This is just an outrageous story. How dumb does McCain have to be, when he's running behind, to treat his own supporters like shit? This guy so does not deserve to be our President, not when he's already profiling, discriminating, dividing, and excluding.
Pre-emptive ejection: Audience members removed at McCain rally in Cedar Falls
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, October 31, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
McCain in Pennsylvania
Another thing baffling me at the moment. What the heck is McCain doing in Pennsylvania?
The state shows Obama with a 13% advantage. The state is a reliable Democratic state. What the heck does he think he can accomplish? They say he's there because Obama did poorly against Hillary Clinton there. Yeah, but, they were still both Democrats.
McCain's campaign has been consistently run by out-of-touch decision making and delusion. Believing Palin would attract Hillary supporters--or any intelligent woman for that matter? Now he has the delusion that in an election where polls show him losing a handful of reliable Republican states, he thinks he can turn a Democratic one in which he faces a 13-point deficit? Really, I start to feel sorry for him, because it's like he just doesn't know, poor old guy.
Faced with the potential of losing red states, McCain should be putting everything he's got, every last resource, all the "stand-up-and-fight" he has left into Virginia, Ohio, Florida. Keeping those states is his only possible chance against Obama. Focusing on Pennsylvania is a foolish waste of resources on a lost cause.
Stay in Pennsylvania, McCain. It's a beautiful state this time of year, especially with the foliage. Perhaps you might even want to move there. The Amish are keeping a place for you.
The state shows Obama with a 13% advantage. The state is a reliable Democratic state. What the heck does he think he can accomplish? They say he's there because Obama did poorly against Hillary Clinton there. Yeah, but, they were still both Democrats.
McCain's campaign has been consistently run by out-of-touch decision making and delusion. Believing Palin would attract Hillary supporters--or any intelligent woman for that matter? Now he has the delusion that in an election where polls show him losing a handful of reliable Republican states, he thinks he can turn a Democratic one in which he faces a 13-point deficit? Really, I start to feel sorry for him, because it's like he just doesn't know, poor old guy.
Faced with the potential of losing red states, McCain should be putting everything he's got, every last resource, all the "stand-up-and-fight" he has left into Virginia, Ohio, Florida. Keeping those states is his only possible chance against Obama. Focusing on Pennsylvania is a foolish waste of resources on a lost cause.
Stay in Pennsylvania, McCain. It's a beautiful state this time of year, especially with the foliage. Perhaps you might even want to move there. The Amish are keeping a place for you.
It's So Backwards
Barack Obama looks back to beginning to make 'closing argument'
"McCain said the remarks showed that Obama was intent on 'taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth and not in growing our economy.'"
I can't get over this. McCain is in crowds of the middle & working class. Obama has made painfully clear that it's the middle & working class that would benefit from his tax plan. End cuts for the wealthy, give cuts to the middle & working class. 95% of Americans.
So no, you dolt McCain, he's not going to take their money and give it to someone else, he's going to take the wealthy's money and give it to THEM.
He's pulling the wool over these poor foolish people's eyes. What's new. One week to go.
"McCain said the remarks showed that Obama was intent on 'taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth and not in growing our economy.'"
I can't get over this. McCain is in crowds of the middle & working class. Obama has made painfully clear that it's the middle & working class that would benefit from his tax plan. End cuts for the wealthy, give cuts to the middle & working class. 95% of Americans.
So no, you dolt McCain, he's not going to take their money and give it to someone else, he's going to take the wealthy's money and give it to THEM.
He's pulling the wool over these poor foolish people's eyes. What's new. One week to go.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Compare, if you will...
Who's more genuine?
Sarah Palin, painted as the small-town values every-woman hockey-mom, goes on a $150,000 shopping spree on 5th Ave. to look good.
John McCain quits his campaign when the economy tanks to rush to Washington, interfere with the rescue plan being hatched there, call off the debate unless the plan makes progress, then decides to go to the debate after all just as the plan is headed for ruin.
Barack Obama leaves his campaign with two weeks to visit with and help out his ailing grandmother, who might not make it to possibly see him President, claiming he's going to take care of some chores that she hasn't been able to do.
Sarah Palin, painted as the small-town values every-woman hockey-mom, goes on a $150,000 shopping spree on 5th Ave. to look good.
John McCain quits his campaign when the economy tanks to rush to Washington, interfere with the rescue plan being hatched there, call off the debate unless the plan makes progress, then decides to go to the debate after all just as the plan is headed for ruin.
Barack Obama leaves his campaign with two weeks to visit with and help out his ailing grandmother, who might not make it to possibly see him President, claiming he's going to take care of some chores that she hasn't been able to do.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Paying Taxes IS Patriotic
This question came up a short time ago. Obama suggests paying taxes is patriotic; McCain/Palin claim paying less taxes is patriotic. On Oct. 17, 2008, Bill Maher had Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who described himself as a democratic socialist, on his show "Real Time With Bill Maher," and he also commented on the patriotism of paying taxes. This inspired me to echo Sen. Sanders and declare my contention that paying taxes is, in fact, very patriotic.
I watch footage of McCain speaking at a rally of hundreds or thousands of supporters, and he talks about Obama's supposed desire to redistribute wealth, which McCain calls welfare and socialism. What McCain, of course, fails to mention is that Obama wants only the richest to pay more taxes to ease the load on the middle class. What boggles my mind is that at least 95% of McCain's crowds, I wager, are making less than $250,000. Obama would be "redistributing" the wealth from those who can definitely afford to pull more weight to those people in McCain's crowds. And yet the people in those crowds cheer against the idea, and cheer McCain's favoritism to the ultra-rich. Pretty stupid if you ask me.
They claim taxes are not patriotic and yet those taxes, as Sen. Sanders pointed out, go to pay for and help all the people in this country Republicans and Democrats alike call heroes.
Republicans evoke us to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our taxes pay to give them the armor they need to stay safe and the medicine they need when injured.
When the World Trade Center collapsed, firefighters and police who rushed into danger to help their fellow Americans died. Our taxes pay the country's firefighters and police officers.
Our taxes pay the teachers and librarians that educate our children.
Americans are supposed to be united, and in standing together that means helping each other. While our government was at first the stingiest in their aid to the Indian Ocean tsunami, our citizens were the world's most generous.
Is paying taxes patriotic? You betcha! It speaks to the very spirit of our country and supports its heroes.
Too many people in our country, I feel, are unpatriotic in being unwilling to share, especially if they have the means to help others without harming themselves. I can appreciate that people with less means are more concerned about paying more, but what we're paying for is the betterment of ourselves and all our countrymen and women.
I watch footage of McCain speaking at a rally of hundreds or thousands of supporters, and he talks about Obama's supposed desire to redistribute wealth, which McCain calls welfare and socialism. What McCain, of course, fails to mention is that Obama wants only the richest to pay more taxes to ease the load on the middle class. What boggles my mind is that at least 95% of McCain's crowds, I wager, are making less than $250,000. Obama would be "redistributing" the wealth from those who can definitely afford to pull more weight to those people in McCain's crowds. And yet the people in those crowds cheer against the idea, and cheer McCain's favoritism to the ultra-rich. Pretty stupid if you ask me.
They claim taxes are not patriotic and yet those taxes, as Sen. Sanders pointed out, go to pay for and help all the people in this country Republicans and Democrats alike call heroes.
Republicans evoke us to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our taxes pay to give them the armor they need to stay safe and the medicine they need when injured.
When the World Trade Center collapsed, firefighters and police who rushed into danger to help their fellow Americans died. Our taxes pay the country's firefighters and police officers.
Our taxes pay the teachers and librarians that educate our children.
Americans are supposed to be united, and in standing together that means helping each other. While our government was at first the stingiest in their aid to the Indian Ocean tsunami, our citizens were the world's most generous.
Is paying taxes patriotic? You betcha! It speaks to the very spirit of our country and supports its heroes.
Too many people in our country, I feel, are unpatriotic in being unwilling to share, especially if they have the means to help others without harming themselves. I can appreciate that people with less means are more concerned about paying more, but what we're paying for is the betterment of ourselves and all our countrymen and women.
Monday, October 20, 2008
My Position On the 2008 Massachusetts Ballot Questions
Question One: State Personal Income Tax
This question would halve the income tax for 2009 and eliminate it altogether in 2010.
The yes argument claims it saves the people money, creates jobs, will not affect property taxes or government services, and will cut government waste.
The no argument claims it would lead to cuts in aid to cities & towns, reduce state funding for services, prevent infrastructure maintenance, and force tax increases in other areas.
Tremick is voting: NO
I can't believe how this wouldn't lead to cuts in government services. It is my belief this would in fact raise taxes in other areas and/or affect needed services. Like I wrote below, if you don't pay it in taxes, you'll pay it somewhere else anyway.
Question Two: Possession of Marijuana
This question would replace criminal consequences of marijuana possession with more lenient civil penalties.
The yes argument claims that current criminal consequences, like jail, loss of driver's licenses & college loans, are unreasonable, and taxpayers would save money if these consequences were replaced with fines and community service or the like.
The no argument claims decriminalization is dangerous because it sends the wrong message to young people and emboldens drug dealers.
Tremick is voting: YES
I took a college course on drugs, and while I do not agree with or condone use of marijuana, it's not much more dangerous that smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. I do not think that possession of small quantities of marijuana should lead to such harsh and overblown consequences. That being said, I think the same consequences as drunk driving etc. should be applied to its use if its use leads to harm to others, and that the government should be actively involved in educating children against its use.
Question Three: Dog Racing
This question would prohibit dog racing where betting or wagering on the speed/ability of dogs occurs.
The yes argument claims this is abusive to dogs on a number of levels.
The no argument claims the dogs are well cared for, that dog racing creates jobs, and that the industry is well regulated.
Tremick is voting: YES
I am fine with gambling, but using animals is exploitative. I don't trust human nature in this where money is involved. Dog racing and its potential for harm to dogs makes it abusive in my mind.
Those are my positions, folks!
This question would halve the income tax for 2009 and eliminate it altogether in 2010.
The yes argument claims it saves the people money, creates jobs, will not affect property taxes or government services, and will cut government waste.
The no argument claims it would lead to cuts in aid to cities & towns, reduce state funding for services, prevent infrastructure maintenance, and force tax increases in other areas.
Tremick is voting: NO
I can't believe how this wouldn't lead to cuts in government services. It is my belief this would in fact raise taxes in other areas and/or affect needed services. Like I wrote below, if you don't pay it in taxes, you'll pay it somewhere else anyway.
Question Two: Possession of Marijuana
This question would replace criminal consequences of marijuana possession with more lenient civil penalties.
The yes argument claims that current criminal consequences, like jail, loss of driver's licenses & college loans, are unreasonable, and taxpayers would save money if these consequences were replaced with fines and community service or the like.
The no argument claims decriminalization is dangerous because it sends the wrong message to young people and emboldens drug dealers.
Tremick is voting: YES
I took a college course on drugs, and while I do not agree with or condone use of marijuana, it's not much more dangerous that smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. I do not think that possession of small quantities of marijuana should lead to such harsh and overblown consequences. That being said, I think the same consequences as drunk driving etc. should be applied to its use if its use leads to harm to others, and that the government should be actively involved in educating children against its use.
Question Three: Dog Racing
This question would prohibit dog racing where betting or wagering on the speed/ability of dogs occurs.
The yes argument claims this is abusive to dogs on a number of levels.
The no argument claims the dogs are well cared for, that dog racing creates jobs, and that the industry is well regulated.
Tremick is voting: YES
I am fine with gambling, but using animals is exploitative. I don't trust human nature in this where money is involved. Dog racing and its potential for harm to dogs makes it abusive in my mind.
Those are my positions, folks!
Tremick's World is Up to Date
I have successfully imported all my blogs from E-Ranting. Henceforth, I shall present new material.
Socialized Services & Taxes
People complain about tax increases for social service. As an aside, this says something about the degree to which Americans are willing to spend on other Americans to help everyone out. We can raise millions for tsunami relief but screw the guy who has no health insurance.
Back to the point. I don't think people realize something: If they pay it in taxes, they don't have to pay it out-of-pocket in the form of premiums and co-pays. If health insurance were (well-run) by government--socialized--we'd all pay higher taxes but we'd have no more health insurance premiums or co-pays and no risk of going bankrupt when medical emergencies arise. Chances are we'd pay less in tax increases than we currently do on insurance premiums.
For myself, I would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant health coverage wasn't so frightening, if I knew children were getting solid educations for a more competitive future, if I knew I and everyone in this country was being better taken care of.
Back to the point. I don't think people realize something: If they pay it in taxes, they don't have to pay it out-of-pocket in the form of premiums and co-pays. If health insurance were (well-run) by government--socialized--we'd all pay higher taxes but we'd have no more health insurance premiums or co-pays and no risk of going bankrupt when medical emergencies arise. Chances are we'd pay less in tax increases than we currently do on insurance premiums.
For myself, I would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant health coverage wasn't so frightening, if I knew children were getting solid educations for a more competitive future, if I knew I and everyone in this country was being better taken care of.
McCain, you are despicable
I am disgusted and actually queasy when I hear about the hate-mongering that McCain and Palin are now perpetrating against Obama. Their rallies are now hate-rallies, with people yelling slurs and hate-filled things like, "Kill him!" They're lynch-mobs.
This is who McCain is, people. This is who Palin is. This kind of hate has no place in the White House. It has no place in America.
The fact that the McCain campaign is bankrupt is now completely clear. It's easily becoming bankrupt of anything moral.
John McCain, you are despicable for perpetrating, encouraging, and allowing this kind of hate-mongering. You are despicable for the bold-faced lies, insinuations, and manipulations of Obama's character, his record, and his past.
I must have faith that the American people will not reward this. Karma, John McCain, it's coming for you.
This is who McCain is, people. This is who Palin is. This kind of hate has no place in the White House. It has no place in America.
The fact that the McCain campaign is bankrupt is now completely clear. It's easily becoming bankrupt of anything moral.
John McCain, you are despicable for perpetrating, encouraging, and allowing this kind of hate-mongering. You are despicable for the bold-faced lies, insinuations, and manipulations of Obama's character, his record, and his past.
I must have faith that the American people will not reward this. Karma, John McCain, it's coming for you.
McCain Continued to Be an Idiot
Blind Finger Pointing
The financial bailout bill failed in the House. Sure enough, McCain blames Obama:
McCain blames Democrats for bailout failure; Obama says look at the record.
McCain: "Sen. Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process."
His senior policy adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin: "This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country."
What are they talking about? What did Obama have to do with it? Republicans are the ones who voted in majority against this bill. Obama has been pretty neutral at worst, and otherwise urging that action be taken along with McCain.
Republicans tried to blame Pelosi too for a "partisan speech" (the truth) putting the blame squarely on the Bush Administration's careless stewardship. So, the country is in crisis, our economy is about to fail, and the biggest thing on these Republicans' minds is that Pelosi was mean to Bush? Give me a break and grow up.
Obama didn't even want to go to Washington, preferring not to overreact or get in the way and infuse presidential politics, the exact opposite of McCain's claim. McCain dragged him there and with that whole charade is more obviously the one infusing presidential politics. McCain didn't even speak at the meeting while Obama did, but somehow this whole thing is Obama's fault? Again, get real and give us some credit for intelligence higher than a doorknob.
The Consequences of Fear-Mongering
The Bush Administration's handling of the whole bailout plan was reckless. Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke and Bush himself come on saying we need this (power-grabbing blank check) plan now, no debate, or our economy will utterly collapse. And then, the second the bill doesn't pass, Wall Street dives almost 800 points. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tell someone that the economy ought to collapse if the bill doesn't pass and like lemmings they will go and make it so. Drama queening begets drama queening.
Had they been a little less dramatic and apocalyptic about the need for this plan, I have a feeling the market wouldn't have reacted so drastically. Banks might continue to fail, and that's the problem, but it would be the steady decline we've been seeing previous to this bill.
People need to calm down and work diligently towards a reasonable solution and refrain from Hollywood, chicken-little-esque reactionary drama.
The financial bailout bill failed in the House. Sure enough, McCain blames Obama:
McCain blames Democrats for bailout failure; Obama says look at the record.
