What's on my mind grapes?

Correspondence from a crazy person #3

2009-02-16T21:20:00.004-06:00

This correspondence came after a throw away line given at the end of what was a very good special comment from Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Yeah you probably didn't catch it but at the end he quoted Oliver Cromwell, a contentious figure in Irish-English history. It probably didn't deserve this response:

" I loved your special comment about Dick Cheney. At least until the last bit where you quoted from Oliver Cromwell. As someone from Irish heritage it infuriates me whenever someone references him as if he were a great or good man. The monster waged a religious war upon the peoples of Ireland and Scotland, burning people alive inside of churches. He was a hero to the English of Ulster in their continued violence against the Catholics of northern Ireland. I make no attempt to spare either side from their right blame in the continuance of the troubles. But to remember Cromwell as anything other than a bloodthirsty dog is to allow the truth to be dictated by the victor and not by reality. A zealot and a monster is all he ever was, who slaughtered innocent women and children refuged in the house of God.

That aside, I love your show and I wish you continued success.

God bless,
rich aycock "

This letter is particularly crazy because, well, I don't represent history entirely accurately either, and also I completely misrepresent myself as someone who is at all religious. I'm gonna stop putting my name on these.

Correspondence from a crazy person #2

2009-02-13T00:03:00.002-06:00

In this, the second installment of me acting crotchety towards the world in general, I take offense to this political cartoon:

I would be surprised if anyone else reading this DIDN'T find the cartoon pretty offensive. It's a pretty big risk any time you go for the nuclear option and compare somebody to the Nazis. You could get an e-mail like this:

"I can imagine you probably got quite a bit of e-mail after your cartoon that not so subtly compared Pelosi to a Nazi leader. I won't even get into how offensive that is, I'll only remind you that you probably were horribly offended any time anyone compared Bush or any member of his administration to Nazis. In neither case is the comparison anything other than grossly unfair and borderline irresponsible.

Since I'm sure that point has been brought up plenty, I'd like to take issue with the content of the cartoon BEFORE the last panel. On what basis do you have Nancy Pelosi saying that certain people should be killed, and that others should (if I got the implication correct) be sterilized? If that's a criticism of any policy of hers or of anything that she or for that matter any other liberal leader has ever said, then it's one I've never heard. It seems to me it's an extension of the perceived disregard for human life that liberals have based solely on the stance that abortion should be legal. It's a ridiculous stretch, and one that I hope you don't take seriously.

The whole cartoon is a conflation of several legitimate viewpoints on debatable issues including welfare, contraception, sex education, abortion rights, and the responsibilities of government for caring for it's citizens, along with radical ideas that are held mostly only by imaginary, hedonistic, irresponsible, immoral liberals that want to practice some sort of rebirth of eugenics. It seems pretty hypocritical to me to see this cartoon when I remember the outrage you expressed in post-Katrina cartoons at the taxpayers having to help pay for the housing of people who had been so "irresponsible" as to build homes on the coast.

The message I can only infer from the cartoon was supposed to be: "We should think about the policies that are being implemented by leaders on the left and what they can lead to if we aren't careful." But all I take away is that the die-hards on the right will never understand what motivates liberals, or what we care about, and comparisons like these make me doubt if any really care to try.

I wish I could have kept more anger out of this e-mail, but the Nazi comparison always makes my blood boil. That aside I hope you're well."

-Now it's important to note that this e-mail could not be nearly as vitriolic as the one to blockbuster. This particular cartoonist is somebody that I e-mail back and forth with kinda frequently, and while his ideas may be crazy and outdated, he's always been a nice, respectful guy in our correspondence, and is amazingly good at responding to e-mail. Much better than I am in fact, and he probably gets about 20x as much. If I get his permission I'll probably put the whole of the back and forth about this cartoon on the blog.

Correspondence from a crazy person

2009-02-11T17:18:00.001-06:00

The first in a series where I share with you the ridiculous e-mails I send to people who offend me.

Today's episode has me upset about this story:
Mexico's voodoo promo for soccer match gets sponsor

Ever since this little episode, the relationship between US and Mexican soccer fans has been a bit of a sore spot for me. As far as I'm concerned they can all go die in a fucking fire. I don't excuse their drunkenness, nor the fucked up little-brother complex that they have with the US. So I might have gone a bit overboard when I wrote this e-mail to Blockbuster:

"Before I begin I want to make sure that I am not responding to something that is an exaggeration or a prank. So I sincerely hope that this story is untrue, and I would like to receive assurance that it is not:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/6250803.html

So if the story is a fraud, then I apologize for hastily jumping to conclusions. If not though, please take the following to heart:

Are you out of your mother-fucking minds?! I cannot believe that you would sponsor such an offensive campaign. It's beyond galling that you could allow your stores to hand out voodoo dolls representing American players, representing American citizens. Your stores are actually encouraging people to stick pins into effigies of the American team! Fuck the fact that voodoo is bullshit, I'm not complaining because I'm as delusional as some of the fucking dips that hope this will in any way help their national side. It's the absolutely violent disrespect that you have shown for US citizens that enrages me. I have canceled my Blockbuster DVD rental subscription, and will not be sending back the DVDs I have out. I am going to burn them and you will never get a fucking dime from me for them. I will also make sure that none of my friends or family ever step foot in a Blockbuster store ever again. No apology or action can ever convince me to change my mind on the matter. Go to hell."

For the record, I don't have a blockbuster subscription, and I don't have any dvds of theirs. I am though putting them on the banned list, and I encourage anyone else to as well.

Three days til pitchers and catchers report!

