j's brain

I've Been Told...

2010-02-16T19:17:00.001-08:00

Has anyone else seen this Audi commercial, where Shining-style people intone, "I've been told to desire a red sports car..." and "I've been told hollow status symbols define my worth" or some such hokum?

Text appears on the screen: "The spell has been broken."

In other words, now that you are being told you can buy an Audi, that's somehow different? Freakin' ridiculous.

Who Cares How Christian the Founders Were?

2010-02-12T13:34:00.000-08:00

How Christian Were the Founders?

In this moderately terrifying Times Magazine article, Russell Shorto takes us to Texas, where an ultra-religious bloc of conservatives on the school board are trying to re-write American history books, to the tune that America was founded on Christian principles. Perhaps more upsetting is the attempt to push American exceptionalism: the notion that America is somehow 'better' than the other nations of the world.

While I take countless issues with listening to a man who self-identifies as a "Christian fundamentalist" and believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, and was created in six days, I am more concerned with this obsession to figure out what the Founding Fathers may have meant, or wanted.

I do not mean to cast any aspersions on the (often great) men who founded our (often great, but often not-so-great) nation. But they were doing their thinking and writing in the 1770's and 80's, for Christ's sake! (ha.) Two hundred thirty years have passed, and, in case people haven't noticed, things have CHANGED! Whatever the founders intentions, they could not have had the forethought to imagine a country stretching from sea to sea, with an absurdly heterogeneous mix of 300+ million people. They set some good ideas in motion, but to think they meant for their thoughts and words to literally shackle their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren is the height of insanity.

The article goes into detail about Thomas Jefferson's phrase 'the wall of separation between church and state.' As the religious zealots are quick to point out, this phrase itself does not appear in the constitution; TJ wrote it in a letter, explaining the purpose of the first amendment. But, as several sane people have pointed out, TJ wrote the first amendment, so it's quite sensible to trust his interpretation of what it means.

But I feel the need to point this out again: Jefferson penned those words more than two hundred years ago! The population of America has changed. The ideas of Americans have changed. And the complexity and interconnectedness of the world has grown, seemingly faster each year.

So who cares how Christian the founders were? Let's look at America TODAY, and the problems and issues facing us NOW, and address them with TODAY'S solutions, and ideas that might well have been born sometime during the last two hundred years. America didn't stop evolving (and don't let us get started on evolution) when she was created. The Declaration of Independence, and, a decade later, the Constitution, were big, bold first steps. As a nation, we must keep walking.

Photos, Round 1

2009-03-02T10:03:00.001-08:00

So we're in Playa del Carmen at the moment, taking advantage of some free wi-fi. We haven't yet been here a week, but we're super-happy to be missing the snow-dump happening on the east coast at the moment. :)

Anyway, Mexico is warm and beautiful, and I don't have the time or inclination to regale you all with wondrous stories (that, and nothing too particularly exciting has really happened yet). So, without further ado, here is the link to some pictures:

http://picasaweb.google.com/jasonsiegel

It will be updated with new pics as they are taken and, perhaps more importantly, as I come across more wi-fi hotspots.

As they say here in Mexico, paz.

Suggestions?

2009-02-14T17:33:00.000-08:00

We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected, primarily because developing countries, like China and India, saw a huge surge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal.

Wonderful. Seriously, does anyone, anywhere, have any ideas how to actually fix this thing? Who's going to convince China to stop using energy?

Read the whole article here.

Spam, Glorious Spam

2009-02-13T12:05:00.000-08:00

Whoa. Check out this little nugget, from a histrionic article about all the various things we should be afraid of:

"Spam—unsolicited E-mail that can contain malicious software—now accounts for 81 percent of all E-mail. . . ."

WTF? 4 out of 5 emails sent are SPAM?!?! Praise Google for their Gmail spam-filter, then. Jeez.

Senator Two Stupid First Names

2009-02-13T11:52:00.001-08:00

Senator Gregg is a schmuck. He goes out there seeking a job, namely Secretary of Commerce, then turns around after Obama has decided to throw a little more sand in the liberals' faces and actually appointed Gregg, he decides he's actually a Republican after all, and doesn't want the job. Now it comes out that he will vote against the stimulus package.

Nevermind the fact that there is no actual brain behind the idea of voting against the bill, it's just the Republican thing to do. But Judd Gregg is just a class-A ass. And hopefully New Hampshire will wise up to his ass-ness and vote him out in 2010.

On a slightly broader note, I'm still heartedned by O's attempts at post- or bi-partisanship, but the ignorant stonewall he's getting from the mindless Rush-following Right has also stoked some bloodlust... after all, we did win, right?

Secretary of the Treasury

2009-02-09T22:02:00.001-08:00

I don't trust this punk as far as I can throw him. Which is not very far.

But he was in charge of the NY Fed when all this BS began, and now it looks like he's fought off some of Team-O's good sense. (See NYTimes article here.)

I know you've gotta delegate and all, and we want the best people and all that, but really? Geithner opposes regulating the funds? Opposes limits on executive compensation? Where's the Change, Barack?

Potheads (pronounced 'po-theeds')

2009-02-06T08:50:00.001-08:00

According to an article on HuffPo, all the cats listed below are tokers:

Louisa May Alcott
Jennifer Aniston
Bing Crosby
Laura Bush
The Beatles
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Johnny Carson
President Bill Clinton
Johnny Depp
Harrison Ford
Bill Gates
President Andrew Jackson
President Thomas Jefferson
Steve Jobs
President John Kennedy
Stephen King
Ann Landers
President James Madison
Madonna
John Stuart Mill
President James Monroe
Mozart
Friedrich Nietzsche
Peggy Noonan
President Barack Obama
Sarah Palin
Governor George Pataki
Pablo Picasso
President Franklin Pierce
Brad Pitt
Oliver Sacks
Arnold Schwarzenegger
William Shakespeare
Barbra Streisand
George Soros
President Zachary Taylor
Queen Victoria
President George Washington
John Wayne

All of them should read this some e-card.

Stop Scaring Us, Dick Cheney!

2009-02-04T22:32:00.000-08:00

That's all. Just stop being a fear-mongerer. And don't even TRY to quote Idioteque at me.

Bonnarooooooooooo!

2009-02-03T15:11:00.000-08:00

Holy Goodness look at this lineup! That's not even all of it! Go here for the rest!

Capitalism = Vulnerability

2009-02-03T14:21:00.001-08:00

So most of the world is 'capitalist', at least in terms of their economies. Denmark, Sweden, the UK, France, etc, these countries are a little more 'socialist' in terms of 'social' services: schools, hospitals, roads, doctors, and the like. They still have markets, and for-profit companies, but they don't allow things like teachers to be subject to recessions as much.

This 'downturn' or whatever you want to call it has left countless states, cities, and countries broke. Or, really, billions in the red. So teachers and nurses and doctors are being fired, after-school programs are being cut. What else can they do? There's no money for it, so... But it only takes about five seconds of foresight to see how terrible these cuts are going to be for our children, and, thereby, our future.

So what is government for if not to guarantee basic services, like school, health care, infrastructure? What's the benefit of society if we set it up in such a way as to leave us all vulnerable to vast forces far beyond our control? On some level, there'll always be such forces, but we all live together, here, in America, and beyond, on this Earth, and it seems we ought to be able to agree that our kids should always have teachers and doctors and safe roads and sidewalks to run down.