McCain: "Sen. Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process."
His senior policy adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin: "This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country."
What are they talking about? What did Obama have to do with it? Republicans are the ones who voted in majority against this bill. Obama has been pretty neutral at worst, and otherwise urging that action be taken along with McCain.
Republicans tried to blame Pelosi too for a "partisan speech" (the truth) putting the blame squarely on the Bush Administration's careless stewardship. So, the country is in crisis, our economy is about to fail, and the biggest thing on these Republicans' minds is that Pelosi was mean to Bush? Give me a break and grow up.
Obama didn't even want to go to Washington, preferring not to overreact or get in the way and infuse presidential politics, the exact opposite of McCain's claim. McCain dragged him there and with that whole charade is more obviously the one infusing presidential politics. McCain didn't even speak at the meeting while Obama did, but somehow this whole thing is Obama's fault? Again, get real and give us some credit for intelligence higher than a doorknob.
The Consequences of Fear-Mongering
The Bush Administration's handling of the whole bailout plan was reckless. Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke and Bush himself come on saying we need this (power-grabbing blank check) plan now, no debate, or our economy will utterly collapse. And then, the second the bill doesn't pass, Wall Street dives almost 800 points. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tell someone that the economy ought to collapse if the bill doesn't pass and like lemmings they will go and make it so. Drama queening begets drama queening.
Had they been a little less dramatic and apocalyptic about the need for this plan, I have a feeling the market wouldn't have reacted so drastically. Banks might continue to fail, and that's the problem, but it would be the steady decline we've been seeing previous to this bill.
People need to calm down and work diligently towards a reasonable solution and refrain from Hollywood, chicken-little-esque reactionary drama.
Quit Simply, McCain Is an Idiot
McCain appeared on "This Week" this morning, interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. At one point, George brings up McCain's response to Obama's response in the first debate about Pakistan, saying if the U.S. needed to go into Pakistan to get at terrorists, then it should. McCain called it immature or some such to say out loud that we would attack another country. Of course, as Obama rebutted during the debate, he said nothing about attacking the country, but going in after terrorists that Pakistan has failed to bring under control.
McCain defended his position. George showed a clip of Sarah Palin saying in some more informal questioning by a reporter exactly what Obama said, that if we have to go into Pakistan for terrorists, that we absolutely should. George asks if that basically backs up Obama's position.
McCain, unbelievably, says a few things in reaction. First, he defends what Palin says, agreeing that the U.S. has to do what it has to do to get terrorists. Then he says that because Palin said it in some informal setting, that's it's not the same as what Obama did, saying out load that the U.S. might need to go into Pakistan. Also, because of this informal setting, it cannot be taken as a policy statement.
Ok, so why the F* was she saying it? And, sorry McCain, but the comment has now been nationally televised, so it doesn't matter where it's said, it matters who hears it. If Palin says it, she has to mean it. If they don't want her to be agreeing with Obama and admitting these things out loud, then, clue-in, she shouldn't be saying it anywhere to anyone. If she is saying things she shouldn't, then perhaps it's because she's a laughable choice for vice-president.
McCain goes on to say how pleased he is with Palin, the crowds she draws, and, remarkably, her ability to communicate clearly and answer questions. All you need to do is watch her interview with Katie Couric to realize how ridiculous that confidence is. Palin continues, beyond all belief, reason, or intelligence, to claim that because Russia is close to Alaska, she has foreign policy/relations experience. She hasn't answered one question straight yet, if she even answers the question.
Here's Palin's comments on Couric's question of how living in Alaska gives her foreign-policy experience:
Palin: "It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state."
What IS she talking about?? As far as I know, Russia is not running missions over Alaska, and as far as I know, we haven't been sending any of "those" who keep an eye on Russia out from Alaska. One can only ask that one amazed question: What is she talking about??
On the economy? Palin's answer is gibberish.
Couric: "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"
Palin: "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—oh! It's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."
Err, what? And this is answering questions clearly? Make sure to get in all those keywords--that have nothing to do with the question--because she has no idea what she's talking about.
That McCain thinks this is clear communication, and that Palin is doing great, shows how out-of-touch with reality he is. She's doing so bad that McCain's best argument is to figure out why what she says doesn't count, which is what he did with George's question. "Oh, it doesn't count because she was in an informal setting." Rubbish.
One has to wonder, does truth have any influence on what comes out of McCain's mouth?
McCain defended his position. George showed a clip of Sarah Palin saying in some more informal questioning by a reporter exactly what Obama said, that if we have to go into Pakistan for terrorists, that we absolutely should. George asks if that basically backs up Obama's position.
McCain, unbelievably, says a few things in reaction. First, he defends what Palin says, agreeing that the U.S. has to do what it has to do to get terrorists. Then he says that because Palin said it in some informal setting, that's it's not the same as what Obama did, saying out load that the U.S. might need to go into Pakistan. Also, because of this informal setting, it cannot be taken as a policy statement.
Ok, so why the F* was she saying it? And, sorry McCain, but the comment has now been nationally televised, so it doesn't matter where it's said, it matters who hears it. If Palin says it, she has to mean it. If they don't want her to be agreeing with Obama and admitting these things out loud, then, clue-in, she shouldn't be saying it anywhere to anyone. If she is saying things she shouldn't, then perhaps it's because she's a laughable choice for vice-president.
McCain goes on to say how pleased he is with Palin, the crowds she draws, and, remarkably, her ability to communicate clearly and answer questions. All you need to do is watch her interview with Katie Couric to realize how ridiculous that confidence is. Palin continues, beyond all belief, reason, or intelligence, to claim that because Russia is close to Alaska, she has foreign policy/relations experience. She hasn't answered one question straight yet, if she even answers the question.
Here's Palin's comments on Couric's question of how living in Alaska gives her foreign-policy experience:
Palin: "It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state."
What IS she talking about?? As far as I know, Russia is not running missions over Alaska, and as far as I know, we haven't been sending any of "those" who keep an eye on Russia out from Alaska. One can only ask that one amazed question: What is she talking about??
On the economy? Palin's answer is gibberish.
Couric: "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"
Palin: "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—oh! It's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."
Err, what? And this is answering questions clearly? Make sure to get in all those keywords--that have nothing to do with the question--because she has no idea what she's talking about.
That McCain thinks this is clear communication, and that Palin is doing great, shows how out-of-touch with reality he is. She's doing so bad that McCain's best argument is to figure out why what she says doesn't count, which is what he did with George's question. "Oh, it doesn't count because she was in an informal setting." Rubbish.
One has to wonder, does truth have any influence on what comes out of McCain's mouth?
McCain, Drama Queen for President
McCain McCan't do two things at once.
I honestly think we’re starting to see Senator McCain's campaign fall apart, crumbling under the pressure. He screwed himself with this “postponing the campaign” stunt. I agree with you McCain, stop campaigning, pull your ads, call of the debates--go home.
Now he appears a guy who can’t do two things at once, who appears to be running away from the first major debate when he’s the one who’s been calling for more debates all along. Obama's reaction I think was perfect. Not only is now absolutely the time we need to see how these two stack up, but when you're President you can't exactly just put everything else on hold to deal with one thing at a time. How much interference could a two-hour debate be anyway?
Now, there's no way out for McCain.
Ultimately, he will show up, he has to, but in wanting to call it off with all this drama, and then going through with it after all, he’ll look like he overreacted--a drama queen stunt--and isn’t sure what he’s doing or supposed to be doing. A chicken without a head who can't multitask. Perfect choice for President.
If McCain did skip it and Obama showed up solo? The campaign is simply over. Even if it was postponed, then McCain would be responsible and betray his call for more debates, and look like he’s running from it. Either way I think Obama, who has been consistent all along and clearly confident he can both debate and discuss the economy, comes out looking more composed, more "Presidential."
The timing of this stunt, with his pole numbers suddenly slipping, days away from the first debate that we know is going to be about the economy anyway even though it's supposed to be about national security--not McCain's strong suit--makes this so transparent. McCain is scared and he's running back to Washington to cling to Bush's leg. Nice photo-op with the two together a month away from the election, though.
When interviewing Palin, ask three times to make sure she gets the question.
And then there was the Palin interview with Katie Couric last night. Precious. Couric asks her about McCain's record on Wall Street reform. Palin goes straight into her now-familiar stump talking points going on about how McCain will reform Wall Street, he's a reformer after all. Couric then pushes deeper, pointing out that McCain's record shows anything but reform for Wall Street, in fact his voting record supports less regulation. She asks Palin for examples of McCain supporting regulation. Palin, in a desperate attempt at diversion, points out that McCain is a Maverick and is bipartisan--don't forget to use the "maverick" word! It's magic! (?). So Couric pushes again, "I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point," and asks for specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Never laughed so hard at an interview. Palin: "I'll try to find ya some, and I'll bring them to ya."
There are no examples! All Palin has is the talking-points the campaign gives her. Go off from that and she'll have to run back and have them whisper more lies into her ear. Can't wait for the debate.
Don't piss off Letterman. Comedians are dangerous because they can make great points in one funny line.
McCain stands up Letterman because he has to drop his campaign and run to Washington. Instead, he shows up on CBS for an interview with Katie Couric, at the same time he was supposed to be on Letterman! Oops! Letterman showed live footage of McCain getting ready for Couric on his show.
If you can't do two things at once, at least decide on which it's going to be: Tell a lie, or tell the truth.
I honestly think we’re starting to see Senator McCain's campaign fall apart, crumbling under the pressure. He screwed himself with this “postponing the campaign” stunt. I agree with you McCain, stop campaigning, pull your ads, call of the debates--go home.
Now he appears a guy who can’t do two things at once, who appears to be running away from the first major debate when he’s the one who’s been calling for more debates all along. Obama's reaction I think was perfect. Not only is now absolutely the time we need to see how these two stack up, but when you're President you can't exactly just put everything else on hold to deal with one thing at a time. How much interference could a two-hour debate be anyway?
Now, there's no way out for McCain.
Ultimately, he will show up, he has to, but in wanting to call it off with all this drama, and then going through with it after all, he’ll look like he overreacted--a drama queen stunt--and isn’t sure what he’s doing or supposed to be doing. A chicken without a head who can't multitask. Perfect choice for President.
If McCain did skip it and Obama showed up solo? The campaign is simply over. Even if it was postponed, then McCain would be responsible and betray his call for more debates, and look like he’s running from it. Either way I think Obama, who has been consistent all along and clearly confident he can both debate and discuss the economy, comes out looking more composed, more "Presidential."
The timing of this stunt, with his pole numbers suddenly slipping, days away from the first debate that we know is going to be about the economy anyway even though it's supposed to be about national security--not McCain's strong suit--makes this so transparent. McCain is scared and he's running back to Washington to cling to Bush's leg. Nice photo-op with the two together a month away from the election, though.
When interviewing Palin, ask three times to make sure she gets the question.
And then there was the Palin interview with Katie Couric last night. Precious. Couric asks her about McCain's record on Wall Street reform. Palin goes straight into her now-familiar stump talking points going on about how McCain will reform Wall Street, he's a reformer after all. Couric then pushes deeper, pointing out that McCain's record shows anything but reform for Wall Street, in fact his voting record supports less regulation. She asks Palin for examples of McCain supporting regulation. Palin, in a desperate attempt at diversion, points out that McCain is a Maverick and is bipartisan--don't forget to use the "maverick" word! It's magic! (?). So Couric pushes again, "I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point," and asks for specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Never laughed so hard at an interview. Palin: "I'll try to find ya some, and I'll bring them to ya."
There are no examples! All Palin has is the talking-points the campaign gives her. Go off from that and she'll have to run back and have them whisper more lies into her ear. Can't wait for the debate.
Don't piss off Letterman. Comedians are dangerous because they can make great points in one funny line.
McCain stands up Letterman because he has to drop his campaign and run to Washington. Instead, he shows up on CBS for an interview with Katie Couric, at the same time he was supposed to be on Letterman! Oops! Letterman showed live footage of McCain getting ready for Couric on his show.
If you can't do two things at once, at least decide on which it's going to be: Tell a lie, or tell the truth.
Pigs and Pitbulls in Lipstick
So with the Kerry campaign, we had the Swiftboat Captains for Truth crap. Now, there's another swifty campaign against Obama, led by none other than...Swift--former Massachusetts acting Governor Jane Swift. This is McCain's new Palin Truth Squad.
Apparently she's been assigned the job of accusing Obama of sexism for everything that comes out of his mouth. The Truth Squad says everything anyone says to question Palin or say anything against her is automatically sexist. If Obama started accusing everyone of racism for every criticism against him, he'd be long gone. How come the Republicans get away with such sleaze? The Democrats have the integrity to avoid such ludicrous tactics, and how come integrity doesn't win elections anymore?
Obama says: "You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig," commenting on McCain's claim that Republicans will bring change to the country. VP nominee Palin of course made the comment comparing hockey moms to pitbulls with lipstick. Swift says Obama called Palin a pig and is therefore sexist.
These are the Republican's devious and exploitative strategies. They play the gender card in a most egregious, dishonest, and insulting game. They are Jokers dealing the Suicide King.
McCain, by the way, has used the same expression when referring to Clinton's health plan released last year. Apparently he is sexist too.
Apparently she's been assigned the job of accusing Obama of sexism for everything that comes out of his mouth. The Truth Squad says everything anyone says to question Palin or say anything against her is automatically sexist. If Obama started accusing everyone of racism for every criticism against him, he'd be long gone. How come the Republicans get away with such sleaze? The Democrats have the integrity to avoid such ludicrous tactics, and how come integrity doesn't win elections anymore?
Obama says: "You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig," commenting on McCain's claim that Republicans will bring change to the country. VP nominee Palin of course made the comment comparing hockey moms to pitbulls with lipstick. Swift says Obama called Palin a pig and is therefore sexist.
These are the Republican's devious and exploitative strategies. They play the gender card in a most egregious, dishonest, and insulting game. They are Jokers dealing the Suicide King.
McCain, by the way, has used the same expression when referring to Clinton's health plan released last year. Apparently he is sexist too.
Obama's Biggest Mistake
I think it is becoming clear, whatever the outcome of this election may be, that Obama really f**ked up the moment he decided not to have Hillary Clinton as his running mate. This may prove to be his biggest mistake and if he loses, I think people will look back when asking why and point to that moment, saying, "He needed to pick Hillary and he didn't."
Polls are suggesting that McCain, in his pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate (ludicrous as this may be), is gaining large support among white women voters. At first it seems inconceivable that Clinton women would rally behind Palin since she is basically Hillary's social antithesis. However, the American Stupidity factor must always be calculated. What if they only supported Clinton because she was a woman? And what if they are just that stupid to miss the finer points, like the fact Palin is a social conservative Nazi? What if they're just so blind with rage that they're going to stick-it to Obama?
If Obama had picked Clinton, McCain may not have picked Palin, and if he did there would have been no way a Palin could compete with a Hillary. Likely, McCain would have picked someone like Lieberman, who would have angered Republicans, or two-tongue Romney, and in any event would have picked someone boring that did little to nothing for his campaign. In this way, Obama's decision not only put him where he is now, but put McCain where he is now. Talk about multi-angle self-destruction.
My first instinct is that the Obama campaign must not give Palin a free-pass. They must attack her and all her craziness, like how she tried to fire a librarian for not censoring books, or how she was a member of the secessionist party (hello, how un-American can you get?), or her extreme social views. On second thought, if she is so popular among women, and some women are going to assume that any attack on her is sexism (ludicrous as that is), than Obama might just dig a deeper hole if he attacks Palin.
Palin could in this way be a political vacuum, a black-hole, a snare. Ignore her and she's dangerous, attack her and it backfires, either way you're going to follow her into the hell the McCain-Palin administration will inaugurate.
Obama needs to invoke some genius, summon a miracle, or pray for a McCain-Palin disaster. With any luck, this is only a short-lived boost. We can't let them get away with this, we can't let McCain win, we so desperately need a big change.