2009-02-10T00:06:00.008-06:00

The first benchmark of the 2009 season is almost upon us, and just a few days removed from the Bill Murray sanctioned groundhog day comes the baseball equivalent. Baseball Prospectus, the Cadillac of analytical statistic-based performance predictions, has released their projections for the 2009 season. It's surely comforting to see the Cubbies projected as run-away favorites in their division, but it's certainly not news. With Houston and St. Louis at least two years away from their prospects and rookies developing to the point that they can compete again, and Milwaukee falling apart at the seams faster than Ben Sheet's elbow, the path is pretty clear for NL Central dominance. (There have been rumblings of Cincy as a sleeper team to look out for, but that's a bigger long shot than A-Rod winning the Roberto Clemente award in 2009) So with the obvious aside let's get on to the subtle good news.

Now OF COURSE this is only a projection, but I can't deny that seeing the Cleveland Indians winning the AL Central made me smile. I've never been a fan of AL baseball, but I now have a favorite AL team, the Cleveland Indians. I've always been a defender of Kerry Wood, a man who could have abandoned Chicago a hundred times but always wanted to make sure he did something to repay the city and his fans. Certainly not a role-model (other than to the socialite, hot tub surfing crowd) but a good guy whose charitable contributions helped the city for many years. And now he's an Indian, and a team mate of the former Cub who I had a child-like hero worship for, Mark DeRosa. (I'll have to get a DeRosa #7 to hang next to my Vaughn #99) In my mind, you can't get any more respectable than a guy who played 6 different positions in a season and always managed to contribute offensively. He always did what was asked of him and more because his #1 priority was to do what was right for the team. He's the kind of guy Mike Singletary would love.

So now, I go into 2009 excited and hopeful. For the first time I'll be following two teams (You can't think of a fraction small enough to compare how much I want the Indians to succeed versus how much I want the cubbies to succeed), and the outlook for both of them is looking pretty rosy. All I have to say is, when I get 6 bleacher seats for the Cubs v Indians home series in June, who are the other 5 people who are gonna come with to be the D, e, O, S, and A?

Bless us with Anger

2009-01-28T15:11:00.001-06:00

Yesterday* was the realization of over a year’s worth of work done by millions of Americans in an effort to right the course of their country. As 2 million Americans flooded the national mall in DC, millions more tuned in at home to witness one of the most impressive moments in our history. Like everyone else I was truly moved. Another speech though that went almost unheard was that of that of Gene Robinson, known as "the gay bishop", an openly gay preacher. The prayer he gave opened an event that was carried by HBO, but HBO did not air the prayer. While conspiracy rumors swirl around the gay blogoshphere, HBO claims it was an honest mistake. You can read the whole speech here and I encourage you to before reading the rest of the post.

As much as it was about Obama, what yesterday* also meant to me was the end of an era that inspired more anger than any since probably the days of vietnam. And yet it wasn't enough to keep anything from happening it seemed. The protests seemed to have no effect, the shoe option wasn't on the table back then... There has been so much to be angry about for so long.

For 6 long years we have been blessed with anger. Anger at the indifference to the lives of average Americans shown by our leaders. Anger at the treatment of our poor, our sick, our wounded military men and women. Anger at the lies that we have been expected to swallow.

We have been blessed with tears. Tears for our fellow citizens lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans and New York. Tears for the lives lost in the Middle East and in Africa and elsewhere by those who do not share our heritage but for whom we must feel compassion if we are to retain our humanity.

We have been blessed not with discomfort but with horror, and with humiliation. Horror at the atrocities that have been committed in our name, in the name of a country that was for so long the biggest source of hope in the world. Humiliation that it was we who allowed our former president and his administration to deceive and distract us, to lead us into war. Humiliation that we consented to the barbaric treatment of prisoners. Humiliation that we agreed it was necessary.

And now it feels like it's finally over, the long national nightmare, the "regin of error" of George W Bush. But after the celebration is over the new fight is to stay motivated. It will be hard to stay involved, to stay indignant over the frustrations caused by Obama. But they will come, and we need to stay vigilant to keep him honest. He's not a savior by any right, he's just a better man for the job. And it's our job to keep him on the right path, even when we're most tempted to give over our trust and relax our activism. In those moments, in the words of Gene Robinson, God, bless us with anger.

*Obviously I didn't get this post finished until a week later. I've got quite a few half finished that I'll try and get posted soon.

America's back!

2009-01-21T23:58:00.000-06:00

And I plan on being back soon too

Go vote!

2008-11-03T18:25:00.002-06:00

In the off chance that someone will see this who hasn't voted yet... go do it!

And just in case it isn't clear, this blog completely endorses Barack Obama :)

Nothing important

2008-10-28T12:02:00.002-05:00

I know I haven't been on here much lately, between class and work and very sporadic campaigning (also a fair amount of drinking) I haven't found the time. But this is just hilarious. Especially if you remember the show from when you were really young.

More endorsements

2008-10-14T09:11:00.004-05:00

Endorsements for Barack have been coming from some unlikely sources lately. Including the son of the famous conservative William Buckley, whose endorsement prompted his resignation from the National Review.

Less surprisingly, there are plenty of VERY smart people that would also like you to vote Obama.

Also, I know that I promised I would let everyone know what new insights I gained about political discourse to help you in your efforts to convince your own jewish grandparents to vote for Obama, but all I really learned campaigning last weekend was that I really need to brush up on my spanish.

New Yorker Endorsement

2008-10-03T13:30:00.002-05:00

If you have some time, read this endorsment of Barack Obama by the editorial staff of the New Yorker. While I don't agree 100% with what they've said, it's a compelling read and a good motivator to consider voting for Obama if you're undecided and to put more effort into getting him elected if you've already decided.

After this weekend I'll post an advice post for how to convince people to vote for Obama. I've had some experience lately talking with conservatives, undecideds, and idiots and I'll just lay out my personal advice. Tomorrow though I'll be canvasing in WI (the first time I've had time to, damn you ultimate) so there will probably be a story or two to relate.

