of not seeing the forest for the trees.
The main thrust of her argument is that Hillary is the best, Obama sucks, and everybody who votes for Obama sucks. Also, there's a threat to the delegates who are elected officials. It's pretty fucking pathetic. I don't have the time, patience, or will refute her tirade of baseless assertations, but I'll offer this to Mrs. Breitweiser and those who find themselves in agreement with her:
If Hillary Clinton is more "electable" than Barack Obama, why can't she beat him? She's lost every metric. Delegates. Popular vote. States won. Money raised. Number of donations. Number of donors. She's lost a 20 point national polling lead. She's lost name recognition. She lost the anti-war vote. She lost the African American vote. She lost the youth vote. She lost the establishment vote.
I look at it like this, if she can't beat a black guy with a Muslim name, who happens to be a speech plagiarizing empty suit that no one ever heard of before Iowa and who can't win "ïmportant" states, who also happens to be supported by terrorists at home and abroad, and has an angry Black radical preacher, then how the fuck is she going to beat genuine war-hero, bonafide POW, White, male, John McCain? How is she more electable?
Furthermore, if you are one of those people who won't vote for Obama because you're not convinced that he can beat McCain in the fall, then you are an asshole. A stupid asshole, at that. If you're truly worrying about a McCain Presidency, then you should be doing everything in you power to make sure that such a thing never comes to pass. Instead, you, and assholes like you, talk about how Obama's not going to win, and how all of the Obama supporters will be to blame. Actually, I changed my mind, you're not assholes, you're dumb fucks. Dumb, because you recognize neither the irony nor the self-fulfilling prophecy. Fucks, because if you do recognize these things, you take no action against them., and instead, act like petulant children. Yeah, I know it's not very unifying, but I'm not Obama, and you all really are beginning to piss me off. Besides, if you let some anonymous internet post dissuade you from voting for the good of the country, then you deserve the Imperial Theocracy McCain and friends want to give you.
Do you see the infrastructure crumbling? The ever widening gap between the haves and the have-nots? The foreclosures? The weak dollar? The signs of peak oil? Over 4000 dead troops? Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's? The shitty school systems? The corporate takeover on our everyday lives? No. All you see is that your preferred candidate isn't going to be President. All you can see is trees.
4.18.2008
Star Wars and The Democratic Candidates
I guess that I should start my new blog out with some type of introduction, but I'm not going to. I have something on my mind, and I want to get it written out before I forget some of the nuances of this particular argument.
My argument: You cannot support Hillary Clinton for President and call yourself a progressive.
Let's face it, Hillary people, you've fallen to the Dark Side. You have become that which you hate the most, Republicans.
See, I watched the debates the other night, and Hillary used "the 90's" like Guiliani used to use "9/11." Now, you may be asking "Micah616, what's wrong with the 90's?" That question, along with my favorite variation, "What didn't you like about the 90's? The peace or the prosperity?" reveals the depth of your inner corruption.
There was no peace in the 1990's. We had troops in the Balkans, and Iraq was under heavy sanctions and was a no-fly zone. Prosperity? To be fair, I was feeling pretty prosperous, as were millions of other Americans, I'm sure. But, then again, the dollar was stronger, and oil was cheaper. But you know that. And you also know that oil will never be anywhere near that cheap ever again, nor the dollar as strong. Yet, you continue to believe that Hillary can take us back to the 90's.
When conservatives talk about the halcyon days of the 50's, we progressives snicker at their "cognitive dissonance." As progressives, we know that we can never go back to the 50's, and even if we could, we'd quickly find the the 50's were a bit more ugly than the Leave it to Beaver fantasy the GOP jerks off to.
Somehow though, supposed progressives get a pass when they have erotic fixations about the 1990's. Let me clear here: Having wet dreams about a decade long past while ignoring some of the very real problems that existed then and now is a conservative trait, not a progressive one. But I won't call you conservatives, and I cannot call you progressives. Instead, from this time forward, Hillary supporters will be referred to as regressives. I don't mean to be hard on you, and I don't want to insult you, but somebody has to try to get you to listen to reason. Hillary Clinton is not a progressive.