Polls are suggesting that McCain, in his pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate (ludicrous as this may be), is gaining large support among white women voters. At first it seems inconceivable that Clinton women would rally behind Palin since she is basically Hillary's social antithesis. However, the American Stupidity factor must always be calculated. What if they only supported Clinton because she was a woman? And what if they are just that stupid to miss the finer points, like the fact Palin is a social conservative Nazi? What if they're just so blind with rage that they're going to stick-it to Obama?
If Obama had picked Clinton, McCain may not have picked Palin, and if he did there would have been no way a Palin could compete with a Hillary. Likely, McCain would have picked someone like Lieberman, who would have angered Republicans, or two-tongue Romney, and in any event would have picked someone boring that did little to nothing for his campaign. In this way, Obama's decision not only put him where he is now, but put McCain where he is now. Talk about multi-angle self-destruction.
My first instinct is that the Obama campaign must not give Palin a free-pass. They must attack her and all her craziness, like how she tried to fire a librarian for not censoring books, or how she was a member of the secessionist party (hello, how un-American can you get?), or her extreme social views. On second thought, if she is so popular among women, and some women are going to assume that any attack on her is sexism (ludicrous as that is), than Obama might just dig a deeper hole if he attacks Palin.
Palin could in this way be a political vacuum, a black-hole, a snare. Ignore her and she's dangerous, attack her and it backfires, either way you're going to follow her into the hell the McCain-Palin administration will inaugurate.
Obama needs to invoke some genius, summon a miracle, or pray for a McCain-Palin disaster. With any luck, this is only a short-lived boost. We can't let them get away with this, we can't let McCain win, we so desperately need a big change.
Some Points on Palin
Here are some illuminating facts on Gov. Sarah Palin.
From MoveOn.org:
From ABC News:
(On Obama, Earmarks, Palin Less Than Honest, by Russell Goldman, contradicting her RNC nomination acceptance speech.)
From MoveOn.org:
- Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." 1, 2
- Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'" 3
- Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.4
- Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade." 5
- Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. 6
- Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. 7
- Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. 8
- As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." 9
- She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."
From ABC News:
(On Obama, Earmarks, Palin Less Than Honest, by Russell Goldman, contradicting her RNC nomination acceptance speech.)
- Palin claims Obama never uses the word "victory" in reference to the Iraq War, but truth is he has done so on several occasions.
- Palin claims Obama never authored "major" legislation, but he has co-authored legislation.
- Palin claims she brought about the largest infrastructure project in North America, a natural gas pipeline, but this has not yet been approved.
- Palin claimed to have vetoed lots of wasteful spending. To the contrary, as Mayor of Wasilla, she paid a lobbyist to go to Washington to gain earmarks. She supported the "Bridge to Nowhere" until it was ridiculed, and she still wants to use that money for other pork projects.
Off Mic and Oh So Sweet
Republican strategists Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan caught giving their frank opinions on Sarah Palin as McCain's VP pick, off mic:
Off Mic, Mike & Peggy
Off Mic, Mike & Peggy
Outrageous Claims of Sexism
The Republicans are once again turning to their sleazy, unfair, and moralistic tactics.
From The Washington Post, "Republican Women Turn to the Gender Card" by Juliet Eilperin:
This is outrageous to me. The Republicans are the ones demonstrating blatant sexism by suggesting that just because Palin is a women, it is immoral to question her qualifications, which is absolutely and precisely what needs to be debated--it's the whole damned point of a campaign, to decide one's qualifications.
So, according to the Republicans, if we don't just accept without question that Palin, because she is a women, is automatically qualified to be President, that we are sexist. Absurd!
It's as if Obama suddenly started saying that anyone who questions his qualifications is racist. The idea of that is equally absurd. That Republicans would use this manipulative line of reasoning shows how arrogant and irresponsible they are.
I am not a sexist because I question Palin's qualifications. I am an American that takes very seriously our highest offices, an American that takes pride in our right to debate and decide qualifications, and there is nothing more AMERICAN than using that decision to cast my vote.
I am a responsible American to question Palin's qualifications and it is at the very least irresponsible and I suggest un-American for them to suggest that we suspend our American right to evaluate, decide, and vote on a candidate based on their qualifications simply because she is a woman.
The debate on qualifications is valid and necessary for any candidate, male or female, black or white, whatever type of person they should be. That the Republicans suggest we base whether or not we even consider qualifications on a person's gender--this is what is egregiously sexist and un-American.
Shame on the Republicans for these dastardly tactics. Shame on them for trying to tell us that the American debate on our President and Vice-President is immoral. Shame on them for twisting morality to their political gain. SHAME!
That Obama hasn't used his race card and has given not a sign of doing so is a testament to the integrity and honestly of Obama and his campaign. That the Republicans would play their gender card like this is a testament to their lack of integrity and dishonesty--a testament to how low and dirty they go.
My disgust in the Republicans grows to a new height.
From The Washington Post, "Republican Women Turn to the Gender Card" by Juliet Eilperin:
Female Republicans embraced identity politics with gusto today, touting the virtues of presumptive vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and suggesting that any attempts to question her qualifications amounted to blatant sexism.
This is outrageous to me. The Republicans are the ones demonstrating blatant sexism by suggesting that just because Palin is a women, it is immoral to question her qualifications, which is absolutely and precisely what needs to be debated--it's the whole damned point of a campaign, to decide one's qualifications.
So, according to the Republicans, if we don't just accept without question that Palin, because she is a women, is automatically qualified to be President, that we are sexist. Absurd!
It's as if Obama suddenly started saying that anyone who questions his qualifications is racist. The idea of that is equally absurd. That Republicans would use this manipulative line of reasoning shows how arrogant and irresponsible they are.
I am not a sexist because I question Palin's qualifications. I am an American that takes very seriously our highest offices, an American that takes pride in our right to debate and decide qualifications, and there is nothing more AMERICAN than using that decision to cast my vote.
I am a responsible American to question Palin's qualifications and it is at the very least irresponsible and I suggest un-American for them to suggest that we suspend our American right to evaluate, decide, and vote on a candidate based on their qualifications simply because she is a woman.
The debate on qualifications is valid and necessary for any candidate, male or female, black or white, whatever type of person they should be. That the Republicans suggest we base whether or not we even consider qualifications on a person's gender--this is what is egregiously sexist and un-American.
Shame on the Republicans for these dastardly tactics. Shame on them for trying to tell us that the American debate on our President and Vice-President is immoral. Shame on them for twisting morality to their political gain. SHAME!
That Obama hasn't used his race card and has given not a sign of doing so is a testament to the integrity and honestly of Obama and his campaign. That the Republicans would play their gender card like this is a testament to their lack of integrity and dishonesty--a testament to how low and dirty they go.
My disgust in the Republicans grows to a new height.
Letter to the Chicago Tribune
This is the letter I wrote to the Chicago Tribune, in response to their article, Judging Sarah Palin.
Dear Chicago Tribune,
This is in response to your question concerning Gov. Sarah Palin’s eligibility for the Republican ticket.
I am a Democrat, I admit, and think the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate is appalling for several reasons, family issues and gender aside, and would love to see her removed from the Republican ticket—in favor of someone who might actually give McCain a better chance at winning.
To me, this is a great example of the kind of judgment and decision making we might expect from McCain should he win. This decision shows that he makes last-minute decisions on crucial matters with a questionable amount of serious consideration. This decision shows the level of hypocrisy that McCain stoops to—that he can attack Obama on his experience and simultaneously extol a woman for a year and half of service as Governor of the nation’s least populated state and for her service as a mayor of a village of under 10,000 people. This decision also shows how purely politically motivated McCain is, and that, far from being a maverick, he is a prisoner to the radical Right base. Clearly McCain wants more of the same if he picks a woman who could be the perfect protégé for Bush’s social beliefs and whose biggest asset is her appeal to the most radically religious population in this country.
The combination of making foolhardy decisions, engaging in double-standard politics where what’s bad for the Democrats is good for the Republicans, and appeasing the radical Right above all sounds an awful lot like George W. and the past eight years.
As for Palin, the fact that she is a woman makes no difference. Picking a woman because she is a woman and voting for one for that reason misses the whole point. The point is to have come to a time in U.S. history where nothing bars a woman’s way from being just as capable as anyone else, and being able to gain the same experience as everyone else, so that the first woman who ends up being the Vice President or President is there because she was capable, experienced, and deserving of the position due to a life-time of hard work. To get there simply because one is a woman, to be plucked up on gender while skipping the expectation of capability and experience, makes a mockery of history. Palin is not deserving of this distinction, not because she is a woman—and a hard-working one at that, no doubt—but because she has not put in the time, proven the capability, and gained the experience that would be expected of anyone else, male or female, to be ready to serve as the Vice-President and possibly President of the United States.
Her lack of experience and extremist social views pose a serious danger to this country if she should end up as President—the same danger that a male of equal merit would pose—the same danger and peril that Bush has put us in. This is a danger that McCain has now put us in, and that is a powerful testament to his judgment. My hope is that this nation will agree that she is not ready to pass this test, and that this election will be a referendum against McCain’s judgment.
Dear Chicago Tribune,
This is in response to your question concerning Gov. Sarah Palin’s eligibility for the Republican ticket.
I am a Democrat, I admit, and think the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate is appalling for several reasons, family issues and gender aside, and would love to see her removed from the Republican ticket—in favor of someone who might actually give McCain a better chance at winning.
To me, this is a great example of the kind of judgment and decision making we might expect from McCain should he win. This decision shows that he makes last-minute decisions on crucial matters with a questionable amount of serious consideration. This decision shows the level of hypocrisy that McCain stoops to—that he can attack Obama on his experience and simultaneously extol a woman for a year and half of service as Governor of the nation’s least populated state and for her service as a mayor of a village of under 10,000 people. This decision also shows how purely politically motivated McCain is, and that, far from being a maverick, he is a prisoner to the radical Right base. Clearly McCain wants more of the same if he picks a woman who could be the perfect protégé for Bush’s social beliefs and whose biggest asset is her appeal to the most radically religious population in this country.
The combination of making foolhardy decisions, engaging in double-standard politics where what’s bad for the Democrats is good for the Republicans, and appeasing the radical Right above all sounds an awful lot like George W. and the past eight years.
As for Palin, the fact that she is a woman makes no difference. Picking a woman because she is a woman and voting for one for that reason misses the whole point. The point is to have come to a time in U.S. history where nothing bars a woman’s way from being just as capable as anyone else, and being able to gain the same experience as everyone else, so that the first woman who ends up being the Vice President or President is there because she was capable, experienced, and deserving of the position due to a life-time of hard work. To get there simply because one is a woman, to be plucked up on gender while skipping the expectation of capability and experience, makes a mockery of history. Palin is not deserving of this distinction, not because she is a woman—and a hard-working one at that, no doubt—but because she has not put in the time, proven the capability, and gained the experience that would be expected of anyone else, male or female, to be ready to serve as the Vice-President and possibly President of the United States.
Her lack of experience and extremist social views pose a serious danger to this country if she should end up as President—the same danger that a male of equal merit would pose—the same danger and peril that Bush has put us in. This is a danger that McCain has now put us in, and that is a powerful testament to his judgment. My hope is that this nation will agree that she is not ready to pass this test, and that this election will be a referendum against McCain’s judgment.
Why McCain's Choice of Sarah Palin is So Dangerous
The Dangerous Palin Decision
McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is a dangerous decision, not only because of who Palin is, but because of what it says about McCain.
Palin is basically a social conservative nightmare, and in McCain's case, she is way too close to the presidency if the Republican ticket wins. She would be dangerous as President not only for her conservative zealotry, but because of her total lack of experience in the major arenas of foreign policy and national security. Let's face it, she was the mayor of a town of like 7,000 only two years ago, and her major concern was getting roads paved. As Governor, all she's done is advocated for gas and oil, and against poor polar bears.
McCain did not vet Sarah Palin. No one from his campaign went up to Alaska to check her out. In fact, it's been admitted that she was a last minute decision, seemingly on-the-fly. On "This Week" this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham said, as criticism of Obama, that this pick was not "calculated politics" (if I remember the phrasing correct). It scares me how Republicans think they can so easily make a compliment something to be ashamed of. I am much more in support of Obama actually calculating his decisions. That McCain admittedly did not calculate this decision is foolhardy and irresponsible. (This stupid celebrity argument against Obama, too. Uhm, if so many people like him and he inspires so many, that's like, a good thing?)
And what about the fact that she's under investigation for unethically using her power as an elected official? Both in Wasilla and as Gov. this has happened. How could he not take this into consideration? Already, this fact comes up in just about every story on her I've read. Hopefully it hangs around their necks like a millstone for the entire campaign.
McCain's lack of investigative curiosity says much about how he might govern, and I suggest it would be a very dangerous way of governing. So, what if Iran keeps building nuclear power plants? Will McCain, in a "Maverick" stroke of spontaneity, decide to attack? How many other crucial decisions will he make last minute without much investigation?
(I put forth that the Maverick identity is itself dangerous, and not a compliment for McCain. The U.S. has been a maverick on the world stage under Bush and look where that got us. A president needs to be cooperative internationally, and acting alone or with your own singular whim is dangerous.)
That he wouldn't more seriously consider this decision (and seriously means almost anyone else, albeit maybe a man by chance) suggests how little seriously he takes the position of VP, and how careless he's willing to be for an extremely important decision (how purely political he's willing to be, perhaps).
The decision is also ridiculous purely because it completely undermines McCain's main attack on Obama, that he's too inexperienced. That's another thing that really scares me about Republicans. If someone else does it, it's a horrible over-exaggerated scandal. When they do it, it's the best thing since sliced bread, the obvious smartest thing to do, and a solid, unarguable decision. Obama is too inexperienced to be President, but Sarah Palin is the perfect choice for McCain's running mate because she brings so much executive experience and is ready day one to be Commander in Chief. Caribou shit (Palin likes to shoot and kill them, btw).
Anyway, what that says about McCain is that he'll talk one way and act another (we're familiar with this too, from Bush). He'll either blindly or arrogantly use a double-standard--that the rules and judgments that apply to others don't apply to him; that what's wrong for everyone else is just fine for him.
Then there's this ridiculous belief that simply by choosing a Woman, Palin of all people, that he'll woo disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters. And, somehow, magically transform all those people who supported her into evangelical zombies. Palin is so completely different from Hillary, on the complete other end of the political spectrum, that it is ludicrous for him to think that this is the ticket to scoop-up all those women. This suggests how out-of-touch McCain is, and how chauvinistically simplistic he thinks this is. He must think that the only reason people backed Hillary is because she was a woman, and therefore, all he needs is A Woman, and this will fool them. What, are they all too stupid to notice that she's an Anti-Hillary in all other aspects? How insulting.
Proximity = Experience?
Another thing that just really annoys me, though it's a bit tangential. Also this morning on "This Week" (can you tell I'm a fan?) George Stephanopoulos interviewed Cindy McCain, and asked her about Palin's national security/foreign relations experience. Cindy says something close to "Don't forget, Alaska is the closest state to Russia, so she knows what to expect." Ok, just WTF kind of argument is that? In what way does Alaska interact with Russia that lends credentials as a foreign relations expert?
In Cindy's argument, mere proximity to a land mass gives experience with a complex, important, and perilous political and social arena that foreign policy and national security are. Cindy, however, fails to realize just how big Alaska is, and Palin is all the way over to the east in Juneau. I am a little over a thousand miles closer to Canada than Juneau is to Russia. You may have guessed, me and Prime Minister Stevie Harper are on the phone all the time, I'm an expert on Canadian affairs. Right. Heck, I'm closer to Washington D.C. than Juneau is to Russia, maybe I could be U.S. President. You know what? Half of the United States is closer to me than Juneau is to Russia, so I think even by the proximity=experience argument, Palin can't have much.
Not to mention, Palin or Alaska simply haven't had anything to do with Russia in her near two years as Governor of that sparsely-populated state (to that, Alaska is less populated than Brooklyn, only slightly more populated than Boston, MA).
This is another fundamental thing that scares me about Republicans: That they can make such ridiculous arguments and deliver them as if they actually had any weight. Scarier than all these Republican traits is that a lot of people actually fall for it.
The good news is that John Kerry really tore Palin apart after Lindsey Graham on "This Week."