Who do you want in charge of your economy?

2008-09-25T16:54:00.005-05:00

Fine Ty... I'll write something substantive.

IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY STUPID!

At least it sure was when Clinton was running, an we look like we're in a whole hell of a bigger mess than we were then so it's more true today than it ever was then. So what I'm gonna do is lay it out there and tell you why I believe that Obama is better for the economy than G.W. McCain is.

Now here, I'm going to break cardinal rule #1 of being a pretentious blogger. I'm going to tell you that I don't know a whole lot about economics or finance. But the thing is, almost none of us really do. There are probably only a handful of people that really understand how the global economy works, and they themselves manage to royally screw it up every once in a while, so we can't even be sure that they know what's going on. And here's the thing, most presidents don't understand all of what is going on either. McCain said it himself "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated..." And while Obama has proven smarts, he was a professor of law at the University of Chicago, not economics. Clinton, Bush #1, Bush #2, Reagan, none of them came from strong economic backgrounds. I can't off the top of my head think of any that do. Most come from military, law, or state political backgrounds.

The truth is, a country's economic policies are dictated by the people that the president surrounds themselves with. The same can be said about many domestic policies as well as military decisions, but it applies especially for economics. The major difference between the two candidates now is that the people who are advising Obama are from the Clinton era. The people who are advising McCain are the same people who have been striving towards the deregulation that brought about the current economic collapse.

In 2000, Phil Graham, the same man who called America a "nation of whiners" was instrumental in writing and passing legislation that allowed mortgage lenders to pass their loans on to others. If you're familiar with the mortgage crisis, then you'll know that it was the ability of lenders to package and then sell overvalued loans that led to the shit-storm that we're currently in. This crisis came about because of that and other deregulatory practices. Realizing this, McCain is now in the news talking about the need for more regulation. But it rings hollow when you look at the statements he has been making for years.

Barack Obama has put forth a plan along the lines of what McCain originally agreed with but has not calculated his way out of backing. In the plan that is currently forming under the stewardship of the democratic leadership the lenders will be "bailed out", but with provisions that would prevent any spending on executive compensation packages and with guarantees of equity in the companies that are bailed out. All of that is a fancy way of saying that the CEOs that ruined these institutions by taking on too much risk will not get millions of dollars in golden parachutes when they are let go, and that as taxpayers we won't just be GIVING our hard earned money to the banks, but we'll be purchasing them. This way while we will be purchasing them at a loss, the end result should be that they can be sold off resulting in a bill to the taxpayers that falls well short of the 700 billion dollar figure that is being talked about. Good thing too, since that amounts to over 2500 dollars for every citizen of the country. (including children!)

To me on this issue, it comes down to trusting which candidate is putting THEIR trust in people that have the interests of the American people at heart, and are competent about how best to help them. I don't think there's any doubt during this crisis that the deregulation first crowd is the worst possible thing for the country at this point, and that's why I believe that Obama is a better choice for our country right now.

P.S. - If you think what's happened so far is scary, check out what McCain has to say about your health care.

Pretty accurate economic comparison

2008-09-25T00:41:00.000-05:00

superpoop.com

Who will tax you higher?

2008-09-23T19:29:00.002-05:00

Don't take it from me, take it from NBC

I personally think it's the dumbest idea in the world to cut taxes in any way right now. I thought that before the bail-outs due to our giant national debt. After the bailouts, it's an even worse idea. Still, if taxes are going to be cut, I believe they should benefit the people that need the relief.

Special guest comment

2008-09-23T11:46:00.001-05:00

"Rich,

http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?p=6

Please post this link in your blog, this is the type of information that needs to be brought to the public's attention and refresh their short memories. This is an insight to the hypocrisy of John McCain, He's not a reformer, he's a charter member of the Washington insiders clique. He's not Mr. Everyman, he's a social climber who started dating Cindy McCain while married to his first wife. He does not personify "the American Experience" he has married into the type of wealth that insulates him from it! But mostly, this illustrates the wealthy's "above the law" attitude and their use of campaign donations and insider investment deals to shield themselves from prosecution. This type of corrosive influence peddling undermines the public's confidence in our nation's credo of "equal justice for all", and is more damaging to our democracy than any terrorist attack from outside our borders. Just my opinion, -Dad"

Over the last week I've been incredibly busy preparing for sectionals as well as starting up a political science course I'm taking so I haven't had any time for the blog. Thankfully my Dad has provided, and I'll be back to work soon!

A first taste of Palin on foreign policy

2008-09-12T12:08:00.006-05:00

Lets preface this short post (I'm working on something longer to be up soon) with a story regarding actuarial tables that try to estimate how likely it is that John McCain will yield the presidency in one way or another to Sarah Palin should they be elected:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/13096

So there is about a 15% chance that McCain won't survive four years in office, and if you add in the chances that he'll be impeached, that he'll be rendered unfit for office by something like a stroke or medical condition, or that he'll resign before the 2012 election to offer Palin a chance to run as an incumbent, I estimate the chances that Palin will be the president for some period of time at about 20-24%.*

So it's worrying when her lack of foreign affairs knowledge shows through. In the speech she gave yesterday she reportedly linked Iraq and 9/11. It's worrying to hear her talk like George W. Bush. It's even more worrying when her back story starts to sound a lot like his. It turns out that Palin has only ever been on one trip outside the U.S. (excluding I'm sure Canada, but I have no evidence to back that up), and that came in 2006 when she got her passport to go and visit Alaskan national guard troops in Germany and Kuwait. In that time of course she met with no foreign leaders, nor has she ever as she admitted in her interview with Charlie Gibson. She went on to say that most vice presidential candidates in the past hadn't either at the time of their nomination, which has been proven false through at least the last 32 years. This link has some clips and summaries from her interview with Gibson. All of the points brought up in the article are disturbing (especially the hard talk about Russia, see my previous WWIII posts!), but one of the most frustrating to me was the dialogue quoted in the end about the Bush Doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine was, to me, the most frightening aspect of the war with Iraq. It essentially set a precedent for waging preemptive war, and in the case of Iraq specifically, without the consent of many nations of the UN. In hindsight now that the intelligence has been shown to have been rigged, over-blown, and in cases falsified, it is highly likely that the government of the U.S. or another country will use this war as a precedent for waging similar actions. It's also been demonstrated how easy it is for an administration to start a war without even having to go so far as to stage another Gulf of Tonkin.**

