Get Off The Stage Ralphie

Well, Nader's running. Again.

2008 is yet another chance for Nader to solidify his legacy as not a great consumer advocate, but as a perennial candidate for President.

As CNN puts it: "The longtime consumer advocate announced Sunday that he will launch his fourth consecutive White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included."

Five straight elections? That's three from Lyndon LaRouche territory.

It's also more then enough for the media to dismiss Nader as a "perennial candidate", and ignore his views, and that's the biggest reason Ralph should change his mind and let the Green's pick someone new.

(This Ralph has better odds of winning.)

While Nader was right in that there were very small differences between the Al Gore we saw in the 2000 campaign and the George W. Bush seen in 2000, blind catatonics can see differences between John McCain and both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama (and even Tommy, a former "Pinball Wizard", who spent his life deaf, dumb, and blind--and has been catatonic for decades--can spot differences between Obama and McCain.)

So pardon me if I don't run away in terror of Nader's campaign siphoning votes from the Democratic nominee and handing McCain the Presidency. I just don't think enough people will take him seriously, and from the sound of it, his issues this go around are less "left" than those of two Democratic primary candidates (Kucinich and Gravel--and Gravel's still technically running.)

Quoth Nader on Obama, via CNN: "Above all, explain why you don't come down hard on the economic crimes against minorities in city ghettos: payday loans, predatory lending, rent-to-own rackets, landlord abuses, lead contamination, asbestos."
Ok, I may have missed the lead contamination and asbestos issues, but I'm 99% sure Obama's covered the rest of this. It's not his focal point, but it shouldn't be.

What Nader doesn't get, and in fact what many 3rd party fans don't get is change isn't going to happen top-down. If a Nader, or a Libertarian candidate, or a Socialist candidate somehow came into Bloomberg-type money, and through aggressive advertising and somehow getting on the Presidential debates and then winning them, and winning a plurality of votes and took the White House, what could they get done? Those same Democrats and Republicans they would have demonized in various ways would then still be in Congress, ready to overturn any vetos they didn't agree with.

A better use of the funds Nader is trying to raise would be to either start 527s to air ads expressing his views, or to fund local Greens. Preferential voting is a nice thing to shoot for, but until a 3rd of 4th party has more than a minority in the single digits in Congress, the system will wildly resist the change.

I don't wildly disagree with many of Nader's ideas, but he's really going about implementing them the wrong way.

Me vs. We - Why I'm Voting For Obama on Tuesday

Earlier, I listed all the other candidates who will appear on the state of Georgia ballot on Super Tuesday (and who are still in the race), and listed some reasons why I wouldn't vote for them. But the biggest reason I won't vote for Senators Gravel, Clinton, or McCain, Congressman Paul, or Governors Romney and Huckabee is that I have so many reasons to vote for Senator Barrack Obama.

I could go on for another 2,000 words about how I feel his health care plan is the best first step towards single-payer healthcare, and how his likely higher coattails in the general election, coupled with a promise to broadcast the discussions and proposal negotiations on CSPAN give it the best chance of passing.

I could go on about how his efforts to increase transparency in government is the best way for D.C. to go about its business.

I could cite an article on the threat of nuclear weapons in the current issue of Harper's and mention how Obama's work towards nuclear deproliferation is the best solution to the threat.

I could mention the tens of thousands of inspired people who show up even in the cold of Idaho just to hear him speak. I could mention the fact that I'd look forward to a President Obama State of the Union speech. I could mention many more things like all of the above.

But what it really boils down to is "we" vs. "me."

Every other major candidate running speaks in terms of what they will do for us. Senator Obama speaks of what we can do together. And that's a very powerful message.

I think the country's got a lot of problems and no one person, even the President is going to be able to solve all of them in four years.

Senator Obama isn't claiming he can do the job on his own, but he does propose opening D.C. to the public in ways it hasn't in decades.

And yes, he may yet be the Progressive version of Reagan--a man who would speak to the public in less specific terms and inspire them to better things and a love for the country, while also convincing Reagan Democrats and disgruntled conservates and "values voters" that anti-poverty programs, raised environmental standards, and universal health care can benefit them.

I've heard Reagan speak and he was a gifted orator. He sold millions on such formerly radical ideas as "Trickle down" economics, breaking air traffic controller unions, and heightened rhetoric against the USSR. These things weren't necessarily in the public's best interest, and many were not for these policies prior to his election, just as many people aren't for a massive switch to sustainable fuels, or universal health care now. But Obama's an even better orator than Reagan.

Yes we can.

I want to hope for a better American, and I want to help make a better America. Super Tuesday, I'm taking a tentative step in that direction, and voting for Barrack Obama.

Yes WE can. It's not about him, it's not about me...it's about all of us.