My Hopes for Palin on the Campaign
1. The court of public opinion, with the media's help, will make clear how undeserving Palin is.
2. Palin, unseasoned in national campaigns, will oversimplify things as she is said to do, and appear vapid and over her head, and end up saying a lot of stupid, naive things.
3. That she'll simply start talking about her views and her beliefs on social issues.
4. That she'll appear laughably ridiculous in front of Biden when they debate and stand not a chance against his experience and skill.
5. That she'll implode or spontaneously combust (politically, personally speaking) on the trail.
6. That women voters will have a reverse reaction to her than McCain believes, and drive women voters to Obama.
7. That evangelical voters will not flock out to vote just because McCain put one on the ticket.
This campaign is almost too scary to watch, but I am keeping my hope strong that Obama will stand out above all this. I have to believe. The alternative is an existential crisis for the United States.
McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is a dangerous decision, not only because of who Palin is, but because of what it says about McCain.
Palin is basically a social conservative nightmare, and in McCain's case, she is way too close to the presidency if the Republican ticket wins. She would be dangerous as President not only for her conservative zealotry, but because of her total lack of experience in the major arenas of foreign policy and national security. Let's face it, she was the mayor of a town of like 7,000 only two years ago, and her major concern was getting roads paved. As Governor, all she's done is advocated for gas and oil, and against poor polar bears.
McCain did not vet Sarah Palin. No one from his campaign went up to Alaska to check her out. In fact, it's been admitted that she was a last minute decision, seemingly on-the-fly. On "This Week" this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham said, as criticism of Obama, that this pick was not "calculated politics" (if I remember the phrasing correct). It scares me how Republicans think they can so easily make a compliment something to be ashamed of. I am much more in support of Obama actually calculating his decisions. That McCain admittedly did not calculate this decision is foolhardy and irresponsible. (This stupid celebrity argument against Obama, too. Uhm, if so many people like him and he inspires so many, that's like, a good thing?)
And what about the fact that she's under investigation for unethically using her power as an elected official? Both in Wasilla and as Gov. this has happened. How could he not take this into consideration? Already, this fact comes up in just about every story on her I've read. Hopefully it hangs around their necks like a millstone for the entire campaign.
McCain's lack of investigative curiosity says much about how he might govern, and I suggest it would be a very dangerous way of governing. So, what if Iran keeps building nuclear power plants? Will McCain, in a "Maverick" stroke of spontaneity, decide to attack? How many other crucial decisions will he make last minute without much investigation?
(I put forth that the Maverick identity is itself dangerous, and not a compliment for McCain. The U.S. has been a maverick on the world stage under Bush and look where that got us. A president needs to be cooperative internationally, and acting alone or with your own singular whim is dangerous.)
That he wouldn't more seriously consider this decision (and seriously means almost anyone else, albeit maybe a man by chance) suggests how little seriously he takes the position of VP, and how careless he's willing to be for an extremely important decision (how purely political he's willing to be, perhaps).
The decision is also ridiculous purely because it completely undermines McCain's main attack on Obama, that he's too inexperienced. That's another thing that really scares me about Republicans. If someone else does it, it's a horrible over-exaggerated scandal. When they do it, it's the best thing since sliced bread, the obvious smartest thing to do, and a solid, unarguable decision. Obama is too inexperienced to be President, but Sarah Palin is the perfect choice for McCain's running mate because she brings so much executive experience and is ready day one to be Commander in Chief. Caribou shit (Palin likes to shoot and kill them, btw).
Anyway, what that says about McCain is that he'll talk one way and act another (we're familiar with this too, from Bush). He'll either blindly or arrogantly use a double-standard--that the rules and judgments that apply to others don't apply to him; that what's wrong for everyone else is just fine for him.
Then there's this ridiculous belief that simply by choosing a Woman, Palin of all people, that he'll woo disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters. And, somehow, magically transform all those people who supported her into evangelical zombies. Palin is so completely different from Hillary, on the complete other end of the political spectrum, that it is ludicrous for him to think that this is the ticket to scoop-up all those women. This suggests how out-of-touch McCain is, and how chauvinistically simplistic he thinks this is. He must think that the only reason people backed Hillary is because she was a woman, and therefore, all he needs is A Woman, and this will fool them. What, are they all too stupid to notice that she's an Anti-Hillary in all other aspects? How insulting.
Proximity = Experience?
Another thing that just really annoys me, though it's a bit tangential. Also this morning on "This Week" (can you tell I'm a fan?) George Stephanopoulos interviewed Cindy McCain, and asked her about Palin's national security/foreign relations experience. Cindy says something close to "Don't forget, Alaska is the closest state to Russia, so she knows what to expect." Ok, just WTF kind of argument is that? In what way does Alaska interact with Russia that lends credentials as a foreign relations expert?
In Cindy's argument, mere proximity to a land mass gives experience with a complex, important, and perilous political and social arena that foreign policy and national security are. Cindy, however, fails to realize just how big Alaska is, and Palin is all the way over to the east in Juneau. I am a little over a thousand miles closer to Canada than Juneau is to Russia. You may have guessed, me and Prime Minister Stevie Harper are on the phone all the time, I'm an expert on Canadian affairs. Right. Heck, I'm closer to Washington D.C. than Juneau is to Russia, maybe I could be U.S. President. You know what? Half of the United States is closer to me than Juneau is to Russia, so I think even by the proximity=experience argument, Palin can't have much.
Not to mention, Palin or Alaska simply haven't had anything to do with Russia in her near two years as Governor of that sparsely-populated state (to that, Alaska is less populated than Brooklyn, only slightly more populated than Boston, MA).
This is another fundamental thing that scares me about Republicans: That they can make such ridiculous arguments and deliver them as if they actually had any weight. Scarier than all these Republican traits is that a lot of people actually fall for it.
The good news is that John Kerry really tore Palin apart after Lindsey Graham on "This Week."
My Hopes for Palin on the Campaign
1. The court of public opinion, with the media's help, will make clear how undeserving Palin is.
2. Palin, unseasoned in national campaigns, will oversimplify things as she is said to do, and appear vapid and over her head, and end up saying a lot of stupid, naive things.
3. That she'll simply start talking about her views and her beliefs on social issues.
4. That she'll appear laughably ridiculous in front of Biden when they debate and stand not a chance against his experience and skill.
5. That she'll implode or spontaneously combust (politically, personally speaking) on the trail.
6. That women voters will have a reverse reaction to her than McCain believes, and drive women voters to Obama.
7. That evangelical voters will not flock out to vote just because McCain put one on the ticket.
This campaign is almost too scary to watch, but I am keeping my hope strong that Obama will stand out above all this. I have to believe. The alternative is an existential crisis for the United States.
Are you kiddng me!?
Sarah Palin as VP?
McCain picked a woman with 2-yrs Gubernatorial experience, formerly the mayor of a town in Alaska you can't even find on a map?
What a hypocrite! He's been attacking Obama for months on his lack of experience, then turns around and picks someone younger with even less? This woman will be a few heartbeats from being president--and in McCain's case, that's a very good possibility. I am sorry, I do not want the Mayor of Wasilla running the United States of America!
Not only that, but she herself is anti-women, anti-wildlife and environment, anti-tolerance, and pro-creationism. How insulting for women. McCain obviously chose her simply because she's a woman, but women voters liked Hillary because she is strong and experienced. I sure hope he is sadly mistaken in believing women will flock to him simply because has a woman VP, as a replacement to Hillary Clinton. Palin is NO Hillary; she's almost an Anti-Hillary.
What a ridiculous choice for McCain, I almost pity him.
McCain picked a woman with 2-yrs Gubernatorial experience, formerly the mayor of a town in Alaska you can't even find on a map?
What a hypocrite! He's been attacking Obama for months on his lack of experience, then turns around and picks someone younger with even less? This woman will be a few heartbeats from being president--and in McCain's case, that's a very good possibility. I am sorry, I do not want the Mayor of Wasilla running the United States of America!
Not only that, but she herself is anti-women, anti-wildlife and environment, anti-tolerance, and pro-creationism. How insulting for women. McCain obviously chose her simply because she's a woman, but women voters liked Hillary because she is strong and experienced. I sure hope he is sadly mistaken in believing women will flock to him simply because has a woman VP, as a replacement to Hillary Clinton. Palin is NO Hillary; she's almost an Anti-Hillary.
What a ridiculous choice for McCain, I almost pity him.
Clinton as VP Candidate
The Democratic Ticket
I'm not sure about Clinton as Obama's running mate. Part of me thinks she would help Obama get all the needed demographics, but I have read a report that Clinton on the ticket would diminish support from independent voters.
We need independent voters.
I want a running mate that can best complement Obama, best reflect his message and his vision, and best help to secure the needed demographics, including independent voters.
I'm not sure about Clinton as Obama's running mate. Part of me thinks she would help Obama get all the needed demographics, but I have read a report that Clinton on the ticket would diminish support from independent voters.
We need independent voters.
I want a running mate that can best complement Obama, best reflect his message and his vision, and best help to secure the needed demographics, including independent voters.
Obama Supporters Love Clinton Supporters
The National Campaign Begins
As a Democrat who wants a Democrat to win the White House in November, I was frustrated by Hillary Clinton's persistence, feeling that the focus should shift to the national campaign against McCain as soon as possible. She played it all the way to the end and conceded none too soon. Now, with Obama the presumptive nominee, it's time for Democrats to come together.
I watched Clinton's concession speech as she gave it and for my part it dismissed any ill-will I might have felt towards her, for the specific reason of her apparent denial of the inevitable. When this all started, I too believed it near certain Clinton would be the nominee, and this was a thought I was excited about. I think she said all the right things and I think she placed this historic primary battle and the historic prospects for Democrats, women, African Americans, and indeed all Americans and all of America, in the right perspective. It was a good speech, and it left me with renewed respect for Clinton.
And there's even an upside to the protracted primary season I hadn't considered: It gave Obama a chance to set up a campaign machine in just about every state. One step ahead going into the national fight.
As an Obama supporter, I embrace Clinton supporters, and I truly hope we can all come together as Democrats and put a Democrat in the White House. I think that's what's most important, and I think either way we have an inspiring possibility.
I believed in the dream ticket from the beginning, have felt that it might be the only sure win for Democrats, and I still believe. Hillary Clinton is absolutely my first choice for Vice-President, and I think that's a dream ticket we can believe in.
Obama '08. Clinton '16.
Let's all believe together, and I believe the United States can be renewed.
As a Democrat who wants a Democrat to win the White House in November, I was frustrated by Hillary Clinton's persistence, feeling that the focus should shift to the national campaign against McCain as soon as possible. She played it all the way to the end and conceded none too soon. Now, with Obama the presumptive nominee, it's time for Democrats to come together.
I watched Clinton's concession speech as she gave it and for my part it dismissed any ill-will I might have felt towards her, for the specific reason of her apparent denial of the inevitable. When this all started, I too believed it near certain Clinton would be the nominee, and this was a thought I was excited about. I think she said all the right things and I think she placed this historic primary battle and the historic prospects for Democrats, women, African Americans, and indeed all Americans and all of America, in the right perspective. It was a good speech, and it left me with renewed respect for Clinton.
And there's even an upside to the protracted primary season I hadn't considered: It gave Obama a chance to set up a campaign machine in just about every state. One step ahead going into the national fight.
As an Obama supporter, I embrace Clinton supporters, and I truly hope we can all come together as Democrats and put a Democrat in the White House. I think that's what's most important, and I think either way we have an inspiring possibility.
I believed in the dream ticket from the beginning, have felt that it might be the only sure win for Democrats, and I still believe. Hillary Clinton is absolutely my first choice for Vice-President, and I think that's a dream ticket we can believe in.
Obama '08. Clinton '16.
Let's all believe together, and I believe the United States can be renewed.
Rules & Bylaws, blah blah blah
Florida & Michigan - The Delegate Debate
The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee today debates whether and how to count & seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, who were disqualified when they went against the DNC and scheduled their primaries too early.
I turned on MSNBC for the few moments I could stand of their live coverage.
A lot of righteous whining about how it's unfair to Florida voters to be disenfranchised, they did nothing wrong, they have a right to have their vote count. As if the DNC just arbitrarily decided to render Florida & Michigan votes invalid.
Simple question: Who put the voters in this position to start with? The DNC? No. It was the Democratic powers that be in those states who decided to flout the DNC's rules and hold their primaries early. Like they couldn't foresee today's festivities. They're the ones who acted unfairly against their own voters for breaking the rules and putting those voters in a position where their vote might not count.
Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, so I think it's patently unfair to count that state at this point. Compromise, people.
Frankly, I don't see the big deal one way or the other. Who cares if they had their primaries early? Perhaps there is some line of reasoning or tactics that I am not aware of.
As it stands, I just want this primary season to end and get the national campaign started. McCain gets stronger by the week as Democrats continually sc**w themselves with these shenanigans.
The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee today debates whether and how to count & seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, who were disqualified when they went against the DNC and scheduled their primaries too early.
I turned on MSNBC for the few moments I could stand of their live coverage.
A lot of righteous whining about how it's unfair to Florida voters to be disenfranchised, they did nothing wrong, they have a right to have their vote count. As if the DNC just arbitrarily decided to render Florida & Michigan votes invalid.
Simple question: Who put the voters in this position to start with? The DNC? No. It was the Democratic powers that be in those states who decided to flout the DNC's rules and hold their primaries early. Like they couldn't foresee today's festivities. They're the ones who acted unfairly against their own voters for breaking the rules and putting those voters in a position where their vote might not count.
Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, so I think it's patently unfair to count that state at this point. Compromise, people.
Frankly, I don't see the big deal one way or the other. Who cares if they had their primaries early? Perhaps there is some line of reasoning or tactics that I am not aware of.
As it stands, I just want this primary season to end and get the national campaign started. McCain gets stronger by the week as Democrats continually sc**w themselves with these shenanigans.
The Quantum Theory of Minority Candidates
The Democratic Ticket
My thought process has been evolving over the weekend.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. What we have here are two minority presidential candidates. Both can say "Now is the time for a(n) [African American][woman] president." However, only one of them can be right and at the moment we can't know which.
For some odd reason, timing and history conspired to deliver both of these highly popular minority candidates at the same time, at a time when it is fully conceivable for either to win. This isn't good for either and I chalk it up to my Theory of Irony (the same theory that predicted, at one time, a presidential succession of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton).
The reason it's not a good thing? The central tenant of the Quantum Theory of Minority Candidates: When they collide, they annihilate each other.
This is now what is happening, and there is only one solution or I believe John McCain will be our next President. I am accepting the belief now, given ongoing circumstances, that McCain will win so that I am not surprised if he does and all the more pleased if he does not.
One or the other must drop out, and soon--like nowish--and both must run together.
Both MUST run together. Instead of annihilating each other, they must become entangled with each other--this may be the only way to form the stable element of HcOb (or ObHc) and give the Democrats the best shot of taking the White House in 09.
If they annihilate and McCain wins? I fear the U.S. will continue its rapid radioactive decay.
My thought process has been evolving over the weekend.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. What we have here are two minority presidential candidates. Both can say "Now is the time for a(n) [African American][woman] president." However, only one of them can be right and at the moment we can't know which.
For some odd reason, timing and history conspired to deliver both of these highly popular minority candidates at the same time, at a time when it is fully conceivable for either to win. This isn't good for either and I chalk it up to my Theory of Irony (the same theory that predicted, at one time, a presidential succession of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton).
The reason it's not a good thing? The central tenant of the Quantum Theory of Minority Candidates: When they collide, they annihilate each other.
This is now what is happening, and there is only one solution or I believe John McCain will be our next President. I am accepting the belief now, given ongoing circumstances, that McCain will win so that I am not surprised if he does and all the more pleased if he does not.
One or the other must drop out, and soon--like nowish--and both must run together.
Both MUST run together. Instead of annihilating each other, they must become entangled with each other--this may be the only way to form the stable element of HcOb (or ObHc) and give the Democrats the best shot of taking the White House in 09.
If they annihilate and McCain wins? I fear the U.S. will continue its rapid radioactive decay.
Three new buffets coming to Massachusetts!