You could tell when Gibson asked the question that Palin was frustrated by his attempt to see whether or not she knew what the Bush Doctrine referred to, which clearly she did not. Her canned answer about fighting terrorism was a little embarassing. Once she had it explained to her though, she seemed crystal clear about her willingness to do "whatever it takes" to stop "extremists". Well fuck me, I thought she was a maverick, but it turns out she's just another fake fucking Bush-clone cowboy. Couple her responses with her talk about Russia, and there's no way we can let this ex-sportscaster have her finger anywhere near the nuclear button.

So please, please do everything you can to make sure that Obama is elected this fall. Failing that though, pray hard for McCain's health.

*This is how I got my crude guesstimate

Of all 50 presidents:

JFK assassinated in 1st term.
Lincoln assassinated in 2nd term.
William McKinley assassinated in his 2nd term.
FDR died in his 4th term.
Richard Nixon resigned in his 2nd term.
Warren Harding died in his 1st term.
Zachary Taylor died in 1st term.
James Garfield died in 1st term.
William Henry Harrison died in 1st term.

So 9/43 presidents did not last their full term. Of those 5 died of natural causes. So that means 4/43 or 9.3% of them did not finish their terms for reasons other than those covered by the actuarial analysis covered in the article. That added to the 15%chance that McCain will not survive the next four year period yields about 24%. Of course this is a crude estimate and I think the actual chances are slightly less likely than 24%, but I just wanted to emphasize the point that there is an absolutely realistic chance that Palin will become president. This makes her lack of foreign affairs all the more poignant. I realize too that that this whole excercise is more than slightly morbid, and I apologize.

** While it's been revealed one of the attacks on a US ship was falsified, it's never been shown that the first was. To all wingnut conspiracists out there, please don't bring up 9/11 as an inside job based on this off-hand comment.

Walter Reed

2008-09-05T13:59:00.003-05:00

Just in case you were wondering what the mansion-looking building was that appeared behind John McCain during his speech was last night:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/213806.php

Seriously, and the republicans were making fun of Obama for speaking in front of columns.

Also, as usual Jon Stewart has done a much better job ripping into Palin apologists than I ever could.

Sarah freakin' Palin

2008-09-02T17:42:00.005-05:00

Much was made in the days leading up to McCain's VP pick about both the timing of the announcement and the secrecy surrounding it. There had been a lot of secrecy surrounding Obama's pick which was ruined when the secret service showed up at Joe Biden's house the day before he was announced, and it seemed McCain was determined to up the level of secrecy before his announcement. And then, the day before McCain was set to announce his pick, the same day that Obama would be giving his historic acceptance speech of the Democratic nomination, news broke that Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty had canceled all appearances over the weekend. With the popular governor of an important state appearing to ready himself to accept the VP nomination, speculating pundits seemed to conclude that Pawlenty had been tapped for the nomination. As it turned out, they couldn't be more wrong. On that day, Gov. Pawlenty had been informed that he was NOT John McCain's pick for running mate, and that instead the honor would be going to the Governor of Alaska who 95% of America had never even heard of. Gov. Pawlenty then, in a huff, canceled all of his events campaigning for McCain over the weekend.

It seems that McCain wasn't satisfied with trying to steal away some of the spotlight from Obama's historic speech just with a condecending campaign commercial the very evening Obama spoke, or with announcing his VP pick the day after his speech. He was going to surprise everyone. He was going to be a Maverick. He was going to run with Sarah Palin.

The problem with writing this has been that since I started, every day new information has come forth about Gov. Palin. Whereas a week ago, no one knew who the hell she was, now the news is inundated with information about her as the public struggles to find out what could have justified her selection as McCain's VP candidate. So far what we've found out hasn't really been pretty.

First off, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to have any credentials on international affairs or national security. Sure, as the dimmer bulbs on the right have pointed out, Alaska is indeed next to Russia. And they've even tried to point out that as Governor, she was head of the Alaska national guard. And from that clip, it seems that's all they've been able to come up with so far. But it turns out that experience not only didn't amount to any foreign affairs experience, it didn't even consist of any command experience at all. In fact by law, the governor of a state only has authority of the national guard within her own state. Any international use of the national guard falls solely under the scope of the federal government. As for other experience, Palin has been Governor of the 47th most populous state in the union for only the last two years. (Puerto Rico has more than 5 times as many citizens) Before that she served as the mayor of Wasilla, AL. A town with a population of about 7,000 people.

Then you have the apparent desire of McCain to take someone who is outside the Washington bubble, someone who is untouched by the culture of corruption that McCain himself likes to pretend that he's above. (Funny fact about the Keating five scandal, John McCain was officially reprimanded for having "poor judgment" in his actions involving Charles Keating.) Well it turns out that Sarah Palin might not be a good pick on that front either. She happens to have been a supporter of the "bridge to nowhere" before she campaigned against it during her gubernatorial* run. She may have been on board due to her having been on the committee of Sen. Ted Stevens 527 PAC. If you're not aware, Ted Stevens is the senior senator from Alaska, who is currently under indictment for corruption. He also appeared in campaign commercials endorsing Gov. Palin which until recently were available on her campaign website. The other story is something that Gov. Palin happens to be currently under investigation for. During the messy divorce of her sister and an Alaska state trooper, much pressure was put on the director of the state police force to fire her ex-brother-in-law. While Palin never directly ordered the man to be fired, she did end up firing the director who refused to fire the trooper, supposedly over budget issues.