Heroes becomes Lost?

2009-02-03T14:20:00.000-08:00

Spoiler alert: Heroes has engineered a plane crash onto a tropical-looking island; I'm certain insanity will ensue. Isn't that Lost, though?

e-speak

2009-02-02T15:14:00.000-08:00

I've long lamented the rise of e-speak, and I'll get into that more later, but here's the most heinous example I've so far seen of this ridiculousness. On a comment board beneath a pretty funny complaint letter blog post, this person wrote:

omglmaoomgwtfbbq!

As far as I can tell, that translates:

Oh my god laughing my ass off oh my god what the fuck bar-be-que!

All I have to say in response is this. Bar-be-que?!

Ignorance in Florida

2009-02-01T22:46:00.000-08:00

Those of you who don't know New York won't be as amused by this quote:

"People don't jaywalk in New York because they know they'll get a fine," said Michael Carter, a Kissimmee police traffic-homicide investigator in charge of the enforcement initiative. "We want Kissimmee to be known for that too. If you jaywalk, you will get a fine."

Bahahahaha! People don't jaywalk in New York? There are references in popular movies to the fact that people explicitly jaywalk aplenty here in the grand old apple.

Which will not be my apple for much longer... two-and-a-half weeks!

Liberal Bias?

2009-01-30T09:01:00.001-08:00

Who says the media has a liberal bias? Even MSNBC, now considered the Democratic response to Fox News, has been allowing Republicans (what few of them there are left) to dominate the cable-news discussion about the stimulus package. Check it out (whole article here):

WTF!?!

We won, didn't we? We're setting the agenda now, right? So why are the red bars so much taller than the blue ones? When the Repubs were in power, this was the excuse for airing their stinky views so much... what's the deal now? I mean, obviously the Repubs are on some sort of publicity blitz, trying to communicate, loudly, to the country that they're now the party of obstruction, that they're only going to be happy if the bill fails and the the country does along with it. Then they'll say, "we told you so". Really helpful. Oh, and mature.

The audacity of John McCain, to get on TV and repeat his inane ideas about the economy. You got spanked, my friend! Spanked hard! America decided, loud and clear, that WE DO NOT LIKE YOUR IDEAS, MR. MCCAIN. So then what possesses you to go on TV and keep chirping them, like we care?

It is sort of humorous. All these Republicans crowing about more tax cuts, too much spending blah blah blah. It's like, guys (are there any women (besides Maine's Senators?)), did you not notice how W. totally bankrupted your ideology? How America now watches you spew vitriol on cable news, and laughs? Maybe that's why the cable news channels have hosted so many more Republicans. With their insistence on old, dead ideas, they're just funnier?

And the utter lack of anything resembling a decent alternative plan just cements the stupidity of the current Republican gambit. I don't remember who, but one of those boners on the elephantine side of the aisle... maybe John Boehner, maybe Mitch McConnell (is he really alive?). Whatever, does it really matter who the mouthpiece was? These dudes are like really boring interchangable pieces of an idiot-puzzle. Anyway, he said, and I'm paraphrasing: "What we don't want is a massive stimulus bill that we don't know if it's going to work."

Well of course we don't know if it's going to work! If we knew what would work, I assume it would have been done already! But really, generic Republican clucker? Because your alternative to the big old might-work stimulus is a smaller plan that we know won't work. Republicans: We've tried your ideas. They suck. We're moving on. Get over it. Or maybe I should say: Cable News: We've tried the Republicans' ideas. They suck. We're moving on. Come with us.

Decoupling

2009-01-27T15:41:00.001-08:00

I just read this article on the Huffington Post, 'The Truth About Contraceptives Stimulating the Economy'. The basic idea is that abortion is too tied up with 'family planning'. Thereby, finding the middle ground where there are better prenatal and postnatal services and ready access to contraceptives--a situation that would actually lead to the best all-around result, being the fewest number of abortions and unwanted children--becomes a horrible task fought by two entrenched armies at either polar extreme. Anyway, read the article; I'm not going to summarize it all here.

But it got me thinking about hemp. Hemp is similarly tied in everyone's mind with weed. Which, to some, is a positive thing, making stoners drink hemp milk and eat hemp seeds and wear hemp clothes and carry money in hemp wallets. But to others, to whom the demon weed is a terrifying specter, the notion of growing hemp--a brother to marijuana!--is unacceptable.

Yet growing hemp, which does not require growing anything smokable, is undoubtedly a brilliant idea for this country. One acre of hemp makes the same amount of paper as 12 acres of trees. And you can make all the hippie-products mentioned above, and oil, butter... it's basically a MIRACLE plant, and we've got this entrenched culture/drug war preventing us from growing it. Anti-drug crusaders are afraid of hemp because they fear hemp-growers could hide marijuana plants in their fields, and, of course, well, that would be terrible, because marijuana is bad. And pro-hemp folks are almost universally pro-legalization, if not at least for decriminalization and/or medicinal marijana legislation, stands they don't want to back down on for the progress of hemp. Alas.

But--and perhaps this is a recurring theme on this blog, and in my life, and maybe in yours?--this seems to be just another example of our dualistic approach to things screwing us all. Instead of embracing subtlety, nuance, and the idiosyncratic nature of every situation, we became a culture obsessed with pro- and con-. Red and Blue. Liberal and Conservative. And sometimes we tried on new terms (anti-choice, progressive, neo-this or that), but always standing for something, thereby in opposition to something else. I read a great Chuck Klosterman quote the other day:

As I grow older, I find myself less prone to have an opinion about anything, and to distrust just about everyone who does... If you want to truly deduce how intelligent someone is, just ask this person how they feel about any issue that doesn't have an answer; the more certainty they express, the less sense they have. This is because certainty only comes from dogma.

I'm always amazed at how infrequently we humans seem to change our minds about things, and how long it often takes. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, there still exist folks who don't believe in dinosaurs, or global warming. Were we built to thrive on dogma, or have we been conditioned this way? It certainly feels like conditioning to me, because despite my upbringing, and despite being a pro-choice liberal Obama-lover, I've always had a tendency to sit on the fence. Because hard questions just don't have simple, dualistic answers.

"Did I Say Those Words?"

2009-01-23T12:32:00.000-08:00

Yes, you did. And though it's sad for comedians, I'm still glad we won't have to hear your stupid words anymore.

Sully!

2009-01-16T09:54:00.001-08:00

Something about this whole 'distressed plane expertly landed on Hudson River, everyone survives' story is choking me up! Watching the coverage yesterday, and then again this morning, reading about Sully and his heroics.

And I think one part of it is the rarity of news stations going on and on and on for hours on end... about something GOOD! I mean, yeah, the plane lost power, everyone was scared, a flight attendant broke her leg... but come on! Both engines blown out by birds, and dude still somehow steers the plane around one of the most densely populated metropoli in the world and manages to execute a picture-perfect water landing. Even writing this, there's something so... miraculous about it.

Granted, there was some annoyance during the TV coverage. Like how they had to remind me every few minutes that this was not an act of terrorism. Though reports came in that a man with a beard was chasing a flock of geese not too far from La Guardia, so perhaps those reports are premature.

Then there was the regular referencing of 'what could have gone wrong but didn't', which I suppose does throw the amazingness of Sully's feat into greater relief. But overall, there were hours upon hours of press coverage, and no one died, no one bombed anyone else... in reality, our news was dominated last night by a story about heroism and survival.