Massachusetts Governor Patrick proposes bringing three destination casinos to my state. Let me just say that I support and applaud this decision. Casinos will bring in tons of revenue and create tons of jobs. Not only that, but it will provide me and millions of others somewhere to go and something to do on the weekend.
Destination casinos are places you can go to just for the fun of it, even if you don't plan on spending tons of money gambling, and they all have buffets. I would go to the casino just for the buffet. We do not have many buffets in Massachusetts; they're all out in California.
I'm not much into gambling myself; I prefer guaranteed rewards for all monetary expenditures. I will not pay just to lose money. Seems illogical to me.
Of course, now "battle lines will be drawn" over Patrick's decision, pitting the evangelicals and Christianists against the liberal secularists, gambling addicts and buffet-lovers. Why does there have to be a fight about everything? As to the fact that more casinos gives those with gambling addictions a place to hit-up, that's a gambling addict's problem. We don't hide all the alcohol away because some alcoholic might see it. It's an addicts responsibility to take control of their lives, not mine.
Destination casinos now adays are more family-oriented anyway, and this in my mind makes them less the crime destinations that they could be. Personally, I think all the grungy poor people and senior citizens that haunt the places with delusions of getting rich quick or acquiring something inheritable at the last minute--when all they're doing is squandering what little they make from minimum wage or social security--are much scarier in general.
Anyway, all I want is a buffet within 50 miles. Thank you Governor Patrick!
Destination casinos are places you can go to just for the fun of it, even if you don't plan on spending tons of money gambling, and they all have buffets. I would go to the casino just for the buffet. We do not have many buffets in Massachusetts; they're all out in California.
I'm not much into gambling myself; I prefer guaranteed rewards for all monetary expenditures. I will not pay just to lose money. Seems illogical to me.
Of course, now "battle lines will be drawn" over Patrick's decision, pitting the evangelicals and Christianists against the liberal secularists, gambling addicts and buffet-lovers. Why does there have to be a fight about everything? As to the fact that more casinos gives those with gambling addictions a place to hit-up, that's a gambling addict's problem. We don't hide all the alcohol away because some alcoholic might see it. It's an addicts responsibility to take control of their lives, not mine.
Destination casinos now adays are more family-oriented anyway, and this in my mind makes them less the crime destinations that they could be. Personally, I think all the grungy poor people and senior citizens that haunt the places with delusions of getting rich quick or acquiring something inheritable at the last minute--when all they're doing is squandering what little they make from minimum wage or social security--are much scarier in general.
Anyway, all I want is a buffet within 50 miles. Thank you Governor Patrick!
Americans in uproar over foot-tapping scandal
Senator Larry Craig.
As I hear it, he was in a bathroom stall in an airport, an officer went into the stall next to Craig, and Craig tapped the officer's foot, which is [apparently] a sign that Craig [allegedly] wanted to get kinky. But did he get kinky? I thought I was in for a real juicy story, but no, nothing about getting kinky. Just footsies.
This is stupid on so many levels.
1. Why would Craig plead guilty to this, even to just get it out of the way, if he was innocent? What kind of idiot...?
2. When did tapping someone's foot = lewd behavior, or something that someone could get arrested for? You're telling me you can be arrested for tapping someone's foot, on the assumption that it means you want to get kinky? Anyone could do that by mistake, having no clue that foot tapping = let's get it on. Did you know that? I didn't. But I'm going to be paying very close attention to my foot the next time I use public facilities.
I think this is like the whole Foley thing. The merest hint of the idea that one of these old dudes is gay or might want to get kinky and it's the end of Congress as we know it. I don't care if Craig is gay, in fact, I don't want to know or hear anything about it!
At least he's Republican. Sure. Resign. Let a Democrat take your place. I'm ok with that.
As I hear it, he was in a bathroom stall in an airport, an officer went into the stall next to Craig, and Craig tapped the officer's foot, which is [apparently] a sign that Craig [allegedly] wanted to get kinky. But did he get kinky? I thought I was in for a real juicy story, but no, nothing about getting kinky. Just footsies.
This is stupid on so many levels.
1. Why would Craig plead guilty to this, even to just get it out of the way, if he was innocent? What kind of idiot...?
2. When did tapping someone's foot = lewd behavior, or something that someone could get arrested for? You're telling me you can be arrested for tapping someone's foot, on the assumption that it means you want to get kinky? Anyone could do that by mistake, having no clue that foot tapping = let's get it on. Did you know that? I didn't. But I'm going to be paying very close attention to my foot the next time I use public facilities.
I think this is like the whole Foley thing. The merest hint of the idea that one of these old dudes is gay or might want to get kinky and it's the end of Congress as we know it. I don't care if Craig is gay, in fact, I don't want to know or hear anything about it!
At least he's Republican. Sure. Resign. Let a Democrat take your place. I'm ok with that.
David Blane is an idiot
So David's been living in a water-filled sphere, why, I'm not sure, but maybe it's to gain the record of looking like an idiot for the longest continuous period of time.
I turned it on for background noise. They said he'll escape or die trying, and I figured it'd be a bit more interesting if he died trying. After all, he's the idiot who decided to do this silly stunt and they give us two options. I feel I'm fully in my right to bet on either one of those options.
Escape artists always live, but that's lame--that's what everyone always expects. If I'm gonna watch one of these ridiculous stunts, I want to be surprised. I want the unexpected.
I'm not staying up to see the results. Que sera sera.
I turned it on for background noise. They said he'll escape or die trying, and I figured it'd be a bit more interesting if he died trying. After all, he's the idiot who decided to do this silly stunt and they give us two options. I feel I'm fully in my right to bet on either one of those options.
Escape artists always live, but that's lame--that's what everyone always expects. If I'm gonna watch one of these ridiculous stunts, I want to be surprised. I want the unexpected.
I'm not staying up to see the results. Que sera sera.
Jesus Christ our Saviour who art made of Wheat
So here's the ridiculous story of the week:
Haley Waldman, an eight-year-old girl with celiac sprue disease, a genetic intolerance to gluton, which is contained in wheat and other grains, was denied her first Holy Communion by the Catholic church because the host is (and apparently must be) made out of wheat. Eat wheat or beat it, basically. But if Haley eats wheat, it could cause her serious problems--even a little.
My understanding is the host represents the body of Christ? Priest: "Well, clearly and obviously Jesus Christ was made out of wheat, not rice my stupid child."
Apparently Jesus ate wheat bread at the last supper, and the church insists it be wheat because Jesus ate wheat. Do you think Jesus gave his father's damn whether or not he was eating wheat or rice or rye or Wonder Bread that day? Perhaps he had more important things on his mind? I can see it now. Christ: "Well guys, it's been fun but this may be my last meal on God's green Earth...but before I leave, I have something very important to tell you. One of you is planning to--wait, is this bread made of rice? Waiter! WAITER! I asked for wheat bread! What kind of second-rate God-forsaken establishment is this? Get me some wheat bread damnit before I call on dad to smite you all. Unbelievable. Where was I?" Judas: "Erm, something about camels and needles?" Paul (a squinty glance at Judas): "One of us is planning something?" Christ: "Oh, right. As I was saying..."
I'm not religious, but even if I was I'd be pretty sure a lousy communion wouldn't prohibit a girl from receiving Christ's love. Don't people get it? I do and I'm not even Christian: one's relationship with God is just that--their own. No institution should ever try to dictate the terms of that relationship. The church gets caught up in all these silly rules and bureaucracy and they miss the point of their own religion: it's not about a f'in wheat wafer, it's about a spiritual connection and a love that transcends space and time. Methinks it can transcend a wafer-thin piece of wheat.
Haley Waldman, an eight-year-old girl with celiac sprue disease, a genetic intolerance to gluton, which is contained in wheat and other grains, was denied her first Holy Communion by the Catholic church because the host is (and apparently must be) made out of wheat. Eat wheat or beat it, basically. But if Haley eats wheat, it could cause her serious problems--even a little.
My understanding is the host represents the body of Christ? Priest: "Well, clearly and obviously Jesus Christ was made out of wheat, not rice my stupid child."
Apparently Jesus ate wheat bread at the last supper, and the church insists it be wheat because Jesus ate wheat. Do you think Jesus gave his father's damn whether or not he was eating wheat or rice or rye or Wonder Bread that day? Perhaps he had more important things on his mind? I can see it now. Christ: "Well guys, it's been fun but this may be my last meal on God's green Earth...but before I leave, I have something very important to tell you. One of you is planning to--wait, is this bread made of rice? Waiter! WAITER! I asked for wheat bread! What kind of second-rate God-forsaken establishment is this? Get me some wheat bread damnit before I call on dad to smite you all. Unbelievable. Where was I?" Judas: "Erm, something about camels and needles?" Paul (a squinty glance at Judas): "One of us is planning something?" Christ: "Oh, right. As I was saying..."
I'm not religious, but even if I was I'd be pretty sure a lousy communion wouldn't prohibit a girl from receiving Christ's love. Don't people get it? I do and I'm not even Christian: one's relationship with God is just that--their own. No institution should ever try to dictate the terms of that relationship. The church gets caught up in all these silly rules and bureaucracy and they miss the point of their own religion: it's not about a f'in wheat wafer, it's about a spiritual connection and a love that transcends space and time. Methinks it can transcend a wafer-thin piece of wheat.
Update from the Ministry of Truth
U.S. State Department Counterterrorism Coordinator Henry Crumpton: The U.S. war on terrorism has made the world safer.
Terrorist attacks in 2004: 3,129.
Terrorist attacks in 2005: 11,000 +, causing 14,600 lives.
Is the world safer today than the previous year? Crumpton: "I think so."
Terrorist attacks in 2004: 3,129.
Terrorist attacks in 2005: 11,000 +, causing 14,600 lives.
Is the world safer today than the previous year? Crumpton: "I think so."
Congratulations, I don't give a f###
...or just enough to rant about it.
Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes had a baby. Brittney Spears is pregnant again. Who the f### cares?
Sorry Tom, "Suri" does not mean "red rose." It means "red," the universal color of prostitution. Oh but don't tell Tom that: "You don't know about translation! I do!" The newsanchor the other day said, in preface to ANOTHER story, "everyone's talking about Tom's new baby." No, beg to differ, YOU keep talking about Tom's baby! The media! Enough already! The two of them will be divorced in another, oh, year tops (being extremely liberal), and will have added another child-from-a-broken home to this country.
Don't people get it? People magazine exhalts the marriage of a dream couple only to literally mourn the "unexpected" split of the same couple in the NEXT EDITION. I can predict the course of hollywood marriages as accurately as I can predict the course of my s### into the toilet bowl!
And Brittney? She's this close to dangling children out of windows and seven months after the first, she's popping out another one, proving quite efficiently that she does, in fact, have a first-class ticket on the white-trash wagon.
I abhor celebrity news. We should just leave them all alone and limit our encounters with them to a large screen in a dark room. I actually don't want to see any movie with Tom Cruise because a.) I think he's a dumb-ass and b.) I've seen his face enough already, I'm sick of it.
Back to more important matters...
Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes had a baby. Brittney Spears is pregnant again. Who the f### cares?
Sorry Tom, "Suri" does not mean "red rose." It means "red," the universal color of prostitution. Oh but don't tell Tom that: "You don't know about translation! I do!" The newsanchor the other day said, in preface to ANOTHER story, "everyone's talking about Tom's new baby." No, beg to differ, YOU keep talking about Tom's baby! The media! Enough already! The two of them will be divorced in another, oh, year tops (being extremely liberal), and will have added another child-from-a-broken home to this country.
Don't people get it? People magazine exhalts the marriage of a dream couple only to literally mourn the "unexpected" split of the same couple in the NEXT EDITION. I can predict the course of hollywood marriages as accurately as I can predict the course of my s### into the toilet bowl!
And Brittney? She's this close to dangling children out of windows and seven months after the first, she's popping out another one, proving quite efficiently that she does, in fact, have a first-class ticket on the white-trash wagon.
I abhor celebrity news. We should just leave them all alone and limit our encounters with them to a large screen in a dark room. I actually don't want to see any movie with Tom Cruise because a.) I think he's a dumb-ass and b.) I've seen his face enough already, I'm sick of it.
Back to more important matters...
Where Bush and Ahmadinejad see eye to eye
George W. Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are soon to come to blows. Yet for all the tension, there is one very frighteneing thing on which they see eye to eye: eschatology.
Eschatology is the doctrine of "end time"--the end of days...the apocalypse.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in the immiment reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi'ism's version of the Messiah. He's been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away and believes it's the purpose of the Islamic revolution to prepare the way for the messianic redemption.
Bush was taught by Billy Graham, who told him to live in anticipation of the "Second Coming." Dr. Tony Evans, founder of the Promise Keepers, taught Bush that seizure of earthly power by the "people of God" is the only way the world can be rescued from the end. This is the eschatology in which Bush believes. He's come to see himself as an agent of God who's been called to "restore the earth to God's control."
Says Bush, "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation." (Sounds just as crazy as anything Ahmadinejad ever said.)
They both think it's their duty to conquer the world with their religion. They both think this must be done before the arrival of their messiah. And they both think they're the ones to do it. No wonder they're butting heads: they see the final battle forming, they see the opportunity arising. The armageddon is coming closer and they're eager for the rapture.
I think their both stupid, and probably, if things pan out for them, antichrists both of them. It's not that the end of days might actually come...it's that these men might self-fulfill their prophecies. That's what we should all be afraid of.
Eschatology is the doctrine of "end time"--the end of days...the apocalypse.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in the immiment reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi'ism's version of the Messiah. He's been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away and believes it's the purpose of the Islamic revolution to prepare the way for the messianic redemption.
Bush was taught by Billy Graham, who told him to live in anticipation of the "Second Coming." Dr. Tony Evans, founder of the Promise Keepers, taught Bush that seizure of earthly power by the "people of God" is the only way the world can be rescued from the end. This is the eschatology in which Bush believes. He's come to see himself as an agent of God who's been called to "restore the earth to God's control."
Says Bush, "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation." (Sounds just as crazy as anything Ahmadinejad ever said.)
They both think it's their duty to conquer the world with their religion. They both think this must be done before the arrival of their messiah. And they both think they're the ones to do it. No wonder they're butting heads: they see the final battle forming, they see the opportunity arising. The armageddon is coming closer and they're eager for the rapture.
I think their both stupid, and probably, if things pan out for them, antichrists both of them. It's not that the end of days might actually come...it's that these men might self-fulfill their prophecies. That's what we should all be afraid of.
The letter of the law & the spirit of America
Illegal immigrants. At one point we were all "illegal" immigrants to this land, and immigrants made this land. Immigration is the foundation of America, the hand that built America, and the vehicle for the search of the American dream.
I do not believe that we can allow immigrants to use the services of this country without paying their share and carrying their weight. But they should be given the chance to do so.
I suppose, without knowing much about illegal immigrants, that there are two types. Those who come thinking life will be easier if they can exploit the United States' social services, and those thinking they'll have more opportunities to support themselves and make an honest living. I have issues with legal citizens who abuse welfare or other services, so I wouldn't have much sympathy for free loaders. As for the latter, I believe they're coming in search of a better life and a way to feed their families and give their families a future. They're not criminal masterminds with malicious intentions.
Immediately deporting all 11 mil or so illegal immigrants (illegrants -- its quicker to type) in this country is ridiculous and would no doubt cause economic damage to this country. I do believe that illegrants in part take jobs that Americans don't want, and they do it for cheaper. Many companies have come to depend on this cheap labor. I'm not saying it's "right," shouldn't be changed, or that it's the ideal system, but it IS the system right now. Immediate deportation would force thousands of companies to hire minimum-wage or higher-paid employees, which would force costs to rise, the bankruptcy of many companies, and an economic backlash that would hurt the country's economy. Immediate deportation is quite simply wreckless--to this country and to millions of lives.
Illegrants should be allowed the chance to become legal, but they should have to make a choice: work towards citizenship and the responsibilities that entails, or go home. If they're the type that want a free ride, they shouldn't be here.
How to prevent illegration in the future? Well, if we're that concerned about it, build a wall along the border of Mexico. But to be fair, may as well build one up on the 49th parallel, too. I hear illegal squirrel immigration is a problem up there--they take our nuts and crap in our woods, but they don't pay taxes (though some argue they only take the nuts American squirrels don't want and their crap is a good furtilizer for future nut-bearing trees).