Well, at least she can be on message with John McCain for being a moderate who has a proven record of reaching across the aisle to work with people in a non-partisan fashion right? Actually it turns out that as mayor, there was an incident where she was under threat of being recalled after firing the police chief and the library director upon taking office. Apparently she didn't feel she "had the support" of the police chief, but succumbed to public pressure and let the library director keep her job. What could have possibly possessed her to have wanted to fire the library director in the first place? Well it seems that Sarah Palin isn't much of a libertarian Alaskan after all, she wanted the directors support in banning certain books from the town library.

To top everything off, Palin is a true, dyed in the wool social conservative. She supports discrimination against homosexuals, teaching intelligent design in schools, is against any and all forms of abortion, even in the case of rape or when there is concern for the health of the mother (this means in the event the women may die if pregnancy is not terminated, just so you know what people are talking about when you hear this), and she believes in abstinence only education. And it turns out the whole abstinence only thing didn't work out so well with her oldest daughter. So as far for appealing to moderates in any way, Palin does active harm to the ticket. Especially when you consider that one of McCain's campaign goals was to appeal to Hillary supporters. They certainly won't appreciate Palin's vehement pro-life stance for sure.

But that brings me to my point in this, why exactly DID John McCain pick Sarah Palin? She doesn't seem to back up any of the themes that McCain has been stressing in his campaign. On top of that, she undermines the two biggest attacks he has been using against Sen. Obama. The first is that Obama is too inexperienced to be president. Well, while Palin argued in her speech last night that she is more experienced because of her less than two years as governor of one of the least populous states, neither than not her years as mayor of Wasilla lend much credibility to her experience as a leader or with how to run a country. Hell, she doesn't even know what a vice president does. (Ok I admit, the comment was half in jest. But let's be honest, it was only HALF in jest.) And secondly John McCain asserts that the president needs to be ready to lead on day one. Well as far as I'm concerned Barack is ready to lead on day one, and I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would think for a second that Palin might be. McCain has said many times that the VP must be someone who is able to lead the country in the event something happens to the president. Which would make Biden a good choice, and Palin, well, something else.

So you could accuse the campaign of failing to vet the Alaska governor enough. And you know what, you would be right. It turns out that when her home town paper was contacted by news organizations about stories from her time as mayor, they handed over files from before the paper had gone digital. The files hadn't been touched by anybody, not the McCain campaign or anyone. The campaign didn't even go so far as to ask prominent members of the Alaskan government about her. It turns out that McCain had only met Palin on one occasion before the Thursday before his announcement. On that day he met with Gov. Palin for only the second time and offered her the chance to be the vice president of the united states.

So what were the reasons that McCain went with Palin? There were other candidates considered that were truly more qualified for the job, better suited and less risky. There were even some that were women to woo Hillary voters. Well as far as I see it the reasons are three-fold.

1 - He needed to appeal to the base of the party.
The right wing has never been a huge fan of Sen. McCain. It's led to his Maverick image, but it's also led to him courting John Kerry for the VP spot in 2004. Die hard conservatives were frustrated with his victory in the primaries, and some swore never to vote for him. Some of these same conservatives are undoubtedly sporting McCain bumper stickers already, but he did need to shore up some support. In this regard, Palin is actually a good pick. Anyone who saw her speech last night can't deny that the crowd was behind her. True, it was behind her more when she was attacking Obama than it was at any other point, but it was behind her nevertheless. And as I've discussed she holds very conservative values. (socially at least) So as far a point one goes, I'll give him credit. Not because she's a good choice to actually govern as VP mind you, but because she fulfills this particular political function.

2 - He needs to shake up the race a little bit.
The polls took a bit of a dip for Obama lately but post-convention have opened back up with Obama leading anywhere from 5-8 points nationally. In more specific states he leads important states and it appears that if the election were held today he would win. What's more important is that Obama has rode through the first waves of negative campaigning and is poised to do some of his own. So his campaign worried that they were on the losing track if they didn't make a big move. They couldn't afford to go with a boring, predictable pick like Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney. Well, they certainly accomplished the goal of attracting attention. The media has been going nuts over the past week trying to uncover everything they can about Gov. Palin, and they've had plenty of success finding things to talk about. So I'm gonna go ahead and award McCain points on this. He certainly got people talking, even if I can't imagine he likes very much what they're saying.

3 - The simple fact that she's a woman.
As far as I'm concerned this is the most important aspect of McCain's choice. Now this is related to point one, because conservatives can feel inclusive and high and mighty about their acceptance of a woman when the ugly sexist democrats wouldn't let Hillary win. And it's related to point two because it's a (mildly) historic event, and it definitely got people talking. (Palin is NOT the first woman VP candidate, that honor belongs to Geraldine Ferraro, who since losing on the Dukakis ticket has gone bat-shit insane.) But the main reason is that they wanted to appeal to disenfranchised Hillary voters.

When Hillary Clinton gave her speech at the DNC, I thought one of her best points was summed up when she asked her supporters: "Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? ..." She essentially challenged her supporters to remember what it was that brought them to her in the first place. Not the fact that she was a woman, but because she was a politician that shared their principles and their goals for the country. Over the course of the campaign it became too focused on the fact that she was a woman, and some people lost sight of why she would have been good for the country.