I only wish the media would take more of an interest in heroism and survival when it doesn't happen so dramatically on the Hudson River. But look at me complaining. I'll take what I can get.

And to Captain Sully: You've blown the minds of New York City, and possibly the world. Well done, sir.

2009-01-12T23:21:00.000-08:00

This reminds me of those old anti-marijuana propaganda videos that warned children about the 'demon weed' that would turn you into a crazed killer. And just like the straight-laced drug czars all believe the hype about how dangerous weed is, the anti-Gay crowd actually thinks allowing gay folks to marry each other will somehow affect THEIR lives. WTF? HOW?!

Ann Coulter is a Crazy Skinny Bitch

2009-01-12T23:13:00.000-08:00

I think the one who isn't Whoopi, Joy, Elizabeth, or Barbara says it best: there are nuggets--tiny nuggets--of truth in Ann Coulter's inane ramblings. But she's just a mean-spirited bitch. End of story.

Fuzzy Math

2009-01-12T22:37:00.001-08:00

So two schmos in Maryland entered a number wrong into a computer... a projection for 2008 instead of the real numbers for 2007... a $15 billion dollar difference, it turned out. And this mistake spread through the system and mis-funded all the school district, overpaying some, underpaying others. As a result, MD will eat $31 million dollars this year, as state budgets are being slashed amid the much-discussed crisis.

This is so symptomatic of one of my main issues with 'money'. It's an abstraction. A number gets plugged in wrong and money starts appearing and disappearing in places it's not 'supposed' to. Or the whole economic crisis in general: Everyone had all this money a few months ago... so, what? It's just disappeared? Where did it go? Where was it in the first place, if it could just vanish into the ether like that?

Furthermore, we as a nation now suck at math. Which is unfortunate. Because math is cool. And really useful. We need to make it cool to be a nerd. Because really, math is fun. I swear it!

Read about Maryland's ineptitude here.

More Gaza

2009-01-07T11:25:00.000-08:00

I think the nuance of the whole Israel-Palestine thing is a good microcosm for life. We are programmed into a dualistic interpretation of things: good vs. evil, right vs. wrong and the like. But life doesn't fit this narrow view.

Take, for example, this article, which is about the Israeli 'refugees' who were both paid and forcibly removed from Gaza. Many of them, instead of settling, are living in camps in Southern Israel, waiting for a time when they can move back to their homes in Gaza, which God promised them, of course.

Do I even need to talk about how messed up that is? Those people are the same cancer to Israel that Hamas is to the Palestinians. And many (Jewish) people might balk, but read the article; there were almost 300 documented incidents of settler violence against Palestinians in the first ten months of 08.

But then there's this little tidbit, from an Israeli paper:

French TV claims photos from 2005 showed damage from Israel's Gaza operation

By Haaretz Service

French public television network France 2 on Tuesday revealed they had aired photographs that allegedly showed destruction caused by the Israel Air Force during Operation Cast Lead, which were in fact taken during a different incident in 2005, one in which Gaza civilians were killed by an explosion caused by militants in the Strip.

The footage aired on Channel 2 on Tuesday afternoon showed dozens of dead bodies, including Hamas gunmen and citizens, which the channel said were killed by an IAF bombing raid on January 1st. It later came to light that the channel had instead aired footage of the devastation caused after a truck full of explosives blew up in the Jabaliya Refugee Camp.

A news editor at France 2 told Le Figaro Tuesday that they had "made a mistake by airing those pictures, which he said depict events from 2005."

Again, what does one say? There's a weird thing going on where all the elected officials in our country are generically pro-Israel, but the global media tends to tell what looks to me like a decidedly pro-Palestinian story, oftentimes carelessly and misleadingly. Which is not to say that I'm anti-Palestinian, not at all, but I think a layer of subtlety is missing.

Just like it was missing during the election campaign, when we were so caught up by the dizzying news cycle that we bought into narratives about lipsticked pigs and pitbulls, about Marxism and Socialism and Bill Ayers. When all the while our country is drowning and we can't have a sane conversation about it. To his credit, Barack Obama has been echoing that theme all along, and that, to me, was a large part of his appeal. His 'silly season' line in one of the debates summed it up all too well. Our dualistic approach--in this case Red vs. Blue, Republican vs. Democrat--leads to a constant stalemate, and we're in a situation where we just can't afford a stalemate.

Perhaps it's the Republican ideal: if we can't eliminate government, we'll eliminate its effectiveness. We'll eliminate people's confidence in its ability to actually do anything. And now a decided majority of this country has stood up and said, no, let's do something, like the guy with the funny name keeps saying. And, again to his credit, though it's sometimes tough for Rachel Maddow (and me, and others) to swallow, O's been quite good so far at making overtures to the Republicans, concessions, one might be tempted to say, in hopes, I hope, of eliminating some of the rank-and-file-ness of the current political landscape.

But again, politics is just a microcosm. Everything is too complex to be broken down along binary lines. And life is too random to live by hard and fast rules. And, like in that little strip of land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, we can talk about all the history, the things that have happened over the last few thousand or million years that have brought us where we are; or we can talk about idealized futures, where conflicting groups and interests are peaceably reconciled; or we can share our dystopian visions of a world in ruins, brought about by nuclear war, asteroid collision, or alien invasion; or, finally, we can talk about where we are, the conflicts we have. We can talk about how to improve our now. If we can. And though I'll admit to trepidation, I'll repeat the theme of 2008: Yes, we can. But I'll be damned if I know how.

Gaza

2009-01-06T09:57:00.001-08:00

Look. I'm as much of a humanitarian as the next guy. Seeing pictures of Palestinians carrying injured children away from a school tugs on my heart strings, too. Yet I remain ambiguous about a cease-fire. I cannot help but believe that Israel has a right (a duty, even) to protect its citizens from indiscriminate rocket fire. And given Hamas' methodology, there is no way to do that without inflicting civilian casualties.

And it is precisely these civilians for whom I feel anything at all. Let me share a quote from The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg, from an interview he did with the recently killed Hamas leader Nizzer Rayyan (who, might I add, was killed with his five wives and nine children; sad, but hey, subjugate women much?):

"This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: 'The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel.' There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. 'Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God... You [Jews] are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah.... Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God.'"

How can a civilized society function when it is peopled with folks who are wholeheartedly committed to the destruction of one significant chunk of that society? How can Israel be expected to negotiate with folks who OPENLY ADMIT that the only reason for a cease-fire is to prepare for battle? And yes, I'm totally sympathetic to the fact that the sociopaths who believe this incendiary and hateful rhetoric are only a small segment of the Palestinian society. But, though I've heard far too many silly metaphors about this whole thing already, allow me to try one more.

What if a group of serial killers formed on Staten Island? Staten Island has almost half-a-million people, and let's presume that five hundred of them (0.1%) have decided to go on a joint killing spree: women, children, whoever they can kill. Yet some profound ideology--perhaps the simple fact that their parents live there--prevents them from killing fellow SIers. They only want to kill folks from the other four boroughs, Jersey, and the rest of the country. Our first reaction would be to severely limit traffic to and from the Island. We'd undoubtedly set up check points along the Goethels, Bayonne, and Verrazano Bridges, and we'd have large metal detectors and imposing-looking inquisitors stopping anyone who wanted to get on the Ferry. As it turns out, this is exactly what happened to the Palestinians in Gaza.