But make little gates along the wall and set up little offices, like mini Ellis Islands. We could create a few thousand jobs with a Department of Border-Crossing Registration, where immigrants sign their name on the line, have a tracking device implanted into their skin, and are eligible to apply for Illegrant-wage jobs (a standard rate lower than minimum for Jobs Americans Don't Want (JADW), a national index of unwanted jobs). But the JADW has a union, United Workers of Unwanted Jobs (UWUJ), which works to gradually increase the illegrant-wage. (By now "illegrant" has made it into the mainstream thanks to a clever blogger.) These then semillegant workers can work towards full citizenship, at which point they have the tracking device removed (unless Republicans stay in power), and can apply for jobs that Americans would rather not have to do.
I think what I'm getting it is that it's very hard to actually "solve" this "problem" without some absurd scheme.
Immigration imbued America with its spirit, so we should approach the issue with some soul.
I do not believe that we can allow immigrants to use the services of this country without paying their share and carrying their weight. But they should be given the chance to do so.
I suppose, without knowing much about illegal immigrants, that there are two types. Those who come thinking life will be easier if they can exploit the United States' social services, and those thinking they'll have more opportunities to support themselves and make an honest living. I have issues with legal citizens who abuse welfare or other services, so I wouldn't have much sympathy for free loaders. As for the latter, I believe they're coming in search of a better life and a way to feed their families and give their families a future. They're not criminal masterminds with malicious intentions.
Immediately deporting all 11 mil or so illegal immigrants (illegrants -- its quicker to type) in this country is ridiculous and would no doubt cause economic damage to this country. I do believe that illegrants in part take jobs that Americans don't want, and they do it for cheaper. Many companies have come to depend on this cheap labor. I'm not saying it's "right," shouldn't be changed, or that it's the ideal system, but it IS the system right now. Immediate deportation would force thousands of companies to hire minimum-wage or higher-paid employees, which would force costs to rise, the bankruptcy of many companies, and an economic backlash that would hurt the country's economy. Immediate deportation is quite simply wreckless--to this country and to millions of lives.
Illegrants should be allowed the chance to become legal, but they should have to make a choice: work towards citizenship and the responsibilities that entails, or go home. If they're the type that want a free ride, they shouldn't be here.
How to prevent illegration in the future? Well, if we're that concerned about it, build a wall along the border of Mexico. But to be fair, may as well build one up on the 49th parallel, too. I hear illegal squirrel immigration is a problem up there--they take our nuts and crap in our woods, but they don't pay taxes (though some argue they only take the nuts American squirrels don't want and their crap is a good furtilizer for future nut-bearing trees).
But make little gates along the wall and set up little offices, like mini Ellis Islands. We could create a few thousand jobs with a Department of Border-Crossing Registration, where immigrants sign their name on the line, have a tracking device implanted into their skin, and are eligible to apply for Illegrant-wage jobs (a standard rate lower than minimum for Jobs Americans Don't Want (JADW), a national index of unwanted jobs). But the JADW has a union, United Workers of Unwanted Jobs (UWUJ), which works to gradually increase the illegrant-wage. (By now "illegrant" has made it into the mainstream thanks to a clever blogger.) These then semillegant workers can work towards full citizenship, at which point they have the tracking device removed (unless Republicans stay in power), and can apply for jobs that Americans would rather not have to do.
I think what I'm getting it is that it's very hard to actually "solve" this "problem" without some absurd scheme.
Immigration imbued America with its spirit, so we should approach the issue with some soul.
Yeah, what Harry Taylor said...
Add Harry Taylor, 61, a Charlotte NC real estate broker, to my list of heroes.
At one of George W. Bush's "town hall meetings" in Charlotte, this is what Taylor had to say to the President:
"While I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice about whether I can abort a pregnancy.
"What I wanted to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened, by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency. I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself.
"I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now," Taylor said. "That is part of what this country's about."
At one point during this, Bush laughed at the man, saying "I'm not your favorite guy." What kind of President laughs at and mocks a very serious comment like this? Bush is disrespectful and obviously unabashed. Taylor, on the other hand, speaks calmly, respectfully, and is even complementary at the end.
These town hall meetings of Bush's are a mockery of intelligent discussion. They're no more serious than a press conference with the latest boy band filled with hundreds of swooning prepubescent girls. It's a fan club is what it is. Most people at these meetings stand up to say they agree completely with the President, wish him luck, send him their prayers, commend his courage, kiss his feat, praise the lord, and dance around with poisonous snakes. I think you have to make one hit for the Republican party before you can get a ticket to these things, to prove that you'd kill for the President. The liberals and people who do not agree or like Bush (the large majority of the country at this point) who do get through, well, that's who the attendents of the next town meeting have to kill to get in.
They're staged, screened, washed, rinsed and repeated the same in every city. Obviously, because any random sampling of Americans would turn up a majority of people who don't like him and wouldn't have nice things to say to him.
THANK YOU, Harry Taylor, for representing the majority.
At one of George W. Bush's "town hall meetings" in Charlotte, this is what Taylor had to say to the President:
"While I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice about whether I can abort a pregnancy.
"What I wanted to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened, by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency. I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself.
"I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now," Taylor said. "That is part of what this country's about."
At one point during this, Bush laughed at the man, saying "I'm not your favorite guy." What kind of President laughs at and mocks a very serious comment like this? Bush is disrespectful and obviously unabashed. Taylor, on the other hand, speaks calmly, respectfully, and is even complementary at the end.
These town hall meetings of Bush's are a mockery of intelligent discussion. They're no more serious than a press conference with the latest boy band filled with hundreds of swooning prepubescent girls. It's a fan club is what it is. Most people at these meetings stand up to say they agree completely with the President, wish him luck, send him their prayers, commend his courage, kiss his feat, praise the lord, and dance around with poisonous snakes. I think you have to make one hit for the Republican party before you can get a ticket to these things, to prove that you'd kill for the President. The liberals and people who do not agree or like Bush (the large majority of the country at this point) who do get through, well, that's who the attendents of the next town meeting have to kill to get in.
They're staged, screened, washed, rinsed and repeated the same in every city. Obviously, because any random sampling of Americans would turn up a majority of people who don't like him and wouldn't have nice things to say to him.
THANK YOU, Harry Taylor, for representing the majority.
In Condi We Trust?
Further down, I talked about the proposed deal between the U.S. and India ("National security?")--we give them nuclear assistance for civilian purposes, they let us inspect their civilian nuclear power plants (not, mind you, their nuclear weapon making facilities).
Now our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is trying to convince Congress that this is a good idea...because clearly it's such a great idea.
Critics and Congresspeople are astutely concerned that such a deal may enhance India's nuclear arsenal, lead to an arms race, and destabilize the region (my own predictions further down). Save for the Republicans (huh?).
Republican Sen. George Allen says, "This is a very good bet for our country." (So we're gambling with our security?)
Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold says, "I fear that this deal could end up making our world less safe rather than more safe." (hear, hear)
As a side note, I can't fathom how Republicans are supposed to be big on security and hard on terror, and yet whole-heartedly behind plans to give middle-eastern nations more nuclear power on the words of proven idiots.
Speaking of idiots, Condi says, "Civil nuclear cooperation with India will not lead to an arms race in South Asia," and, "Nothing we or any other potential international suppliers provide to India under this initiative will enhance its military capacity or add to its military stockpile."
Let's just think back on Condi's track record on weapons of mass destruction. On Iraq, she was sure they had them. Everything she said about Iraq was wrong. So, clearly, we should accept what Condi says on faith.
Mark my words, this is idiocy.
Now our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is trying to convince Congress that this is a good idea...because clearly it's such a great idea.
Critics and Congresspeople are astutely concerned that such a deal may enhance India's nuclear arsenal, lead to an arms race, and destabilize the region (my own predictions further down). Save for the Republicans (huh?).
Republican Sen. George Allen says, "This is a very good bet for our country." (So we're gambling with our security?)
Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold says, "I fear that this deal could end up making our world less safe rather than more safe." (hear, hear)
As a side note, I can't fathom how Republicans are supposed to be big on security and hard on terror, and yet whole-heartedly behind plans to give middle-eastern nations more nuclear power on the words of proven idiots.
Speaking of idiots, Condi says, "Civil nuclear cooperation with India will not lead to an arms race in South Asia," and, "Nothing we or any other potential international suppliers provide to India under this initiative will enhance its military capacity or add to its military stockpile."
Let's just think back on Condi's track record on weapons of mass destruction. On Iraq, she was sure they had them. Everything she said about Iraq was wrong. So, clearly, we should accept what Condi says on faith.
Mark my words, this is idiocy.
Hugging is good!
I've ranted about hype, now for some ranting about hysteria.
There was a news story this morning about a girl who was disciplined at school for hugging a classmate. She was forced to write a letter explaining how she "touched" the other girl, how the girl didn't like it, and how she shouldn't hug classmates.
This "bad touch, good touch" thing is going too far. There are "bad touches," but since when did hugging become one of them? I think it happened when teachers and anyone else who ever comes close to a child started being afraid that self-righteous busybodies or over-zealous parents might think they were doing inappropriate things to children. The whole stranger-danger, child-sex-abuse thing has become an hysteria of fear. The backlash is that everyone has to become androids around children and avoid any contact with them as if they were plagued. Hugs are good! They make kids feel appreciated! Good touch is good, but now every touch is becoming bad touch.
Now it used to be that we were trying to protect children from exploitative adults who lure children knowing full well what they're doing is wrong. But it seems the fear and paranoia has seeped down a generation, and we're protecting children from other children, worried that other children are also monsters. There are sexual harassment cases and even molestation cases involving very young children. Can they really be exploitative angler-fish if they're just doing what comes naturally to children? They might do "bad" things as children, but that's still normal and they still don't know any better. A conviction at the ripe old age of 5 is more likely to scar them psychologically and tarnish the rest of their lives. It's like we're trying to protect childrens' childhood from immoral adults, yet stripping away their childhood at the same time.
We're supposed to be protecting children from "harm" (whatever that is and however you actually protect children from it), but I say the psychological harm of dragging unknowing children into adult-scope consequences for relatively innocent misadventures, and even punishing them for hugging, outweighs these supposed means of protecting them from said harm. So in protecting them, we're sometimes harming them. Doesn't make much sense. In fact, it's absurd.
The hsyteria goes further in the adult world. Parents have been arrested on child porn charges for picking up innocent pictures of their two-year-old in the bathtub and pats on the butt make national news. Meanwhile, there is some really nasty stuff going on out there that really does obviously harm children. We're wasting our time, energy, and money on the trivial stuff and creating problems where they don't exist.
Now that is stupid.
I quite like hugs and always did as a child.
There was a news story this morning about a girl who was disciplined at school for hugging a classmate. She was forced to write a letter explaining how she "touched" the other girl, how the girl didn't like it, and how she shouldn't hug classmates.
This "bad touch, good touch" thing is going too far. There are "bad touches," but since when did hugging become one of them? I think it happened when teachers and anyone else who ever comes close to a child started being afraid that self-righteous busybodies or over-zealous parents might think they were doing inappropriate things to children. The whole stranger-danger, child-sex-abuse thing has become an hysteria of fear. The backlash is that everyone has to become androids around children and avoid any contact with them as if they were plagued. Hugs are good! They make kids feel appreciated! Good touch is good, but now every touch is becoming bad touch.
Now it used to be that we were trying to protect children from exploitative adults who lure children knowing full well what they're doing is wrong. But it seems the fear and paranoia has seeped down a generation, and we're protecting children from other children, worried that other children are also monsters. There are sexual harassment cases and even molestation cases involving very young children. Can they really be exploitative angler-fish if they're just doing what comes naturally to children? They might do "bad" things as children, but that's still normal and they still don't know any better. A conviction at the ripe old age of 5 is more likely to scar them psychologically and tarnish the rest of their lives. It's like we're trying to protect childrens' childhood from immoral adults, yet stripping away their childhood at the same time.
We're supposed to be protecting children from "harm" (whatever that is and however you actually protect children from it), but I say the psychological harm of dragging unknowing children into adult-scope consequences for relatively innocent misadventures, and even punishing them for hugging, outweighs these supposed means of protecting them from said harm. So in protecting them, we're sometimes harming them. Doesn't make much sense. In fact, it's absurd.
The hsyteria goes further in the adult world. Parents have been arrested on child porn charges for picking up innocent pictures of their two-year-old in the bathtub and pats on the butt make national news. Meanwhile, there is some really nasty stuff going on out there that really does obviously harm children. We're wasting our time, energy, and money on the trivial stuff and creating problems where they don't exist.
Now that is stupid.
I quite like hugs and always did as a child.
Darfur: Where's the outrage?
In the region of the Sudan known as Darfur, militias made up of Arab tribes called janjaweed are massacring African tribes with Sudanese government support. A genocide is in full swing and has been for a while.
George W. Bush, when refering to the genocide in Rwanda, once said "Not on my watch." So where exactly is he looking? Fighting a war based on fake WMDs in Iraq, where the genocidal Hussein is out of power, and an insurgency of our causing threatens to throw the country into a well-predicted civil war. When it comes to picking battles, Iraq was a blind idiot's choice. If ever there were to be a righteous war in this generation, Darfur would be the place.
But no one else is looking at Darfur either, where 200,000 people have been murdered. Why is the world letting this happen? The holocaust wasn't enough? Rwanda wasn't enough? Or is it because this is Africa we're talking about? No big oil industry, no advanced economies, where the only thing produced in abundance is AIDS. Could it be the ultimate racism?
It's disgusting that no one is stepping in on Darfur. The U.S., which is supposed to be the world's champion for stepping in, is instead picking fights and instigating chaos in regions that had been relatively stable. Bush's insistence that the U.S. will stay in Iraq is tantamount to an idiot bashing his head against a cement wall. Meanwhile, people continue to die under the knife of an unchecked terrorist menace with government ties, of which the entire world has washed its hands.
There's a supposed to be a war on terror. Ironic that the U.S. is the one causing the terror, while real terrorists get a free pass.
George W. Bush, when refering to the genocide in Rwanda, once said "Not on my watch." So where exactly is he looking? Fighting a war based on fake WMDs in Iraq, where the genocidal Hussein is out of power, and an insurgency of our causing threatens to throw the country into a well-predicted civil war. When it comes to picking battles, Iraq was a blind idiot's choice. If ever there were to be a righteous war in this generation, Darfur would be the place.
But no one else is looking at Darfur either, where 200,000 people have been murdered. Why is the world letting this happen? The holocaust wasn't enough? Rwanda wasn't enough? Or is it because this is Africa we're talking about? No big oil industry, no advanced economies, where the only thing produced in abundance is AIDS. Could it be the ultimate racism?
It's disgusting that no one is stepping in on Darfur. The U.S., which is supposed to be the world's champion for stepping in, is instead picking fights and instigating chaos in regions that had been relatively stable. Bush's insistence that the U.S. will stay in Iraq is tantamount to an idiot bashing his head against a cement wall. Meanwhile, people continue to die under the knife of an unchecked terrorist menace with government ties, of which the entire world has washed its hands.
There's a supposed to be a war on terror. Ironic that the U.S. is the one causing the terror, while real terrorists get a free pass.
Reactionary measures
A few things regarding teenagers have me quite annoyed. The first is a report on news about the possibility of high schools requireing breathalizer tests of its students to enforce the drinking age. The second is a proposal to up the driving age from 16 1/2 to 17 1/2 because of two recent fatal car accidents involving teenagers.
These measures are purely reactionary, aren't very sensical in my opinion, and repressive to a population that is already one of the most repressed in our society. They punish everyone for the mistakes of a few and as such condemn a population for what might just as easily be caused by 1. irresponsible parents, or poor parenting, and 2. the very system that society has imposed on teenagers and children.
The Drinking Age
First of all, I think the drinking age needs to be abolished outright. We want teenagers to be responsible and we punish them for being irresponsible, but the drinking age itself is legally imposed irresponsibility. It says that no matter what, until the ripe old age of 21, a person is not responsible enough to drink alcohol. So what exactly does everyone expect? Not to mention that rules themselves instigate rebellion. I believe teens could and would be responsible enough if we let them.