And now John McCain is trying to pull these women into voting for him by inviting the token woman to the ticket. The party of actual sexism is using a woman not for who she is, but for WHAT she is. The true essence of sexism. McCain is trying to convince women to vote for him because he believes they'll vote for a woman solely based on the fact that she's there. John McCain thinks women are idiots. It CANNOT be argued that Sarah Palin adds anything to the ticket that could not have been added by another, more qualified choice, except being a woman. In patronizing the female voters of the country in this way his campaign reveals what he truly thinks of them. I can't imagine that any of the women that fought tooth and nail to earn the right to vote, to participate in democracy, to have a voice in America, would appreciate being used in this fashion. But that's not up to me to decide.

* this is an awesome word

Great new Obama Ad

2008-08-25T18:27:00.002-05:00

I love this new Obama ad. It attacks McCain on an issue that he should NOT be leading on, and it includes the picture of McCain and Bush that should be run in EVERY commercial the rest of the election.

Somewhere in the vicinity of 4-7 houses

2008-08-25T11:22:00.004-05:00

You may have heard something lately on the subject of McCain's houses. It turns out that McCain himself isn't quite sure how many houses he even has.

His campaign later told the press that McCain has "at least 4 houses." So apparantly they're not even really sure.

The topic has been brought to great attention lately thanks in no small part to this video from bravenewfilms.org, a progressive website that has been making many popular short progressive films.

Of course, all of this is in response to the attacks from the McCain campaign and conservatives against Barack Obama. They have been leveling charges that he and his wife are elitists.

McCain has leveled the charge himself: (at about 1:30)

And it's been hammered by right wing writers.

Now, I think this whole damn thing is frustratingly silly. Conservative bloggers try to accuse Obama of being "an arugula-eating elitist". (Arugula seems to get a bad rap just because the name sounds fancy, but in reality it tastes like crap and should never be part of a salad.) Obama is supposedly an elitist because of his Harvard education and because of his "Mansion" that he purchased near Chicago. To put the point to rest, of COURSE John McCain is more of an elitist than Obama. The man divorced his first wife in order to marry into money, came from a family of career navy admirals that paved the way for his entrance into Annapolis, owns somewhere in the vicinity of 4-7 houses, and flies around Arizona on his wife's private jet. Meanwhile But it doesn't MATTER who is more wealthy, or who came from the wealthier or more connected family. It doesn't matter how many houses they have or what their taste in disgusting weeds is. It doesn't even matter if they're a gold-digging adulterer.

What matters is how they will be for the country as president. (This is gonna be a theme so consistent in this blog over the next few months you'll grow to hate me for it.) The ONLY reason this issue is acceptable is as a proxy for evaluating traits about the candidates, and as such I have this to say. I'd much rather have a president that grew up in very modest circumstances, that continues to live on more modest circumstances, than one who doesn't. They're more likely to understand what the average American faces. But when it comes to the educational circumstances a candidate has been through, I want the absolute best and brightest, the average isn't good enough. I am not smart or hard-working enough to be president. The man who taught law at the University of Chicago and was the president of the Harvard Law Review is smart enough. (That's Obama by the way.) The man who finished 894th out of 899 students in his graduating class at his military academy is not smart enough in my opinion.

So as far as the elitism issue goes, it's a total loser for McCain. It emphasises that Obama is more in touch with the average American, and that he is a much smarter, well educated candidate. And that's all that should be taken away from this issue, it's by no means any more than a predictor of who would be a better president. But I do hope that McCain keeps shooting himself in the foot over this.

McCain attacks on the Economy

2008-08-22T10:46:00.004-05:00

On the heels of a latest poll that has John McCain with a 5 point lead in national polling over Obama, there has been a genuine sense of panic among Obama supporters. Hidden in stories about the new poll though is information that is, in my mind, the most troubling.

"McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election."

After about a month of intense negative campaigning from John McCain, voters are seeming to be swayed to believe that the man in the following clips (save the one that is about him rather than includes him) is a better choice to be a steward of our struggling economy.

So how is it that voters trust this guys on the economy? Well it's because most of them haven't seen those clips. What they have seen is attack ads threatening that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes. (Which is an ABSOLUTE lie I will get into soon.) Barack should be crushing John McCain on the issue of the economy, but he won't unless he goes on the offense. I love that Obama has built a hopeful campaign, and I love being part of the hope that we can get at least a little above the partisan vitriol to have honest debate about policy. But I would never allow that to cost us such an important election. I hope Obama wakes up soon and comes to the same realization.

T - minus ??? until Obama's VP is announced

2008-08-20T19:21:00.002-05:00

Well, I was pretty sure that I would have something to say about who Obama picked for VP by now, but he still hasn't announced who it is so I'll have to wait. This is despite the rumors I heard that he would announce to his supporters via text message on Tuesday. And then the rumors that he would announce that way today. And now rumors that he'll announce via text tomorrow. So I'm going to stop holding my breath, at least until Saturday when he's announced that he will be speaking WITH his VP candidate, so that should be a little more definite than rumors.

Still, the pick has been pretty much set by now. First off, the short list is down to about three candidates, and two of those have been all but eliminated. First off, senator Evan Bayh from Indiana. Despite being a trendy pick for most of July, and coming from a state that is surprisingly this year an important battleground state, there has been a very dull reaction whenever the Bayh balloon has been floated. Progressives and anti-war groups dislike him for his participation in the Iraq War group that recommended that the senate approve the Iraq War resolution. (Which of course technically wasn't a war authorization, but I don't want to drift off track.) Then there's former governor of Virginia Tim Kaine. Again, someone who would give Obama a boost in a state that typically isn't in play for the democratic candidate, and another crafty pick. However, speculation is that since the VP pick will be speaking Wednesday night, and on Tuesday the current governor of Virginia will be speaking, they won't schedule two Virginians in a row. I know that makes ABSOLUTELY no common sense, but this is politics, and is as over-thought as events get. But the real reason that I believe that neither of these two will be the VP pick is that it's been leaked that both of their surrogate teams have received word from the Obama camp that they will NOT be the pick.