Now, since their movement is restricted, and the killers can't make it off the island, they begin to launch rockets towards Manhattan. If there's anyone who thinks for ONE MOMENT that we would not send ridiculously overwhelming force into Staten Island to stop these rockets, please comment below and explain your line of thought. I can't see it. I see countless civilian casualties as these killers are chased around SI, particularly if they hide in hospitals, mosques, etc. (And I don't want to get TOO radical here, but it'd be easy enough for them to exaggerate casualties, and they might--MIGHT--be tempted to bomb their own hospitals, schools, and whatnot, if only public opinion could be inflamed with sympathy for the regular folks of SI who are unwittingly under siege.)

The thing is, a problem like this one really seems intractable. One can't realistically expect the citizenry of SI to stand up and somehow stop the serial killers, considering the killers are the heavily armed ones. Further, even if the NYPD, Coast Guard, Army, etc, were able to eradicate the 500 guerillas, the families of the slain killers and the collateral damage deaths will no doubt be radicalized, perhaps to the extent of becoming killers and rocket launchers themselves.

The only solution that makes any sense (in the abstract, of course) is to prevent this band of serial killers from forming in the first place. But Hamas exists. They already have guns and power. Israel cannot be safe while nutjobs who believe in her extermination are allowed to live. But any attempt to exterminate them a) weakens international credibility and paints Israel as an evil state and b) inevitably creates more sympathy for Hamas and its insane membership.

So I've come to the end of this post without concluding anything, which has plagued my thoughts about the mid-east for some time now, particularly during these past two weeks. It sucks. Whether my 'Judaism' has anything to do with it, I am sympathetic towards Israel: Hamas should have known it was punching a bigger, badder brother with much meaner weapons. It couldn't realistically expect Israel not to punch back.

I don't know if there is a positive resolution to this whole mess. I hope there is, and I hope they find it. If not, I might not be going back to Israel for many, many years.

Un-Merry Christmas

2008-12-26T08:18:00.000-08:00

I can't help but notice the incongruity of the headlines this post-Christmas morning.

First, we've got Pakistan moving troops from its Afghani border, where there actually is a full-scale sh*tshow happening, to its Indian border, due to increased tensions since a bunch of Pakistanis took over Mumbai and killed a bunch of people. Great.

Then we've got Israel. Airstrikes killed 3 Hamas folk the other day, and the next day more than 70 Qassam rockets fell on southern Israel, and Hamas is tooting its horn about longer-range rockets that will be deployed imminently. So Israel, like they do, is gearing up for a 'limited incursion' into Gaza. Won't that be fun.

Finally, we've got this total psycho nut job out in Cali. After a bitter divorce, he went to his in-laws X-mas eve party with a loaded gun and began to shoot up his ex-relatives, after which he methodically set the house on fire, killing 8 people. No wonder she divorced him, eh?

Anyway, apologies for the depressing post. But dammit, this stuff is unconscionable!

Happy new year anyway.

Insurance: Insuring that You'll Get Screwed

2008-12-19T13:02:00.000-08:00

Great American Insurance has, from their twisted perspective, come up with a genius legal defense. They insured a Houston building in which three people died in a fire in 2007. Only, they're saying they didn't die IN the fire. They died from smoke inhalation. Which, they argue, is a form of 'pollution' and thereby covered in the 'pollution' exemption, which "excludes payments for pollution — like discharges or seepage that require cleanup".

What? Really?! There are four lawsuits pending, and Great American thinks they don't have to pay ANY of them.

I've always been a little skeptical of insurance. Paying just in case something goes wrong proves to be foolish if things go right. But, as our culture has grown increasingly insecure and conformist, we all have that nagging voice in our heads telling us we don't want to be like those people in the 'Divided We Fail' commercials, bankrupted by one strange medical condition. But here's the thing: many of those sad faces on TV belonged to people who DID have insurance. It's just that the insurance companies don't exist to help people out. They exist to take suckers' (our) money.

Insurance companies charge you money on the premise that they'll pay you if/when something happens for which you're covered. But they take that money and spend it on advertising, and on parades of lawyers in five-thousand-dollar suits who come up with the ridiculous distortions of language and intent of the contracts THAT THEY WROTE! And think about it from their perspective for a moment. They're businesses like any other. They want to make money. Naturally, it's in their best interest to pay out as little as possible.

The disconnect is fascinating. We're paying companies to protect us, yet we know these same companies are going to do everything in their power NOT to pay us if/when we really need it. WTF?!

Full disclosure: I've been paid by insurance. When my car was stolen. Towed. Maybe All-State really is Good Hands. But forget that. This is not a commercial. They paid me, I believe, because it was relatively cheap both times. A few thousand dollars to a multi-billion dollar company is chicken feed. It's when you REALLY need it that they get all stingy on you. Which is just sad. Really, really sad. I wonder how the men who run those companies (am I being sexist in assuming that they're all men?) sleep at night. Poorly, I hope. At least that would indicate that they have consciences.

Read the full article about it here.

The Right of Conscience?

2008-12-18T18:52:00.000-08:00

So take a moment and consider this. Your child is ill, needs a blood transfusion, but the only nurse at the OR that night is a Jehovah's Witness, and refuses to allow you to see a surgeon to save your child.

Or let's say you go out one night, have one too many, and end up back in bed, responsibly using a condom, as you don't want to have a baby. Only it breaks. So you go to the pharmacy the next morning to get the morning after pill. You're not psyched about it; who is? But the pharmacist is an Evangelical Christian, and he won't give you the pill. You call the manager, but hell, she's an Evangelical too. Nine months later, you have a baby, and if you're a weak person, you put it in a dumpster or something. Shame on you.

But what's led you down these tragic paths? A new rule proposed by good old GWB--the president, not the bridge--which gives EVERYONE in the health care industry the right to deny patients products or services if it conflicts with the provider's morals. A goddamned cashier at CVS could refuse to sell you your birth control pills, for Chrissake! Read about it here. Though from Rachael Maddow and her guests, it seems the rule is far broader than the Times article implies.

I could go on and on about the ridiculousness of this, so to save some time I'll say if you're reading this, take five minutes and call the White House and tell them this is absurd (if you happen to think it's absurd... if not, please please PLEASE comment and attempt to explain why). 202-456-1111. Monday- Friday 9-5.

This is the kind of sh*t that makes me want to punch everyone who put this billygoat in office right in the gonads. Male or female.

The NYPD needs some anger management

2008-11-20T11:14:00.001-08:00

It's from election night, people celebrating Obama's win in W'burg. F'ers.

God, huh?

2008-11-13T11:12:00.001-08:00

So Sarah Palin (forgive me, I had really hoped to be rid of her after Obama's win, but NOW she's addicted to TV cameras) believes in God. Nothing new there. But when asked about the future, she talked about God making sure she doesn't miss open doors, blah blah... in other words, God will be the decider.

Here's what I want asked (though Greta van Sustern is too busy drooling on Sarah to ask it):

With God in ultimate control, mustn't we conclude, Mrs. Palin, that God in fact was on Barack Obama's side? That God, from moment one, wanted the black guy to win, and NOT you? And in the light of your repeated heavenly pronouncements, mustn't we also conclude that you were simply and flatly wrong in your estimation that God wanted you to win? He didn't. So then, when you talk about what God wants for your future, I think it'd behoove us all to take it with a healthy shaker of salt.