Supporting an amendment which would criminalize burning a flag is not progressive.
Lining your pockets with money from pharmaceutical companies while trying to push health-care mandates which would force us to fill Big Pharma's coffers and then calling said mandate "Universal" is not progressive.
Giving Bush the authority to use military force on a country that never attacked us, and then giving him the power to attack terrorists everywhere, and then designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization which would allow Bush to attack yet another country that never attacked us is not progressive.
You already know this, though, but you don't care. You don't care that Bill was on Rush Limbaugh's show, trying to get the dittohead vote. You don't care that Hillary's cozying up to Richard Mellon Scaife. You don't care that you'd rather watch Fox News than MSNBC. You don't care that she's giving shouts out to Johnny McBombs. You don't care about the lies, the triangulations, or the deception. You're willing to give the GOP 4 more years if your candidate doesn't win the nomination.
You've fallen to the dark side.
Don't get it fucked up, I'm not some first time voter jumping on the I Hate Hillary bandwagon. I was wondering why she didn't run in 2004. Much like you, I spent 16 years of my life carrying water for the Clinton's. At the beginning of this political season, I favored Ron Paul, but I knew he wasn't going anywhere. So, I was looking forward to electing our fist female President in November. But, I wasn't really looking forward to it, I was looking forward to regaining control of the White House.
The way I look at it, Hillary was MIA for the progressive movement as a Senator. Speaking strictly in terms of soft power, Hillary was arguably the most powerful person in the US Senate. She can call a press conference to discuss anything, and every major news organization would be there. Unfortunately, she didn't call any press conferences to point out Bush's misdeeds. She wasn't in the Senate "fighting," she was hiding. The one issue that she was most visible on had to do with regulating violent video games. That scared me, but she was still better than anybody who would actually get the Republican nomination.
Sure, she'd face her challenges. The GOP would bring up non-issues from 20 years ago. They'd do the guilt by association thing. They'd spin her policies. In short, they would do their best to frame the narrative. That's what they do, and they do it better than anybody. But I was so sure that America was tired of all that, especially considering the last 8 years, that we would see beyond the bullshit, and try to get this country back on track.
Something else happened though. A relative unknown came from nowhere to challenge her. His ideas sounded like mine, but far more eloquent. He challenged us to be responsible for our government. He asked us to move beyond the petty divisions, and start with the commonalities. He started talking about "Hope" and "Change." I'm a skeptic and a cynic. While I recognized the wisdom in what he was saying, I doubted his sincerity.
Over the last few months, I've seen people really begin to believe in America again. That's important. One person, no matter how hard she fights, can't fix all of these problems without the support of a large and diverse group of people. People are excited, people are engaged. People really like "Hope" and "Change." BushCo has brought us to the brink of collapse. People need more than policies, they need inspiration.
Hillary's response to all the hope-mongering? "Let's get real." It was then that I knew she had fallen. She's blinded by her own ambition and ego. It may be too late for her, but it's not too late for you. You can always come back to the side of progress, as progress is one of the few inevitables of American life. We can't go back to the 90's, no matter how hard we try. The good old days are over. All we can do now is try to make the best of the situation that we're in, and move forward from there.
See, that's progress. Moving forward is progressive, moving backwards is regressive. Obama wants to move forward, Hillary wants to go backwards. Where do you stand?
My argument: You cannot support Hillary Clinton for President and call yourself a progressive.
Let's face it, Hillary people, you've fallen to the Dark Side. You have become that which you hate the most, Republicans.
See, I watched the debates the other night, and Hillary used "the 90's" like Guiliani used to use "9/11." Now, you may be asking "Micah616, what's wrong with the 90's?" That question, along with my favorite variation, "What didn't you like about the 90's? The peace or the prosperity?" reveals the depth of your inner corruption.
There was no peace in the 1990's. We had troops in the Balkans, and Iraq was under heavy sanctions and was a no-fly zone. Prosperity? To be fair, I was feeling pretty prosperous, as were millions of other Americans, I'm sure. But, then again, the dollar was stronger, and oil was cheaper. But you know that. And you also know that oil will never be anywhere near that cheap ever again, nor the dollar as strong. Yet, you continue to believe that Hillary can take us back to the 90's.