So who does this leave us with? Well, surprisingly, we're lead back to Sen. Joe Biden. I have a lot to say about picking Joe Biden for VP, but I think I'll save it until he's actually the pick, and not just who I speculate will be picked.

Recognizing the Exhibitionists

2008-08-15T17:19:00.008-05:00

When I was younger I was something of a big reader, but ever since TV and the internet atrophied my attention span to near-goldfish status I haven't been going through as many. Lately though the monotony of my job has afforded me plenty of down time to get a lot more reading in. I never used to have to pause at the end of every page to investigate every shiny object stuck in the corner of the room, but I get by. If I ever sit down with a serious literary work though I'll have to order some adderall from Mexico.

Ok, so let me wrest the tangent from my mercurial focus. (SYNONYMS!) I've been reading the book Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut, and I came across a passage that I really enjoyed, and that got me thinking. In this passage the main character of the book is talking about his artistic talents and the sense that he was born to paint. He imagines the feeling of being born to do something is a leftover from a time when people lived in much smaller groups.

"That's what I think. And of course a scheme like that doesn't make sense anymore, because simply moderate giftedness has been made worthless by the printing press and radio and television and satellites and all that. A moderately gifted person who would have been a community treasure a thousand years ago has to give up, has to go into some other line of work, since modern communications put him or her into daily competition with nothing but world's champions.

"The entire planet can get along nicely now with maybe a dozen champion performers in each area of human giftedness. A moderately gifted person has to keep his or her gifts all bottled up until, in a manner of speaking, he or she gets drunk at a wedding and tap-dances on the coffee table like Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers. We have a name for him or her. We call him or her an 'exhibitionist.'"

"How do we reward such an exhibitionist? We say to him or her the next morning, 'Wow! Were you ever drunk last night!'"

And there are millions of amateur singers, writers, and athletes out there that feel that same way. It's pretty coincidental that I happened to read this at the time when the Olympics are going on. There are probably a dozen swimmers that are right now thinking "I could sure be something special if it wasn't for that damned Michael Phelps." In a way, I think that the apparent desperation for a glimmer of fame or recognition shown in stories like these is another extension of the exhibitionism Vonnegut writes about in this passage. Of course he (or his character), couldn't have anticipated how much the internet would open up an avenue for these forms of "self-expression".

Although that's not what is happening in this particular case. There's a huge difference between a person who has a talent so unrecognized and pent up that they post themselves on youtube, and a jackass just seeking his 15 seconds of fame. (thanks again to the internet, we can only expect 15 seconds of fame now) Unfortunately the media these days chooses rather to recognize the jackasses. Not that it's their fault, we're the ones that keep clicking on jackass content. But we shouldn't. We should reward people with our attention that deserve it, not people who are willing to prostitute themselves. And so just because I feel like making things a little more right in the world, and since I think we can agree that all of us exhibitionists deserved a little recognition once in a while, and a little recognition should be paid to the fact that we can all do SOMETHING well.... here is a clip of a random guy's talent from you-tube. He may or may not be drunk, we can never be sure.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

OK, I admit some selfishness here, this is one of my favorite internet clips of all time. If I wanted to stay true to my point I probably should have posted someone juggling or playing guitar. You know, something marginally more useful.

- Also, I have no understanding at all of copyright law, but just to reiterate, the above quote was from the book Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut, and definitely not something I'm capable of writing myself.

The beginning of the end of the race

2008-08-12T16:46:00.003-05:00

This video may be a bit over the top, but that doesn't make the warnings it presents untrue.

The general election is now only about 11 weeks away. (yes, I had to look that up.) That means no more procrastinating. I'm going to have to use this space to tell anyone who reads this why they should vote for Barack Obama instead of John McCain. The problem is that most people I know are already going to vote for Barack, so hopefully my "reporting" will convince you to be more active in influencing the people that YOU know to vote for Obama. There's much to come, and first I'm going to address the offshore drilling issue since it's just starting to die out of the news cycle. But for now, enjoy the horrific video, it's gonna be a contentious and vitriolic fall, people.

Also, btw, the estimate of iraqi civilians killed in the video is ABSURDLY low. Some estimates have it in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention the several million injured and/or displaced from their homes.

The season

2008-08-08T22:37:00.003-05:00

It's really too late into the political season for me to not be updating this blog. I really want to help people stay informed, so now my commitment is to update this thing at least twice a week. I apologize in advance for the fact that I won't be able to provide as much research and as many references, but hopefully you all trust me enough not to make shit up. And hopefully you know better than to take someone at their word when they say something like that, and will do the research on your own :)

That said, since I have no time to write anything now (I have to be at work in 6.5 hours, on a saturday) I've decided to post up a few things I've written while drunk. For drunk ramblings, I actually kinda like them. I can see where Hemingway was coming from. (spelling has not been corrected, for authenticities sake)

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

It's been theorized that religion arises from our attempts to interpret the intentions behind acts that had no councious actor. A key step in the evolutionary processes that led to our building bi-planes was the ability to understand the intentions of another conciousness. If you put a two year old in a room with a man who is unable to reach an object, but who looks at the object incessintly, the two year old will recognize that the man wants the object, and offer the object to the man. If you show a two year old a man turning on a light switch with his nose, the child will repeat what they see and turn the light switch on with their nose. If the man turns on the light switch with his nose while his hands are full, the two year old will recognize that the mans intention is to turn on the light switch, not necesarilly with his nose, but since his hands are full he is using his nose, and they will turn on the switch with their hand. Our ancestors saw great actions occuring around them all the time, and because their brains were hard-wired through natural selection to attribute occurances to the intentions of concious actors, they felt that the sun rose and set because someone meant it to rise and set.