But I guess that would be 'gotcha' journalism... but it's about time someone 'got' this pathological psycho-moose killer.

Happy Happy Joy Joy

2008-11-05T07:15:00.000-08:00

We did it! President Elect Barack Hussein Obama. (Now we can use his middle name again.)

I suppose this blog will have to take a drastic turn now, back to the original stated intent of 'Spontaneous Bursts of Irreverent Ideas About Anything' instead of just about politics.

But for now, I'm still on a glee-hangover. Whoo-hoo!

Keeping my Fingers Crossed

2008-11-03T08:44:00.000-08:00

One more freakin' day! Jebus help us.

Maital is on CNN!!!

2008-11-01T17:53:00.003-07:00

Check her out! And go to her blog and read more! I am happy to claim this wonderful woman (that's her at the end in the camo hat) as a friend.

Obama is Beautiful World!

2008-10-31T08:59:00.001-07:00

Economist Goes Obama

2008-10-30T14:27:00.000-07:00

Read me!

My favorite highlight:

"Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them."

Bull Jazz

2008-10-30T14:17:00.000-07:00

Why does the media let McCain and Palin repeat misleading statements over and over again? The two that spring immediately to mind are the notion that Obama voted against troop funding in Iraq (when McCain voted against troop funding in the bill WITH the timeline...) and the ridiculous claim that Obama has voted (sometimes '94 times') for higher taxes on people making more than $42,000. Bull jazz!

Republicans Planted Joe The Plumber.

2008-10-29T18:31:00.000-07:00

You heard it here first.

From the AP...

2008-10-29T10:27:00.000-07:00

"In three states — North Carolina, Florida and Pennsylvania — the number of white Democrats who said the word "violent" described most blacks hit double digits in the polling."

I have nothing snarky to add.

But it IS negative...

2008-10-28T10:33:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin (can anyone suggest an appropriate dismissive nickname for this bimbo?) has taken to the John McCain tactic of repeating most of her stump speeches verbatim, and this one bit has annoyed the crap out of me:

"Our opponent is not being candid with you about his tax plans. It is not mean-spirited, and it is not negative campaigning to call out someone on their record."

Except what if he IS being candid about his tax plan? And his relationship with Bill Ayers? And ACORN? And all the other trash these white folks are throwing his way? (White trash? Look no further than Cindy McCain, if you ask me...)

See, if Barack isn't lying, but you're insinuating that he is, what is that besides mean-spirited and negative? Calling someone a liar is not exactly nice. If s/he is lying, at least you've got a point. (See all the pundits/bloggers/republicans who have called out McCain and Palin for LYING during this dirty campaign.) But if someone tells the truth and you claim s/he's lying, then you're just a jerk.

But it goes beyond jerkiness, really. Sullying your opponent is par for the course; the closing days of an election are, as the old saying goes, like a knife fight in a phone booth. (Lovely image, eh?) But it's the shadowy, racially-tinged fear factor that irks me, because it cuts the legs out from under TRUTH, which is really not subject to debate. To quote Michael X. Delli Carpini:

"Candidates and their consultants seem to have learned that as long as you don't back down from your charges or claims, they will stick in the minds of voters regardless of their accuracy or at a minimum, what the truth is will remain murky, a matter of opinion rather than fact."

Tip of the Slongue

2008-10-23T09:00:00.001-07:00

Normally I don't revel in small vocal imperfections. But this one is too funny.

The undecideds

2008-10-20T09:53:00.000-07:00

In addition to a humorous Daily Show sendup of the 'swing' voters (Samantha Bee asks at one point, "Do you just all want to stay on TV?!"), my sister has graced me with this wonderful David Sedaris quote:

'To put [undecided voters] in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. "Can I interest you in the chicken?" she asks, "Or would you prefer the platter of shit with pieces of broken glass in it?" To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.'

Amen.

'Fringe' people?

2008-10-19T08:56:00.000-07:00

John McCain says you can't account for everyone at your rallies... but how about when you spout off your senile old head that a group REGISTERING FUCKING VOTERS for christ's unholy sake is 'maybe destroying the fabric of democracy' and then your racist douche-nozzle followers send threatening calls and emails to ACORN offices. Wait, wait... let me guess. Also not your fault, right? John, you have lost every last drop of your dignity and moved into the red, where you'll meet most of the Americans your economic policies have screwed. At least they just owe money. You owe Beelzebub your freakin' soul. At least we don't have too many more years for you to spread your hate and fear around.

Read and listen here, but make sure you have a strong stomach.

The LAME duck

2008-10-18T09:11:00.000-07:00

With all this fretting about John McCain and the dangers he presents to our country, I'd almost forgotten that the worst president in history still occupies the Oval Office. And I'd almost forgotten that he's technically still president until January 20, 2009, and that there's an awful amount of damage he can still do between now and then.

See here: Bush Blows

10 things...

2008-10-17T16:18:00.000-07:00

10 Big Differences

A little help?

2008-10-17T08:42:00.000-07:00

Ok. I have a few earnest questions. As I mentioned in a previous post, no one reads this blog. And while that might have been slightly hyperbolic, I'm even more sure than no one from the Right reads this blog. So if you stumble across, and know a certain conservative someone who might be able to answer these questions, please send him/her the link and encourage her/him to comment.

1. McPalin talk a great deal about how their plan to cut taxes will create jobs, but they have yet to explain HOW this will occur. It seems to me that cutting taxes on the wealthy just makes them wealthier. Haven't we proved that enriching the already rich does NOT help wealth 'trickle down' to the poor? On the other side of this coin, they whine about how increasing taxes (albeit only on the very wealthy) will somehow kill jobs. Again, the connection is lost on me. (Perhaps if McPalin were ever to move past generalities in his/her ridiculously repetitve monstrous speeches...) Particularly since Obama is the only one to announce plans to CREATE JOBS, the idea that his plan will 'kill jobs' seems obtuse, if not downright dishonest. Can anyone explain?

2. While we're talking about things that don't make sense to me, let me ask about the Electoral College. I've only ever heard folks talk about 'small states' favoring it, but no one has given me a halfway decent reason WHY the small states support it. I mean, it's done proportionally, by population, right? So how does giving a state x number of electoral votes instead of y number of potential ACTUAL votes make that state happier? As it stands, our elections only happen in a few states thanks to this ridiculous, democracy-killing college. If there were a popular vote, perhaps candidates would campaign all over, and there'd be one person, one vote, and it'd all end happily ever after. Or maybe not... but WHY NOT?

3. Finally. Election Day. How in holy christ is this not a federal holiday? We give people the day off on Columbus Day, but not Election Day? Talk about bad for democracy... In preliminary discussions before posting this blog, I conceded that there would be no way to get EVERYONE off of work. After all, Chinese Restaurants are open on X-mas, movie theaters are open on New Year's, etc. But is there an argument against giving MORE people the day off than have it already? Isn't that the very basic principle upon which democracy is founded? And it seems entirely one-sided: rich folk don't work two jobs, they'll always have time on a Tuesday to get down to the polls... but people who do work two, three, four jobs... they might have a tougher time. Throw in devious Republican maneuvering to ensure long lines at lower-income polling places and you've got a recipe for disenfranchisement. Now if these folks all had the day off, and thereby, all day to wait in line, you might have some frustrated voters on your hands, but at least they could wait around and vote.