Every now and then you hear of a parent getting in legal trouble for hosting alcoholic parties. That's smart parenting: allow the kids to drink at home so 1. they're not doing it in some strange place where anything might happen, 2. don't have to drive anywhere and risk accidents, knowing that they'd do it anyway, and 3. the parents can monitor what's going on and prevent things like life-threatening over drinking, drugs and other truly damaging things, and maybe even prevent drunken sex.
Abolishing the drinking age means children could be exposed to alcohol in a gradual, natural way under parental supervision and guidance throughout their childhoods. They'd learn how to respect alcohol which would probably decrease drunkeness (I sound like a puritan minister) and the dangers associated with drinking. But above all else, I think, it would keep alcohol an every day thing, like soda or milk, that is so common that drinking it is not seen as anything rebellious or cool--it just is. The alternative is what I think is rather ridiculous: utterly bar any drop of alcohol until 21, and then let 'em at it without any prior experience with the substance, no idea of how much they can take, and a pent-up desire to drown themselves in the stuff (after years of telling them how evil the stuff is).
My thoughts are similar with the voting age, for that matter. The government has a huge impact on children, and properly informed, a believe children are capable of casting votes on matters that concern them. But that's another blog.
Breathalizer tests in high schools is an offensive idea to me. I never drank (still don't really care for alcohol) in high school (that makes me an exception), and you can bet I would have made a fuss if someone forced me to take a breathalizer. Again, trying to teach responsibility by assuming irresponsibility, to an insulting, Machiavellian extreme. Drug tests or urin tests on the way into work (where drugs are usually against the rules) would receive a massive amount of protest among adults, and yet we casually consider such repressive practices against teens. The real solutions are always better education, better parenting, and a rational system (all of which seem to be in short supply).
The Driving Age
I do believe there should be a driving age. Driving is a very complicated thing that immediately puts the driver's and many others' safety and lives at risk and requires a certain amoung of mental development. And steering wheels are yae-high. But leave well enough alone. Two, even five, accidents involving teens does not mean that suddenly teenagers on the whole are no longer capable of getting their licenses at 16.5 yrs. All it does is prevent good drivers from getting an extra-years' practice, or any driver that's not going to cause a fatal accident (98% I'd wager) an extra years' practice.
The smarter solutions are thus: increase the amount of time required in training with driving instructors. Perhaps even start driving instruction earlier (15 1/2) and require 12-months of training, part-time with both an instructor and parents (or a familiar adult, say, 25 or older). The point in my mind is to make better, smarter, more experienced drivers, and you can't do that by forcing teens to wait even longer to start. Allow them to train earlier and they have more experience by the time they're 16 or 17. Make the training more rigorous and they'll have a better understanding of the rules. Here's a real humdinger: how bout making the driving tests just a smidgeon harder. get rid of questions like "Q. When the light is green, it means: A. GO" (the questions are that stupid, it's true).
We wonder why teens might be worse drivers? It's in big part because of the system. They don't have enough experience by the time they're on the road on their own, the training is too short and not rigorous enough, and a chimpanzee could pass the tests. It's not the kids' fault, and the entire teenage population should not be penalized for other people's accidents, as tragic as they might be. I don't mean to sound glib, but accidents happen. Even in the adult world. You never hear anyone demanding more restrictions against adult drivers when adults get into accidents. Most adults, and most teens, do not get into fatal accidents.
I hate reactionary measures. They're 100% based in hysteria and nowhere based on rational thinking. They're just stupid.
These measures are purely reactionary, aren't very sensical in my opinion, and repressive to a population that is already one of the most repressed in our society. They punish everyone for the mistakes of a few and as such condemn a population for what might just as easily be caused by 1. irresponsible parents, or poor parenting, and 2. the very system that society has imposed on teenagers and children.
The Drinking Age
First of all, I think the drinking age needs to be abolished outright. We want teenagers to be responsible and we punish them for being irresponsible, but the drinking age itself is legally imposed irresponsibility. It says that no matter what, until the ripe old age of 21, a person is not responsible enough to drink alcohol. So what exactly does everyone expect? Not to mention that rules themselves instigate rebellion. I believe teens could and would be responsible enough if we let them.
Every now and then you hear of a parent getting in legal trouble for hosting alcoholic parties. That's smart parenting: allow the kids to drink at home so 1. they're not doing it in some strange place where anything might happen, 2. don't have to drive anywhere and risk accidents, knowing that they'd do it anyway, and 3. the parents can monitor what's going on and prevent things like life-threatening over drinking, drugs and other truly damaging things, and maybe even prevent drunken sex.
Abolishing the drinking age means children could be exposed to alcohol in a gradual, natural way under parental supervision and guidance throughout their childhoods. They'd learn how to respect alcohol which would probably decrease drunkeness (I sound like a puritan minister) and the dangers associated with drinking. But above all else, I think, it would keep alcohol an every day thing, like soda or milk, that is so common that drinking it is not seen as anything rebellious or cool--it just is. The alternative is what I think is rather ridiculous: utterly bar any drop of alcohol until 21, and then let 'em at it without any prior experience with the substance, no idea of how much they can take, and a pent-up desire to drown themselves in the stuff (after years of telling them how evil the stuff is).
My thoughts are similar with the voting age, for that matter. The government has a huge impact on children, and properly informed, a believe children are capable of casting votes on matters that concern them. But that's another blog.
Breathalizer tests in high schools is an offensive idea to me. I never drank (still don't really care for alcohol) in high school (that makes me an exception), and you can bet I would have made a fuss if someone forced me to take a breathalizer. Again, trying to teach responsibility by assuming irresponsibility, to an insulting, Machiavellian extreme. Drug tests or urin tests on the way into work (where drugs are usually against the rules) would receive a massive amount of protest among adults, and yet we casually consider such repressive practices against teens. The real solutions are always better education, better parenting, and a rational system (all of which seem to be in short supply).
The Driving Age
I do believe there should be a driving age. Driving is a very complicated thing that immediately puts the driver's and many others' safety and lives at risk and requires a certain amoung of mental development. And steering wheels are yae-high. But leave well enough alone. Two, even five, accidents involving teens does not mean that suddenly teenagers on the whole are no longer capable of getting their licenses at 16.5 yrs. All it does is prevent good drivers from getting an extra-years' practice, or any driver that's not going to cause a fatal accident (98% I'd wager) an extra years' practice.
The smarter solutions are thus: increase the amount of time required in training with driving instructors. Perhaps even start driving instruction earlier (15 1/2) and require 12-months of training, part-time with both an instructor and parents (or a familiar adult, say, 25 or older). The point in my mind is to make better, smarter, more experienced drivers, and you can't do that by forcing teens to wait even longer to start. Allow them to train earlier and they have more experience by the time they're 16 or 17. Make the training more rigorous and they'll have a better understanding of the rules. Here's a real humdinger: how bout making the driving tests just a smidgeon harder. get rid of questions like "Q. When the light is green, it means: A. GO" (the questions are that stupid, it's true).
We wonder why teens might be worse drivers? It's in big part because of the system. They don't have enough experience by the time they're on the road on their own, the training is too short and not rigorous enough, and a chimpanzee could pass the tests. It's not the kids' fault, and the entire teenage population should not be penalized for other people's accidents, as tragic as they might be. I don't mean to sound glib, but accidents happen. Even in the adult world. You never hear anyone demanding more restrictions against adult drivers when adults get into accidents. Most adults, and most teens, do not get into fatal accidents.
I hate reactionary measures. They're 100% based in hysteria and nowhere based on rational thinking. They're just stupid.
Retirement planning?
From American Banker (3/22):
"KeyCorp's chairman and chief executive, Henry Meyer...got paid $4.8 million last year in salary, bonuses, and contributions to his retirement account..."
His salary is $950,000, plus a $3.5 million bonus.
$4.45 million could set ME up for LIFE, and this guys actually bothering to add $350,000 to a retirement account every year? Is he worried he's going to run out? Frugal must not exist in his dictionary, yeesh...
"KeyCorp's chairman and chief executive, Henry Meyer...got paid $4.8 million last year in salary, bonuses, and contributions to his retirement account..."
His salary is $950,000, plus a $3.5 million bonus.
$4.45 million could set ME up for LIFE, and this guys actually bothering to add $350,000 to a retirement account every year? Is he worried he's going to run out? Frugal must not exist in his dictionary, yeesh...
U.S. Opposes Human Rights?
The U.S. voted against the U.N.'s establishment of the Human Rights Council.
There is something terribly wrong when the United States is the only country to vote against the creation of a Human Rights watchdog. Shouldn't this country stand for human rights? Could they make it any more obvious that they really want to perpetuate the torture of "enemy combatents"?
How can this president even claim to be a Christian when he acts more like a Nazi?
There is something terribly wrong when the United States is the only country to vote against the creation of a Human Rights watchdog. Shouldn't this country stand for human rights? Could they make it any more obvious that they really want to perpetuate the torture of "enemy combatents"?
How can this president even claim to be a Christian when he acts more like a Nazi?
Stupid is as stupid does
Scams only require two things: stupid people and the smarter people bad enough to take advantage of them.
I'm not crazy about the scam artists, but I have no sympathy for the stupid people. The way I see it, if you're stupid enough to fall for some of these scams out there, you deserve what you get.
This morning on the news they alerted me to a new scam. You get a letter in the mail saying you've won a lottery, and there's a check. But they tell you to send them money to pay the taxes for the award. Then, presumably, they cancel the check or whatever and make a profit.
What idiot says, "jolly good! Some stranger wants me to send them a check for a lottery I never entered. Sounds sensible." Don't these idiots wonder how they won a lottery they never entered? I'd hate to be one of these people they talk to on the news: "Yep, I was so stupid I actually fell for the scam. Just look me. I look stupid, don't I?" But they don't act that way. They act all violated, outraged, and 100% victim.
Yep, victims of a scam, but victims of stupidity long before that. Stupid is as stupid does, and these guys prove it.
I'm not crazy about the scam artists, but I have no sympathy for the stupid people. The way I see it, if you're stupid enough to fall for some of these scams out there, you deserve what you get.
This morning on the news they alerted me to a new scam. You get a letter in the mail saying you've won a lottery, and there's a check. But they tell you to send them money to pay the taxes for the award. Then, presumably, they cancel the check or whatever and make a profit.
What idiot says, "jolly good! Some stranger wants me to send them a check for a lottery I never entered. Sounds sensible." Don't these idiots wonder how they won a lottery they never entered? I'd hate to be one of these people they talk to on the news: "Yep, I was so stupid I actually fell for the scam. Just look me. I look stupid, don't I?" But they don't act that way. They act all violated, outraged, and 100% victim.
Yep, victims of a scam, but victims of stupidity long before that. Stupid is as stupid does, and these guys prove it.
National security?
When George W. Bush was re-elected, polls indicated that one of the big reasons people voted for him was for his strength on national security and his stance against terrorism. But now, national security seems to have slipped his mind.
First there was the Dubai ports ordeal. I'm ambivalent about this one. On the one hand, the US does have ports run from foreign countries, and the UAE is friendly to us. Just because terrorists came from UAE doesn't mean the UAE had anything to do with it, that they endorse it, or that they're all terrorists. It's as if the UK caught an American rapist and then had a diplomatic row about the US government, as if they somehow supported it or even planned it. On the other hand, even though the UAE gov't doesn't support terrorism, it is possible that someone employed under Dubai Ports does. The Arab world in general is hostile to the West and the US (rioting and killing over a stupid cartoon is enough to prove that). But Dubai Ports does have a solid security record, and they wouldn't have complete control over our port's security. The Coast Guard etc is still responsible for that.
Mainly, I think the Dubai Ports affair looks really bad, and is a PR nightmare for Bush (the more the merrier).
But if this president has taught us one thing, is that he does not learn from his mistakes, or just doesn't care what anyone else thinks (both?). Ok, this president has taught us many, many things about how not to be a president.
Now Mr. Bush is agreeing to give India nuclear technology so they can boost their energy-production (nuclear-weapon production) abilities. Ok, how dumb do you have to be on this one? India and Pakistan are notorious enemies that have been quarreling for a long time. I don't think Pakistan will be all that happy to learn that the US is helping their enemy arm-up. And after we bombed a Pakistan village, killing a bunch of civilians. Won't Pakistan try to arm-up too? Why give either side the upper-hand? Why give nuclear assistance to any country that plans to make more nuclear weapons? Here we are in a face off with Iran on one side of the border, and on the other side giving nuclear technology freely to another country with an itchy trigger finger. Yep. Makes sense.
There's another aspect to this questionable agreement with India. Bush wants to give them nuke assistance so they can decrease their dependence on oil. Hmm. Didn't he mention something like that in his State of the Union? I thought he was talking about the US when he said that, so why did he run off to India with that idea? Not only has Bush forgotten about national security, but apparently he's forgotten about his nation as well. But this is a common theme, too busy bumbling an "unpredicted" insurgency in Iraq to do anything about a hurricane we saw coming for days, with effects scientists have been predicting for years. You'd think that'd be an easy one for Mr. Bush.
So just after criticism for giving our ports to the Middle East, Mr. Bush runs off to give our nuclear technology to India. Batting 100 really. I'm almost giddy to see what mess he'll get himself into next.
First there was the Dubai ports ordeal. I'm ambivalent about this one. On the one hand, the US does have ports run from foreign countries, and the UAE is friendly to us. Just because terrorists came from UAE doesn't mean the UAE had anything to do with it, that they endorse it, or that they're all terrorists. It's as if the UK caught an American rapist and then had a diplomatic row about the US government, as if they somehow supported it or even planned it. On the other hand, even though the UAE gov't doesn't support terrorism, it is possible that someone employed under Dubai Ports does. The Arab world in general is hostile to the West and the US (rioting and killing over a stupid cartoon is enough to prove that). But Dubai Ports does have a solid security record, and they wouldn't have complete control over our port's security. The Coast Guard etc is still responsible for that.
Mainly, I think the Dubai Ports affair looks really bad, and is a PR nightmare for Bush (the more the merrier).
But if this president has taught us one thing, is that he does not learn from his mistakes, or just doesn't care what anyone else thinks (both?). Ok, this president has taught us many, many things about how not to be a president.
Now Mr. Bush is agreeing to give India nuclear technology so they can boost their energy-production (nuclear-weapon production) abilities. Ok, how dumb do you have to be on this one? India and Pakistan are notorious enemies that have been quarreling for a long time. I don't think Pakistan will be all that happy to learn that the US is helping their enemy arm-up. And after we bombed a Pakistan village, killing a bunch of civilians. Won't Pakistan try to arm-up too? Why give either side the upper-hand? Why give nuclear assistance to any country that plans to make more nuclear weapons? Here we are in a face off with Iran on one side of the border, and on the other side giving nuclear technology freely to another country with an itchy trigger finger. Yep. Makes sense.
There's another aspect to this questionable agreement with India. Bush wants to give them nuke assistance so they can decrease their dependence on oil. Hmm. Didn't he mention something like that in his State of the Union? I thought he was talking about the US when he said that, so why did he run off to India with that idea? Not only has Bush forgotten about national security, but apparently he's forgotten about his nation as well. But this is a common theme, too busy bumbling an "unpredicted" insurgency in Iraq to do anything about a hurricane we saw coming for days, with effects scientists have been predicting for years. You'd think that'd be an easy one for Mr. Bush.
So just after criticism for giving our ports to the Middle East, Mr. Bush runs off to give our nuclear technology to India. Batting 100 really. I'm almost giddy to see what mess he'll get himself into next.
Undeserved hype
Nothing annoys me more than when low quality attracts high praise; it pollutes the essence of true quality everywhere.
I'm an unpublished writer. I recently finished writing a 120,000 word piece of science fiction/fantasy appropriate for the adolescent-teen audience +. As market research, I read "Eragon," by Christopher Paolini. This book has been on the NYT best seller list and is hugely popular, for some reason. I shall go no further without saying this book is, for lack of a more erudite way of expressing it, a piece of crap.
So why is it getting so much praise?