A Highly Meaningless Presidential Endorsement: Who I'm Not Voting For

This might be one of the most meaningless political endorsements ever (I can't remember when I put my visitor counter on the blog, but it was over a year and a half ago, so that 5,000 some-odd visitors sounds less impressive averaged out over 700+ days, and keeping in mind it counts all the times I reread old articles or go back to edit certain old and depressing posts.)

But on the unlikely chance that you stumbled across this blog, and you're either an undecided voter in a Super Tuesday state (or post-Super Tuesday state) or just someone who knows me and for some strange reason respects my opinions on politics, well, this is the endorsement for you.

First a little background on why I decided I'd be going with the Democratic Party ballot on Super Tuesday (and much thanks to the state of Georgia for allowing me to decide last minute and not have to register with either political party long before hand.)

There are four remaining Republicans vying for the party's #1 spot: Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Mike Huckabee and Dr. Congressman Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has struck me as an empty suit since I first heard him speak. The YouTube videos showing his changing positions depending on when and where he was running did not dissuade me of that notion. The simple fact that he's had to state "no, I am not a robot," tells me that if he wasn't a multi-millionaire able to fund his own campaign, he'd have exited this race long ago. Willard Mittens Romney believes that a CEO is best suited to run the country.

But the United States isn't a business...or at the very least it is not like any other extant corporation. Worse, the man largely responsible for the myriad of messes we find ourselves in as a country, and current occupant of the White House was hailed as a "CEO President" and the "first MBA President." How's that worked out for all us?

Yes, in November 2000, when I was young, and stupid, and drinking heavily on a regular basis, that "CEO President" mystique was one of the few reasons I had for voting for Bush over Gore. I thought he'd surround himself with capable advisors. Instead he surrounded himself with the worst detritus of the Nixon and Reagan/Bush I administrations. Again, I was young, dumb and borderline alcoholic. I'm sorry. And it won't happen again. No vote for you Mittens.

Governor Huckabee, it's a little harder to easily dismiss. He's a former preacher, and unlike most top-level GOP politicians, he doesn't exhibit the same disdain for the poor and unemployed. He favors a massive overhaul of the tax system, and presents it as helping the poor. He's actually funny and was able to muster what sounded like praise for a Democratic candidate (Obama) during one of the GOP debates.

However, he also freed a convicted rapist, who subsequently went on to rape and murder again. His son seems to come from the Mike Vick school of animal treatment, and Gov. Huckabee tried to cover this up.

Most disconcertingly, he doesn't seem to give two flying shits about the separation between church and state, wishing that the Constitution be amended to reflect Biblical law. Substitute "Bible" for "The Quran" and you've got Sharia law. Worse still, Huckabee has been getting praise from the worst Christian "leaders"--the kind that make mainstream Christians launch into tirades of "no, really, that man does not represent my beliefs"--including such asshats as James Dobson and the Parents Television Council crowd. Now, if you believe the biggest threat facing the USA is a 10-year-old seeing a titty on television, Huck's your man. But he's not for me.

Now John McCain, I have voted for once already. My first Presidential Primary, while still young and dumb, but drinking a little less, I bought into the Straight Talk Express hype. Since then I've seen McCain decry Bush's tax cuts on one hand, then openly embrace him on the other, propose campaign finance reform with Russ Feingold on one hand, and then propose we stay in Iraq for 100 years on the other, propose environmental legislation on one hand and then go on record as not really knowing much about the economy on the other. Since then I've read "Up, Simba" by David Foster Wallace, portraying the less public side of that first Straight Talk Express. Since then I've had to see "War is my favorite answer" Joementum Liberman, in a move that may simply be petty payback for Ned Lamont challenging him for his Senate seat, spew ricockulous statement after ricockulous statement for the "Maverick" who has been in D.C. since 1983 (and the Senate since 1987). I know a quarter century in D.C. isn't likely to come up in the media (after all, George W. Bush, despite being the son of a former President and former head of the CIA, and grandson of a Senator, Yale-and Harvard-educated legacy, was painted as an "outsider.")

Now I respect the hell out of the service Sen. McCain has given the country, and for taking stands against torture and for a better environmental policy when all the GOP frontrunners were against it (and more disturbing, all the GOP candidates who and NEVER SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES were all for torture and waterboarding, while Sen. McCain, who knows firsthand about what torture feels like, stood up against the US waterboarding.) So end the end, I just disagree with too many of Sen. McCain's key issues. Of the three most likely GOP candidates, he's the one I hope gets the nod though (I'll come back to this later.)

And lastly, there's the man with the signs all over Atlanta, Ron Paul. Dr. Paul has run as a Libertarian before, and in 2004, that was the party I voted for (almost the entire ticket). But I can't support him now. Part of that is my changed view on the Libertarian Party (another post entirely). But here are a few other issues:

1. The Gold Standard Thing. I have yet to have someone explain to me how the US becoming the one first world nation leaving fiat currency for an asset-backed currency would be anything but an unmitigated disaster for the US economy. And that even assumes that he's not serious about 100% gold-backed currency (as there simply isn't enough gold in the entire world to back the existing US money supply.)