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

sometimes it's better to just let things go. like when you have to fart but then hold on just long enough to get somewhere you can let one rip without people hearing, but when you get there it's gone. you could get it out if you squeezed hard enough, but nothings worth ruining your new underwear.

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

Introspection comes from sources of great inspiration, great jealousy, and great sorrow alike. They awaken yearnings, needs, and convictions that we often ignore for lack of our own ability to satisfy them. Those are not the times that define your life. You can't live your life in those moments. You can't live a life composed of those moments. It's in those moments that you define the laws/ that you live by. The conclusions reached in those moments guide the infinitude of decisions contemplated day by day. The goals, the dreams, the values, the that you live by are decided in those moments. Each new moment is an opportunity for creation, for revision, for new life. These moments, ruined by pragmatism, are nothing less ephereal than inspiration, and can be as inconsequential if not captured. Our lives are not decided in the decisions that we agonize over, but rather in the minutiae that fills our lives, that reveals our character. The momentum we create through habit and through blind chance becomes us, and can only be changed in these self-reflective moments.

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

So enjoy these while they're up, there's a 90% chance they'll be taken down due to embarrassment within the week.

Debate

2008-07-23T13:26:00.005-05:00

Here are a few excerpts from an e-mail exchange I've been having with a pretty successful political cartoonist name Chuck Asay. While I disagree with just about every cartoon the guy puts out, I've had exchanges with him in the past, and he's not only been polite and willing to respond but also very fair about the points I make and more than willing to explain his own points of view. I've always found it fascinating to talk to somebody that views the world so differently, and I thought a few pieces of this particular exchange were interesting in how they show differences between your standard "liberal" vs. "conservative" thought process, even when we agree on the main issue.

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

From e-mail #1, me to Mr. Asay:
"Dear Mr. Asay,I find it utterly unbelievable that you would choose to feature Sen. Dodd and Sen. Frank in your latest cartoon about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bail-out when the plan has been enthusiastically endorsed by the president himself! Save for a very small handful of libertarian leaning politicians, the basic idea is agreed upon by EVERYONE. And of course, the reason for the whole crisis, which was increased risky lending, was brought about because of deregulation by REPUBLICANS in congress! Of course whenever you address any problem that arises from congress, ... the blame lies with 'Congress' as a whole entity. It's convenient of course to blame congress now that it's democratically controlled while ignoring the fact that the problem originated in a congress that had a republican majority and was endorsed and facilitated by the president. It amazes me how you can find a way to blame democrats for EVERYTHING."

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

E-mail #2, Mr. Asay to me:

"Dear Rich, Thanks for your e-mail. ... I think our basic difference might be found in how we view our government. I see it as a Republic. You might see it as a Democracy. You mention in your e-mail that there is a consensus, including the President himself, that a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie is in order. It could be. I do understand some institutions are 'too big to fail'. ... I see truth applying to individuals, not groups. If I buy a home or take some other risk, I think the consequences should fall on me not you. I've attached a cartoon I like, which demonstrates this view. I've been reading the Wall Street Journal editorial pages for many years now. They have been sounding the alarm of the risk to taxpayers of Fannie and Freddie for many years now. It has gone unnoticed. As recently as two weeks ago, both Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have been saying the two huge semi-government institutions are sound. Now it appears they need help. ... I think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are worse than George Bush and John McCain on most issues because they seem to have different world-views. Democrats tend toward collective solutions. Republicans, though flawed, tend toward solutions based on Truth...which is not determined by our collective views, in poll-testing or a vote. That's why you see me being more critical of Democrats than I am of Republicans. ... "

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

E-mail #3 - me to Mr. Asay again:

" ... I feel I gave the impression that I think the bail-out is a good thing. Quite the opposite I'm incensed that tax payers have to save these companies from the burden they've brought upon themselves. What I gather from reading your e-mail is that what we disagree about is how to prevent problems like this in the future, or how this should have been prevented. I imagine you would suggest that by letting companies go under when they fail, other companies will be discouraged from taking on too much risk. I believe that in the case of a company whose survival is this important to the American economy, the government must regulate how much risk they can assume. That is the reason that I blame republicans for this crisis, because it was the deregulation of lenders that brought this about. ... As to your point about individuals, I feel that the bail out is also necessary to protect innocent individuals. These institutions are larger than just the decision makers that got them into this mess, and many homeowners have their fortunes tied up in what happens to them. These people aren't the ones that took the risk, and they were misled about how safe their investments were. To me that's what government regulation is all about, protecting people from the greed of others. ... My last point is that while I completely agree with you criticizing the bail-out, I find that you singling out democratic congressmen is unfair because of the reasons I've gone into. While they're certainly not without some blame (in my mind mostly for being complicit), they're not the only ones to blame, and shouldn't be treated as such."

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

E-mail #4 - Mr. Asay to me once again:

"Rich, Thanks for your reply. We agree on many things...however, I think "Buyer Beware" is a better rule of thumb to protect people from their folly than the idea that it's the Government's job is to protect us from the greed of others. That's asking Government to do more than it should be doing. I've attached a cartoon here which I sent out yesterday which speaks to that point. I think Government should oversee contracts but when we ask our representatives to define, "greed", that's another matter. Greed if a subjective concept. Paul Gigot has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal today which gives some background on Freddie and Fannie. If you get a chance to read it, I'd be interested in your take on his view. Thanks again. Chuck"

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

This is so far the extent of the exchange and it may be for this issue, though I fully intend to e-mail him with disagreements in the future. Me, I think that this is the kind of exchange that people should be having with each other when it comes to politics. Too often acrimony renders us unable not just to concede any point to another opinion, but even to understand it. That's another reason that I started this blog, I want to have these kinds of conversations more often. Now let's see if I can get back into the swing of things :)