Anyone? Please? I'm actually hoping that some intelligent conservative (I'm pinning my hopes on that not being an oxymoron) stumbles across this and has reasonable answers to these questions. But I'm not holding my breath. (Or is it 'bresh'?)

Puke in my mouth

2008-10-16T17:01:00.000-07:00

The blatant hypocrisy of the McCain campaign has left me with the acidic post-vom flavor coating my tongue. The man who spouts so angrily about honor has none left to claim. I know no one reads this thing, but for what it's worth, I hereby declare that John McCain be dishonorably discharged back into the Arizona sunset. Read about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/massive-rnc-robocall-may_n_135348.html

Sorry...

2008-10-16T12:06:00.000-07:00

I'm the first to say we shouldn't repeat the ridiculous things people say, as it just gives their ludicrous notions credence. But as the dude at the end of the video says, this sh*t is SCARY, and we can't let McCain get away with his filthy spin of turning himself into the victim of John Lewis' comments. No one is calling you a segregationist, Senator. If you'd read the statement released by Rep. Lewis, you'd have seen that he was talking specifically about these people. (The fringe, you say? Well there seem to be a lot of them...)

Tumbleweed...

2008-10-16T08:39:00.001-07:00

This is McCain's Ohio HQ. Forty phones, ONE volunteer. The contrast to Obama's North Philly Office couldn't be starker. Just thought I'd share this uplifting image with you all.

ACORN and fraud

2008-10-14T08:23:00.001-07:00

One quick point I'd like to make here: If, as it appears, ACORN representatives have been registering false voters (Mickey Mouse, the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys (in Nevada)), this does not condemn the whole organization. Every organization has bad seeds. Further, the claims of 'voter fraud' are greatly exaggerated. So Mickey Mouse is on the rolls (though the ACORN reps in Nevada are COMPELLED to turn in EVERY registration form, even if it's clearly fake, so they put cover letters on the obviously unreal applications, but the Board of Elections overlooked these cover letters, so whose fault is it really?). Thing is, Mickey Mouse isn't going to show up on Election Day. Voter fraud and fraudulent registrations are NOT the same thing. Voter fraud involves rigged machines, ballot-box stuffing, and purposeful disenfranchisement of legal voters. Simply having non-existent people on the rolls is silly, to be sure, but hardly fraudulent at the level the Right would have you believe. They just need an argument for FoxNews to air the night of November 4 as to why McCain got pummeled.

Conversation

2008-10-13T18:22:00.000-07:00

Hi again. In brief: feel free--nay, encouraged--to comment. Agree, disagree, have a random thought that occurred to you while reading that has nothing to do with the contents of the post, please take a minute and type it in. I believe nothing is so essential to democracy as open and honest communication, so again, reply away!

Purposeful Confusion?

2008-10-13T17:25:00.000-07:00

Went canvassing yesterday in North Philly. Poverty-stricken neighborhood, run-down houses. Yet virtually every person who came to the door was an avowed Obama supporter. Good news. And in this neighborhood, we had people stop us on the street to chat about how nutty McCain has been of late. And this got me thinking.

What if the incoherence isn't the sign of an incoherent campaign, but a campaign strategy? McCain's folks have been admitting for a long while that if the focus remains on issues, McCain loses. As he should, since his stances on the issues are not AT ALL what We, The People need right now. They also witnessed the Dem primaries, where much of the same dirty laundry (Rezko, Ayers, Wright) was aired to little effect. So they tried the negativity, but all the while made sure to contradict themselves at least once each day.

And it's sort of ingenious: McCain has plausible deniability in virtually every case. We say: How dare you let your rallies, your surrogates, and your wife sink so low as to attack Obama's character with misleading statements about his record, his associates, and his honesty? He says: What are you talking about? I stood up for Obama when someone in the crowd called him 'an Arab'! (Of course he won't mention that this was after two days of standing pat while the crowd cheered for blood, but hey. He's old. This is a fast world. He's just trying to keep up, right?)

What this strategy did not see was the obvious and effective riposte that this kind of behavior is 'erratic', that McCain is 'lurching' from position to position... and he IS. There's no question about it. And yes, the language is not too thinly veiled in its references to McCain's age, but at times, particularly these last couple of weeks, McCain has started to act like Grandpa Simpson.

I don't know what McCain's got up his sleeve for these last few weeks, but I don't trust his shirt. I don't put it past partisan hacks to do everything in their power to disenfranchise people (Election Day should be a FEDERAL HOLIDAY, but more on that later). I don't know what the rabid Right will do between now and Nov 4, but I'm a little scared about it. Though I can hardly describe the relief I'd feel if they try to save a last vestige of the Republican party by losing the presidency with some grace, and some honor.

Worse than Eminem

2008-10-10T09:54:00.000-07:00

Remember when Congress held hearings about the violence and hatred in Eminem's lyrics? And how Eminem had to rap back, "If my music is literal and I'm a criminal/ How the f**k can I raise a little girl?/ I couldn't, I wouldn't be fit to..."

Yet the people in power--prude, disconnected old white folks--didn't seem to get it. They thought a sticker would solve the problem: If the parents are warned that their kids are going to be listening to violent lyrics, then they can make sure their children don't go off on a killing spree. Except for the fact that there's far more violence available on TV and at the movies. And, lately, at McCain/Palin rallies.

That video I posted is the scary beginning. Mindy whoever-the-fk saying, 'Yes, he's a terrorist.' It's like the boy who cried wolf, in the first place: If we keep demeaning the word terrorist (like in Iraq, e.g., the people blowing us and each other up are really insurgents, not terrorists), one day a real terrorist will come along, and Mindy Dumbass will shriek, 'Oh my god! A terrorist! I've wet my designer jeans!' And the rest of us will go, 'Hello? Um, you've forfeited the right to call terrorist.' And then it's all our asses if, for once, she's identified an actual terrorist, and not a candidate for president of the USA.

Joe Biden hit the nail on the head. When Sarah Palin engages in her serpentine rhetoric about 'pallin' around with terrorists' and someone shouts, "Kill him" or "Off with his head" or "Treason" or "Terrorist", it is incumbent upon her to stop, midsentence, and say something akin to, "That sort of hateful, reactionary, violent response has NO PLACE in mainstream American politics." Except that would seem to defeat her purpose, which is to roil the crowd into a frenzy. Honestly, it seems like she and McCain are trying to rouse up a lynch-mob. What year is this again?

If we saw this footage and behavior at Ku Klux Klan rallies, we'd shrug our shoulders, roll our eyes, and say, "White supremacists will be white supremacists..." And we'd comfort ourselves with the notion that the KKK is a small organization that doesn't have much power or reach. Only now it's one of the two viable parties in this country (and don't get me started on how this 2-party system is a HUGE problem here). A mercifully dwindling number of Americans (but still a far too significant chunk) attends these rallies and leaves with conspiracy theories that make the moon landing look guaranteed. He's a Muslim, a terrorist, an angry black preacher.