As I understand it, Paolini's parents first published his book through their own publishing company, then thrust him on a major marketing campaign. Children liked it, Knopf saw dollar signs and took over the publishing. The book must have skipped straight past the editor. What parent doesn't think their child's work is precious? Should every child's amateur work of fiction be published? Heck no, not without a lot of practice (years), a lot of editing, and a good deal more sense. Paolini, apparently, saw none of this. He ejected a rough draft and it went straight to press.
Is its success due to the fact he wrote the book when he was only 15? Well, I wrote a book (500,000 words) when I was fifteen (if I may gloat, that's at least twice as long as "Eragon"). I went back and breezed through it the other day, and while it commits many of the editing sins seen in "Eragon" (I shall extrapolate), I think it's still far more interesting, intricate, and better written. You'll have to take my word for it, of course. But my book is irrelevant; the point is the fact that Paolini wrote the thing when he was 15 is not particularly impressive to me. If it had been a heck of a lot better, I might be impressed.
Most authors probably do start writing young in one form or another. Afterall, it does take years of practice and learning to turn out something truly professional. However, those first novels never get published, and the authors and their careers are so very grateful for that fact. Those first attemps expose how amateur they once were. Treasured nostalgically perhaps, but none the less an embarrassment when compared to their professional, published works.
Why is "Eragon" so bad?
For one, nothing in it is an original idea. Everything, and I mean everything, is stolen directly from, or a pale imitation of other legendary fantasy series. The connection between the dragons and dragonriders, for example, is straight out of Dragonriders, by Anne McCaffrey. Paolini isn't new for ripping off Tolkien, but he sure does that too in great heaps, down to the word "smote".
Others have noted, and now I can see, that the plot very closely resembles that of Star Wars. Eragon is bestowed with an item from the outside world, evidence of some large-scale struggle (R2-D2/the egg). He finds an elder mentor that was once a part of that struggle and knows a ton about it, but has retired to, uhm, "look after" the young hero (Obe-Wan/Bram). The Empire/Dark Riders/Ergals come looking for that item (the droid/the ring/the egg), and kill Eragon's family (Luke's aunt&uncle). Eragon is therefore forced to venture out with the mentor with the item to stop the evil empire, with said evil empire on his heels. Gets stuck a few times, meets the rebel-without-a-cause (Han/Murtagh)... and so on and so on.
The plot is plodding. There's not a whole lot that goes on, and Eragon conveniently gets out of every problem without much fuss. The book leads up to a big underground battle between dwarves and urgals (they describe this group of urgals as a bigger, tougher breed meant for war--Uruk-Hai anyone?). And then it just ends. Eragon vanquishes a wraith described to look like Ronald McDonald (white face, red hair, can't think of a poorer choice for an evil character), and the book is summed up in a disappointing one line. No denoument. It's as if Paolini got bored with writing or, as I think is more likely, just isn't a good enough writer to find a creative and constructive way of ending a book. "Ok, done," I can see him thinking, giving not a thought to editing.
Then there's the characters. They're flat, cliched, undeveloped, and neurotic. But I think the neurotic part is due more to the fact that Paolini has rather poor insight into psychology, and characters' reactions seem to come out of nowhere. They get angry for stupid reasons, and their anger comes off looking like a 2-year-old's.
A lot of that is due to the diologue, which is probably even worse than the character development. It's dumb, and he uses a lot of cool-sounding words he read in Tolkien and other series, but doesn't use well himself.
The mechanics of his dialogue in particular drove me mad. "I'm talking about things like attributions," he said. Paolini is more likely to write, "Yeah, his attributions made no sense," he contributed informatively. Now, this is only an example, but there are plenty just as bad (if this isn't one he actually used). Is "contributing" a manner of speaking? No. I do not contribute things to you, unless I'm giving money or something. I say things to you--that means I am speaking words to you. Now, you can whisper, or shout, or murmer, but most of these just detract from what is actually being said. And adverbs at the end, like the "informatively" example: If you're a good writer, you don't need to 1. explain the tone, emotion, or purpose of a line of dialogue, or 2. summarize the nature of what's already been said. The dialogue itself should say all of that, and if it doesn't, it means the author doesn't know how to write good dialogue, or isn't confident that their dialogue is strong enough to stand on its own. Case in point.
The sad thing is that Paolini obviously tried to come up with as many alternate ways of saying "said," and as many adverbs to describe his dialogue as possible. Purposefully striving to do the one thing that is most frowned upon by many professionals. Striving, in an attempt at art, at the one greatest way of diluting the dialogue, draining it of art, and giving it the true mark of an amateur.
The greatest danger to Paolini out of all this (since he's obviously making a bit of money off this rough draft) is that he'll be convinced this means he's a great writer and never bother to improve his writing. "Well, if I'm this popular, I obviously have the ability to turn out a masterpiece in the first draft. I must be one of those rare writing geniuses." Afraid not.
The fad will pass as more and more critics realize his writing is extremely poor. He's locked into the Eragon series, with the adolescent crowd that can easily overlook these sins. Shame on Knopf for not submitting the manuscript to a thorough editing before publishing, possibly saving Paolini's long-term career in the process. Shame on them for caring for dollar signs alone. I will not be submitting my manuscript to them, because they demonstrate with their willingness to publish "Eragon" that quality is not much of a concern to them.
I cannot malign Paolini, only his work. As for Paolini, he is simply a naive, unoriginal, unexperienced writer who might have potential if he came up with his own ideas and learned how to write a book. Paolini might have been better if his first rough draft hadn't been published, giving him time to practice and refine his craft. Or if it had been rejected by an editor who told him it was a nice first try, but he has much to learn about professional writing. That would be best. An author needs a challenge; a drive powered by fire.
Does he care? He's obviously making a lot of money off this book. And maybe you don't care: "It must be good if it's so popular, you're just one out of a million who for some reason doesn't like it." Well, I know I'm not alone. Quality will out in the end.
My original question will go unanswered. WHY is it so popular? I cannot comprehend this. I guess the marketing was just that good, and he got enough kids to sing his praise (though I rather think they've been exploited in that regard--they're too young to tell good writing from bad). In any event, it is completely undeserving of praise and makes a mockery of the writing out there that is truly praise worthy.
I'm an unpublished writer. I recently finished writing a 120,000 word piece of science fiction/fantasy appropriate for the adolescent-teen audience +. As market research, I read "Eragon," by Christopher Paolini. This book has been on the NYT best seller list and is hugely popular, for some reason. I shall go no further without saying this book is, for lack of a more erudite way of expressing it, a piece of crap.
So why is it getting so much praise?
As I understand it, Paolini's parents first published his book through their own publishing company, then thrust him on a major marketing campaign. Children liked it, Knopf saw dollar signs and took over the publishing. The book must have skipped straight past the editor. What parent doesn't think their child's work is precious? Should every child's amateur work of fiction be published? Heck no, not without a lot of practice (years), a lot of editing, and a good deal more sense. Paolini, apparently, saw none of this. He ejected a rough draft and it went straight to press.
Is its success due to the fact he wrote the book when he was only 15? Well, I wrote a book (500,000 words) when I was fifteen (if I may gloat, that's at least twice as long as "Eragon"). I went back and breezed through it the other day, and while it commits many of the editing sins seen in "Eragon" (I shall extrapolate), I think it's still far more interesting, intricate, and better written. You'll have to take my word for it, of course. But my book is irrelevant; the point is the fact that Paolini wrote the thing when he was 15 is not particularly impressive to me. If it had been a heck of a lot better, I might be impressed.
Most authors probably do start writing young in one form or another. Afterall, it does take years of practice and learning to turn out something truly professional. However, those first novels never get published, and the authors and their careers are so very grateful for that fact. Those first attemps expose how amateur they once were. Treasured nostalgically perhaps, but none the less an embarrassment when compared to their professional, published works.
Why is "Eragon" so bad?
For one, nothing in it is an original idea. Everything, and I mean everything, is stolen directly from, or a pale imitation of other legendary fantasy series. The connection between the dragons and dragonriders, for example, is straight out of Dragonriders, by Anne McCaffrey. Paolini isn't new for ripping off Tolkien, but he sure does that too in great heaps, down to the word "smote".
Others have noted, and now I can see, that the plot very closely resembles that of Star Wars. Eragon is bestowed with an item from the outside world, evidence of some large-scale struggle (R2-D2/the egg). He finds an elder mentor that was once a part of that struggle and knows a ton about it, but has retired to, uhm, "look after" the young hero (Obe-Wan/Bram). The Empire/Dark Riders/Ergals come looking for that item (the droid/the ring/the egg), and kill Eragon's family (Luke's aunt&uncle). Eragon is therefore forced to venture out with the mentor with the item to stop the evil empire, with said evil empire on his heels. Gets stuck a few times, meets the rebel-without-a-cause (Han/Murtagh)... and so on and so on.
The plot is plodding. There's not a whole lot that goes on, and Eragon conveniently gets out of every problem without much fuss. The book leads up to a big underground battle between dwarves and urgals (they describe this group of urgals as a bigger, tougher breed meant for war--Uruk-Hai anyone?). And then it just ends. Eragon vanquishes a wraith described to look like Ronald McDonald (white face, red hair, can't think of a poorer choice for an evil character), and the book is summed up in a disappointing one line. No denoument. It's as if Paolini got bored with writing or, as I think is more likely, just isn't a good enough writer to find a creative and constructive way of ending a book. "Ok, done," I can see him thinking, giving not a thought to editing.
Then there's the characters. They're flat, cliched, undeveloped, and neurotic. But I think the neurotic part is due more to the fact that Paolini has rather poor insight into psychology, and characters' reactions seem to come out of nowhere. They get angry for stupid reasons, and their anger comes off looking like a 2-year-old's.
A lot of that is due to the diologue, which is probably even worse than the character development. It's dumb, and he uses a lot of cool-sounding words he read in Tolkien and other series, but doesn't use well himself.
The mechanics of his dialogue in particular drove me mad. "I'm talking about things like attributions," he said. Paolini is more likely to write, "Yeah, his attributions made no sense," he contributed informatively. Now, this is only an example, but there are plenty just as bad (if this isn't one he actually used). Is "contributing" a manner of speaking? No. I do not contribute things to you, unless I'm giving money or something. I say things to you--that means I am speaking words to you. Now, you can whisper, or shout, or murmer, but most of these just detract from what is actually being said. And adverbs at the end, like the "informatively" example: If you're a good writer, you don't need to 1. explain the tone, emotion, or purpose of a line of dialogue, or 2. summarize the nature of what's already been said. The dialogue itself should say all of that, and if it doesn't, it means the author doesn't know how to write good dialogue, or isn't confident that their dialogue is strong enough to stand on its own. Case in point.
The sad thing is that Paolini obviously tried to come up with as many alternate ways of saying "said," and as many adverbs to describe his dialogue as possible. Purposefully striving to do the one thing that is most frowned upon by many professionals. Striving, in an attempt at art, at the one greatest way of diluting the dialogue, draining it of art, and giving it the true mark of an amateur.
The greatest danger to Paolini out of all this (since he's obviously making a bit of money off this rough draft) is that he'll be convinced this means he's a great writer and never bother to improve his writing. "Well, if I'm this popular, I obviously have the ability to turn out a masterpiece in the first draft. I must be one of those rare writing geniuses." Afraid not.
The fad will pass as more and more critics realize his writing is extremely poor. He's locked into the Eragon series, with the adolescent crowd that can easily overlook these sins. Shame on Knopf for not submitting the manuscript to a thorough editing before publishing, possibly saving Paolini's long-term career in the process. Shame on them for caring for dollar signs alone. I will not be submitting my manuscript to them, because they demonstrate with their willingness to publish "Eragon" that quality is not much of a concern to them.
I cannot malign Paolini, only his work. As for Paolini, he is simply a naive, unoriginal, unexperienced writer who might have potential if he came up with his own ideas and learned how to write a book. Paolini might have been better if his first rough draft hadn't been published, giving him time to practice and refine his craft. Or if it had been rejected by an editor who told him it was a nice first try, but he has much to learn about professional writing. That would be best. An author needs a challenge; a drive powered by fire.
Does he care? He's obviously making a lot of money off this book. And maybe you don't care: "It must be good if it's so popular, you're just one out of a million who for some reason doesn't like it." Well, I know I'm not alone. Quality will out in the end.
My original question will go unanswered. WHY is it so popular? I cannot comprehend this. I guess the marketing was just that good, and he got enough kids to sing his praise (though I rather think they've been exploited in that regard--they're too young to tell good writing from bad). In any event, it is completely undeserving of praise and makes a mockery of the writing out there that is truly praise worthy.
It's cold out
That's the only way to describe it, unless you want to add some adverbs, like "very" or "incredibly" or "insanely."
The other morning, the weather lady looked at a map covered with 20 degree observations and said it was warm. Yesterday, it was 21 degrees, and she said "It's actually quite comfortable out there." Did she grow up in Antarctica or something?
If it's so warm and comfortable out there, I want to see her relaxing in a lounge chair in shorts and a hawaiin shirt with a pina colada at her side underneath the naked trees amid the remnants of snow.
Maybe this is yet another example of the media trying to put a happy spin on bad news. I have no other context in which to understand 20 degrees as being comfortable unless the weather lady is just nuts. In any event, I wish she'd stop saying it because it only magnifies the reality of how cold and uncomfortable 20, anything below, and anything up to about 40 degrees really is.
This was one of the more inane things I could have written about, but I figured it was a gentle way of easing you into the ranting workings of my brain.
The other morning, the weather lady looked at a map covered with 20 degree observations and said it was warm. Yesterday, it was 21 degrees, and she said "It's actually quite comfortable out there." Did she grow up in Antarctica or something?
If it's so warm and comfortable out there, I want to see her relaxing in a lounge chair in shorts and a hawaiin shirt with a pina colada at her side underneath the naked trees amid the remnants of snow.
Maybe this is yet another example of the media trying to put a happy spin on bad news. I have no other context in which to understand 20 degrees as being comfortable unless the weather lady is just nuts. In any event, I wish she'd stop saying it because it only magnifies the reality of how cold and uncomfortable 20, anything below, and anything up to about 40 degrees really is.
This was one of the more inane things I could have written about, but I figured it was a gentle way of easing you into the ranting workings of my brain.
Welcome to e-Ranting (Tremick's World)
Hello,
I just started this blog.
I plan to rant about anything and everything that comes to mind and may from time to time dabble in politics, sociology, psychology, science, technology, and stuff. I think everything covers it pretty well, actually.
The best part about these e-rantings (at Tremick's World) is that they're electronic, so you won't have to tell me to shut up already. You will not be impolite to press the X in the corner of this window. But perhaps I say something you agree with or amuses you and then you can rant back at me. You can post responses with this thing, right? Wait...yes, ok, you can, I just checked (click the "comments" link at the bottom). New to this blog thing, I usually just rant into people's ears and make them wish I had an X on my forehead.
So, feel free to respond, but chances are I'll be the only one reading this, and maybe a few friends and family if they're really that bored. Now, what to rant about first!
Enjoy
I just started this blog.
I plan to rant about anything and everything that comes to mind and may from time to time dabble in politics, sociology, psychology, science, technology, and stuff. I think everything covers it pretty well, actually.
The best part about these e-rantings (at Tremick's World) is that they're electronic, so you won't have to tell me to shut up already. You will not be impolite to press the X in the corner of this window. But perhaps I say something you agree with or amuses you and then you can rant back at me. You can post responses with this thing, right? Wait...yes, ok, you can, I just checked (click the "comments" link at the bottom). New to this blog thing, I usually just rant into people's ears and make them wish I had an X on my forehead.
So, feel free to respond, but chances are I'll be the only one reading this, and maybe a few friends and family if they're really that bored. Now, what to rant about first!
Enjoy
A New Home
After accidentally deleting my "E-Ranting" blog, I have been forced to start anew. Thankfully, one of my faithful readers has a backup of all my posts. I will be in the process of importing all of these, which no doubt will make it appear I have been traveling through time and writing up a frenzy all in a couple of days.
Soon, I shall return to the present and continue with new rantings.
Soon, I shall return to the present and continue with new rantings.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)