When conservatives talk about the halcyon days of the 50's, we progressives snicker at their "cognitive dissonance." As progressives, we know that we can never go back to the 50's, and even if we could, we'd quickly find the the 50's were a bit more ugly than the Leave it to Beaver fantasy the GOP jerks off to.
Somehow though, supposed progressives get a pass when they have erotic fixations about the 1990's. Let me clear here: Having wet dreams about a decade long past while ignoring some of the very real problems that existed then and now is a conservative trait, not a progressive one. But I won't call you conservatives, and I cannot call you progressives. Instead, from this time forward, Hillary supporters will be referred to as regressives. I don't mean to be hard on you, and I don't want to insult you, but somebody has to try to get you to listen to reason. Hillary Clinton is not a progressive.
Supporting an amendment which would criminalize burning a flag is not progressive.
Lining your pockets with money from pharmaceutical companies while trying to push health-care mandates which would force us to fill Big Pharma's coffers and then calling said mandate "Universal" is not progressive.
Giving Bush the authority to use military force on a country that never attacked us, and then giving him the power to attack terrorists everywhere, and then designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization which would allow Bush to attack yet another country that never attacked us is not progressive.
You already know this, though, but you don't care. You don't care that Bill was on Rush Limbaugh's show, trying to get the dittohead vote. You don't care that Hillary's cozying up to Richard Mellon Scaife. You don't care that you'd rather watch Fox News than MSNBC. You don't care that she's giving shouts out to Johnny McBombs. You don't care about the lies, the triangulations, or the deception. You're willing to give the GOP 4 more years if your candidate doesn't win the nomination.
You've fallen to the dark side.
Don't get it fucked up, I'm not some first time voter jumping on the I Hate Hillary bandwagon. I was wondering why she didn't run in 2004. Much like you, I spent 16 years of my life carrying water for the Clinton's. At the beginning of this political season, I favored Ron Paul, but I knew he wasn't going anywhere. So, I was looking forward to electing our fist female President in November. But, I wasn't really looking forward to it, I was looking forward to regaining control of the White House.
The way I look at it, Hillary was MIA for the progressive movement as a Senator. Speaking strictly in terms of soft power, Hillary was arguably the most powerful person in the US Senate. She can call a press conference to discuss anything, and every major news organization would be there. Unfortunately, she didn't call any press conferences to point out Bush's misdeeds. She wasn't in the Senate "fighting," she was hiding. The one issue that she was most visible on had to do with regulating violent video games. That scared me, but she was still better than anybody who would actually get the Republican nomination.
Sure, she'd face her challenges. The GOP would bring up non-issues from 20 years ago. They'd do the guilt by association thing. They'd spin her policies. In short, they would do their best to frame the narrative. That's what they do, and they do it better than anybody. But I was so sure that America was tired of all that, especially considering the last 8 years, that we would see beyond the bullshit, and try to get this country back on track.
Something else happened though. A relative unknown came from nowhere to challenge her. His ideas sounded like mine, but far more eloquent. He challenged us to be responsible for our government. He asked us to move beyond the petty divisions, and start with the commonalities. He started talking about "Hope" and "Change." I'm a skeptic and a cynic. While I recognized the wisdom in what he was saying, I doubted his sincerity.
Over the last few months, I've seen people really begin to believe in America again. That's important. One person, no matter how hard she fights, can't fix all of these problems without the support of a large and diverse group of people. People are excited, people are engaged. People really like "Hope" and "Change." BushCo has brought us to the brink of collapse. People need more than policies, they need inspiration.
Hillary's response to all the hope-mongering? "Let's get real." It was then that I knew she had fallen. She's blinded by her own ambition and ego. It may be too late for her, but it's not too late for you. You can always come back to the side of progress, as progress is one of the few inevitables of American life. We can't go back to the 90's, no matter how hard we try. The good old days are over. All we can do now is try to make the best of the situation that we're in, and move forward from there.
See, that's progress. Moving forward is progressive, moving backwards is regressive. Obama wants to move forward, Hillary wants to go backwards. Where do you stand?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)