It's the telegraphing of the attack that really gives me pause. How are the fools at those rallies baited into hatred when the McCain campaign has stated its desire to move talk away from the ACTUAL pressing issue (the economy, stupid)? You've got a douche-nozzle standing up at one of their 'town hall' meetings (though they seem more like 'violent rebel' meetings) chirping "I'm mad... I'm really mad..." about the fact that we don't know all there is to know about Barack Obama. The man has been in the public spotlight for TWO FREAKIN' YEARS. And your little blow-up-doll has been in the public eye for six weeks. And yet you've managed to misinform your supporters to a point where some of them believe that BO has not been subjected to the same level of media scrutiny as Sarah freakin' Palin. REALLY? REALLY?!?

And to top it all off, we learn that Palin will, from this point forward, only speak to Sean Hannity and Greta Van Sustern. I don't even know what kind of lame joke to make about these folks... maybe you should just watch five or ten minutes of either of their programs. They've turned their lives and careers into MUCH bigger jokes than I ever could. Hannity even helps the race-baiting. He's an anti-Semite and a pig. And ugly, but that's only to be expected. And youtube 'the first dude' and watch the first thing that pops up. Greta wants to bang Todd Palin, and he's so obviously put off by her stupidity one wonders how he decided to marry Sarah in the first place. To be fair, I guess Sarah's a little better looking than Greta. But still, when either one of them opens her mouth, I die a little inside. And when Sarah rabble-rouses a crowd into a frenzy of anger and fear, I find myself confused, a little scared, and hopeful that we'll put all this retardation (sorry Trig) behind us in a few weeks time.

Holy Sweet Christmas.

2008-10-09T11:20:00.000-07:00

watch that video and tell me you're not terrified. TELL ME!

Hail Craig!

2008-10-08T18:57:00.000-07:00

Craig Ferguson has opened my eyes. When I wrote about freeing the press, I focused too much on the idea of identifying one's party- or candidate-affiliation. What I should have talked about was the overbearing fairness, the politeness. We have serious issues to debate, and we simply cannot afford to pussyfoot around them. All John McCain and/or Sarah Palin has done in the last few weeks is talk in circles about these theoretical proposals and ideas that they NEVER expound upon. Obama and Biden have tried to engage them in serious discussion, and they make semantic and syntactic mush of our beautiful language in referencing several of their trite talking points.

This is what the media should be talking about. Journalists should call bull to McCain's face. When Cindy McCain says Obama has run "the dirtiest campaign" in modern history, whoever she says it to should laugh in her face and say something along the lines of, "Back on the pills, hon?" Brained folk see through all the horse dung being thrown in front of our faces, and we can assume at least some of the folks that make up the media also have brains. So they should be allowed to use them and express the absurity surrounding them that, instead, they currently attempt to read quietly as 'news', when they're just quoting a McCain lie.

a comparison

2008-10-08T16:10:00.000-07:00

I'm copying this from someone's g-chat away message (you know the deal, it's someone who was on a mass email list with me once and I don't know who he is):

'Being a Democrat is like being a Mets fan; you're just waiting for the collapse.'

Funny cuz it's true, but I'm starting to believe that Obama can build a big enough lead that the Republicans won't be able to cheat, lie, or steal their way out of it.

Who Wants To Survive With or Without a Deal Until The Weakest Link?!

2008-10-08T15:41:00.000-07:00

Opinions are like a**holes: everybody's got one. What's changed in the past ten years, however, is now every idiot has a forum to voice his or her opinions. Thanks to the current obsession with 24/7 sensationalized news, some of these idiots are even given their own cable news shows (see Bill O'Reilly).

This opinion-sharing frenzy has polluted the world of politics. What was once political discourse is now an awful, sleazy reality show. Sure, C-SPAN has been around for ages, but there STILL isn't anyone who watches C-SPAN. Now it's Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and, lest I forget, Comedy Central, along with every old blogger and ranter. (Yes, I caught the irony.)

I've never cared much for reality shows (though Wipeout was kinda funny), and, frankly, I've never cared much for politics, as my voting life has consisted of votes for two presidential candidates who allowed the elections to be stolen and our country hijacked. Twice! But our current situation--the recent financial crisis, our money vacuum in Iraq, the growing distaste for the dollar and everything else American, our failing energy, health care, and education infrastructure, not to mention the sorry state of our roads, tunnels, and bridges--this trying moment is too important to ignore. Yet Sarah Palin accuses Barack Obama of 'thinking America is so imperfect...' News flash, hockey mom: She is!

If there's one lesson we've learned from reality TV, it's that America loves Crazy. The best old Real World episodes all involved mild-to-institutionalizable insanity. I remember musing that the producers must have screened out all the mentally stable folk to ensure an exciting show. And in that context, John McCain and Sarah Palin make perfect sense.

Think about it: McCain, about to get booted off the show, made a devious alliance with the she-witch--scratch that, she was de-witchified, right? Ok, so he allied with the she-snake from Alaska in hopes of pulling off a final, nauseating coup-de-grace. On all of our television screens! Reality show editors could not have cut together a better (and worse) story. A growing number of us, though--folks who McCain/Palin seem to have forgotten entirely about (read: intelligent-ish folks)--are beyond reality TV. Sure, maybe we watch the last episode of American Idol so we can talk like Americans at the water cooler the next day, or maybe we watch Dancing With The Stars because it's fun to see Kim Kardashian sent back to obscurity where she belongs. But our hearts aren't in it; we've got far more important fish to fry.

Like fixing our country. We've done the independent investigating (that, oddly enough, John McCain kept encouraging us to do) and found that the Republican ticket has been steady only in their repetition of exaggerations and lies about both their own policies . Last night's debate was amusing, because the only times John McCain had anything intelligent to say, he supported Obama: "We need a steady hand on the tiller..." Does he not get that Obama is the steady guy and he's the impetuous war-mongerer? If not, his advisors have got their work cut out for him. If so, well, then, John McCain has become the second coming of George Bush. And after Bush's low-ball tactics derailed the first Straight-Talk Express 8 years ago, McCain has hired the same set of folks to knock him right back off the tracks again here in 2008.

On November 4, (and already in a few states,) America will finally get the chance to stand up and say, loud and clear: "John McCain. You are the weakest link. Goodbye."

Correction

2008-10-08T15:40:00.001-07:00

Whoops. I said something nice about Bill Kristol. I have been corrected.

"[Bill Kristol]'s a pompous, smug, piece of sh*t. i mean this quite literally. he stands for ideals that you and i fundamentally oppose. he's one of the true leaders of the far-right and a complete loon (but very intelligent)."

There you have it.

Free The Press!

2008-10-06T15:33:00.000-07:00

There was a telling moment on The Late Show with David Letterman a few nights ago during an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams. Dave said that he just didn’t see John McCain and Sarah Palin as agents of change. “Correct me if I’m wrong,” he said. Williams smiled and replied, “I can’t correct you because I have no opinion on this…”

Why (and how) do we expect ‘the media’ to be ‘objective’? I mean, Brian Williams is going to vote, right? And as someone who makes his living following this campaign, one would figure he’s well-informed, that he has thorough, complex, and thoughtful opinions about the things that matter to him. All of these things will influence his vote, but more importantly, they influence him. In truth, they are him.

This charade of ‘fairness’ has distorted the political conversation in our country. Under the guise of equanimity, major media outlets feel as compelled to report about the negative attack ads as they do about the proposals and ideas that might actually move our country out of the muck it’s stuck in. I’ll make no bones about it: I support Barack Obama. And, truth be told, I’m really beginning to have difficulty seeing how any moderately rational person who doesn’t earn more than $250,000 a year can support McCain/Palin.

Bill Kristol, an otherwise intelligent guy, has demeaned himself in recent weeks. On Fox News, he screamed about how ‘the mainstream media’ is in the can for Obama, they all want Obama to win. Is Fox News now admittedly not part of the mainstream media? Are they admitting to being right-wing hacks? Don’t they still chirp about ‘fair and balanced’? Anyway, what no one is allowed to talk about is WHY the media is in the can for Obama (which is a highly dubious assertion anyway). Maybe many of the individuals who make up the media are supporting Barack Obama because he’s the better candidate. Kristol then had a phone conversation with Sarah Palin—a rarity for a Times contributor—and instead of asking her any remotely interesting questions, ones that might give us insight into how she plans to help us out of this mess without platitudes about maverickism, he asked her about William Ayers and brought up Reverend Wright himself. Then Palin harped on it for a minute, finishing with, “But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.” Right, because YOU didn't just bring it up? Or, to be fair, because Bill Kristol didn't just bring it up?

Much of the ridiculousness has stemmed from Sarah Palin. The neocons pulling her puppet strings decried the media’s treatment of her before they were allowed to meet her, thus rendering any potentially negative stories more fodder for the McCain/Palin scream-machine campaign. How has there not been more focus on the absurd hypocrisy coming from the Republicans this month? In subsequent sentences Palin praised the bailout and said government needs to get out of the way. The McCain campaign releases a statement condemning the New York Times, saying “it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization.” Days later, Palin is on the trail, quoting the Times as a prologue to testicle-punches in Obama’s general direction.

One of the many talking heads who inhabit cable-news land said something moderately interesting the other day. (It wasn’t interesting enough for me to remember his name or what channel he was on or his exact words, but anyway.) He said something like, ‘it’s okay if you understand your bias, because then you can work around it, but it’s those with unconscious bias I’m afraid of.’ But it’s the very notion that journalists are supposed to be machines that creates those with unconscious bias. I watch Bill O’Reilly, and I think he really believes he’s in a no-spin zone. It’s ridiculous. In cases like his, and like Keith Olbermann’s on the left, it’s obvious who the talking head supports. But the big anchors and columnists still feel this need to be secretive about their opinions on the matter, and it’s not helping anyone.

Imagine reading a column, but knowing who the author supported, and why. It’s silly to think that if we let journalists come out of the closet that they’ll begin to do different work. If anything, it’ll force them to consider their positions very carefully, and to write and speak as objectively as possible. After all, journalists (the plethora of pundits and bloggers and the like notwithstanding) are supposed to report the news, which should be based on facts. Opinion shouldn’t have anything to do with it. But here’s the McCain machine screaming outright distortions and lies in the face of independent fact-checking organizations repeatedly disputing their claims. The problem is that if you’re willing to stick to your lies, and to never back down, no matter how many people and facts disagree with you, and you have a big enough megaphone, well, then the truth starts to become a matter of opinion. And that’s terrifying.

I’m not so naïve as to think Obama’s campaign has stuck to the high road; when someone drags you into the mud, you get dirty too. But to suggest that he’s just as culpable as Steve Schmidt’s vitriolic McCain campaign is absurd. Almost as absurd as the concept that John McCain would make a better president than Barack Obama. But not nearly as absurd as the concept that Sarah Palin is prepared and intelligent enough to be Vice-President of the United States. I wouldn’t hire her to teach my kids. Hell, I’d pay money to keep her away. And I think most of America, and, by extension, most of the media feels the same way. Let them sing it to the heavens! Let them explain why, and how, Sarah Palin is more dangerous than George Bush.

There’s a sizeable, vocal chunk of our country committed to backwardness. They believe America is a Christian nation, (it’s explicitly a non-religious nation, in fact,) they think it’s our God-given right to lord over the rest of the earth and consume a ludicrously disproportionate amount of her resources, and, most dangerous of all, their warped value-system instills them with the belief that it’s their duty to push that tripe onto the rest of us. I, for one, am not having it. And there’s a groundswell beneath their feet, people sick and tired of the same, old, old, old, bullshit. (John McCain is old. And that’s scary because of Sarah Palin. (See one paragraph back.)) We aren’t going to buy into the character attacks when there are real, urgent problems facing our country. It’s time to get serious, not slimy. One of the guys up there on the national stage knows it. The other? You tell me. And let the media tell us!

Bad Bank Ads

2008-10-06T12:27:00.000-07:00

As seasoned consumers, we know we must be suspect when we are subjected to advertising. We cannot begrudge these companies the opportunity to tout their wares or services, but we’ll take a television spokesperson’s word with far more salt than the word of a trusted friend. After all, the point of advertising is to generate more awareness and ultimately more money, whatever it is that’s being advertised. (Save the anti-smoking and anti-drug and anti-drinking-and-driving commercials, which account for precious little of our overall commercial exposure.)
Still, thanks to organizations like the Better Business Bureau, there is a level of trust involved in advertising; we expect advertisers to exaggerate, but not to lie. If an advertisement lies about the nature of the business or something integral to the consumer experience, this increased awareness will quickly work against this company. In other words, lying in your advertisements is bad business.

Unless, of course, you can get away with lies about competitors. Here the terrain for the advertiser grows tricky, for simply mentioning a competitor by name increases that company’s brand recognition, and one cannot be certain that negative connotations will stick. Again, it’s safest to stick to the tried-and-true hyperbole that commercials do so well; outright lies about competitors will oftentimes lead to lawsuits.

It is this vague but existent boundary between ad-speak and untruth that makes the new Bank of America ads so insidious. In them, a male voice that sounds suspiciously like Keifer Sutherland narrates over jaunty music and images of happy Americans. In one spot, in front of a cheering baseball crowd, he intones, “You want passion? We [America] invented passion!” Um, no, we didn’t.

Even taking credit for things not ours pales in comparison to the massive culture jamming happening in two of the other B of A spots. In both of them, Keifer is extolling the virtues of the ‘Keep the Change’ program, talking about how we (Americans) don’t leave stuff lying around; we save things. This is where it gets evil. The voice of Jack Bauer then tells us we’ve saved things that we just plumb haven’t.

Keifer tells us we’ve saved the bees, when in fact bees are dying in record numbers, we haven’t a clue why, and it’s potentially calamitous, not just for bees, but for us. Then Keifer gloats about our saving of the Redwoods, which are by no means saved. Brave souls still live in the treetops of ancient old-growth forests, protecting these massive Redwoods, Sitka Spruces, and other forest giants from lumber companies. These companies own stretches of the forests and want to clear-cut them. Large trees make lots of logs. So a few hardy men and women are saving the redwoods every day, and the lumber companies send people up to cut the tree-huggers down, and if they ever succeed, the Redwoods will be no more.

What’s truly obnoxious about this whole campaign is that it’s spreading misinformation as if it were chicken-seed. These non-facts are irrelevant to the campaign’s message. They could easily have referenced things we did save, or perhaps just taken a different tack with respect to hocking the ‘Keep the Change’ program. These culture-jamming commercials are in massive rotation at the moment, filling millions of minds with apathy and contentment. They allow uninformed folks, thanks to this ‘trust’ that we’ve had for so many years, to think that we’re actually ok. That there isn’t any cause, person, animal, plant or thing that needs our help. That all we really need, right now, is to get a Bank of America check card, so that we start cashing in on a little piece of that deceptive pie.