2. His foreign policy. Ok, I agree about the overspending on the Military-Industrial Complex, all the foreign bases, and how financially we'd be better off abdicating our Imperial leanings. But I don't buy into a 100% isolationist approach. I still feel there's benefits to offering humanitarian and financial aid to other countries.

3. His paleo-conservative dislike of all Federal Government programs. This is the big sticking point. Dr. Paul's solution to an education system that isn't working? Get rid of the Department of Education! I've yet to figure out how that will help, but then, I think the Invisible Hand often flicks a lot of us off too.

So that leaves me with the three (yes, three) Democratic Party Candidates: Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama, and former Sen. Mike Gravel.

Ok: confession time. I've found myself agreeing with Mike Gravel on several policy issues. Sure, he comes off as a grumpy old man. The media calls him a grumpy old man. And, well, he IS grumped. Pissed off even. But after seeing things like Bush use over 1,100 signing statements to brazenly flaunt the Rule of Law, and most of the Senate lay down on challenging the warrantless wiretapping fiasco, among other things, I can say I'm pissed too.

But being pissed off at Bush won't get you elected. And as we head into a recession, being the candidate who's declared multiple bankruptcy, doesn't inspire confidence in Sen. Gravel's economical policy--even though being strapped for cash puts him more in line demographically with the average American voter. I wish he'd get a little more coverage, as getting word out about our massive military spending, from someone who has no real shot at the presidency, would advance the idea without either frontrunner having to take a hit on it. But he's got no real shot, and I plan on voting for someone with a shot to win this thing.

So to conclude part one of my endorsement blog post, here's why I won't vote for Sen. Clinton:

1. Going back to the 1990s is not enough of a change. Sure, some folks love the 90s. Me, I went through puberty in the 90s and had acne for a good chunk of the 90s, and braces for seven years in the 90s. I had my prom date cancel on me a week before my senior prom in the 90s. I see no reason the same media pundits that ripped on the Clintons mercilessly 10 years ago will suddenly change their stripes. That sets up for the fun of "Clinton fatigue" again.

2. Will the real Sen. Clinton please stand up? The talk radio bloviators are convinced she's a closet socialist (and they mean socialist in the Stalinist/Communist-conjuring way.) Swing a bit to the left (despite what Fox News said about them, the majority of posters at DailyKos don't seem far left, as very few even openly supported Kucinich, much less Gravel) and you find Democrats, Liberals and Progressives who openly distrust Sen. Clinton. Her husband ran as a Progressive against Bush I., but as his reelection neared, suddenly it was welfare reform, "the era of big government is over," and NAFTA.

3. Just say no to triangulation. See the last sentence in #2. Sure, in the short-term co-opting some of the GOPs key issues helped Bill get a second term, but it also reinforced existing Right Wing memes about government and moved the mythical "Center" to the Right. What good is a Democrat in the White House if she'll sell out Democratic ideals for votes?

4. How she's run her campaign. It's harder to believe the memes about "the Clintons will do anything to win" are just the Right Wing Noise Machine after the shit they pulled in the South Carolina primary. It's also hard to believe Sen. Clinton is a huge union supporter when her top campaign official, Mark Penn, makes his non-campaign living busting unions (and defending such wonderful folks as Blackwater).

5. Her foreign policy. This the biggest issue for me against Sen. Clinton. She voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. I don't believe she was naive or not smart enough to know Bush wanted war in Iraq--her husband got multiple signed letters from a group that held most of Bush's cabinet begging him to go to war with Iraq. Which raises the disturbing likelihood that her AUMF vote was a political calculation. Worse, she, unlike John Edwards, seems incapable of apologizing for her vote. Given her vote on Kyl-Liberman this year, perhaps she isn't really against pre-emptive war at all.

I was nervous about the precedent invading Iraq would set, and not entirely convinced that, while yes Saddam was nuts and no fan of the US, he was actually able of doing any damage to us. I didn't use my tiny public pulpit of the Red and Black to speak out against it, and I regret that. Sen. Clinton didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate and voted for the AUMF and won't apologize, and for me, that means I can't vote for her tomorrow.

I Will Likely Regret This - Liveblogging the State of the Union

8:40 Yeah, here we go. Just wrapped up dinner, and I'm enjoying the last 15 minutes of Rock of Love II. I may regret eating a late dinner in about twenty minutes though. Blatant lying to millions of people kind of kicks up bile in the ol' gut.

Oh, and if you want to try a drinking game, here's my hastily made up State of the Union Drinking Game:
Drink once whenever:
1. Bush mispronounces a word.
2. Drink (2) if that word is "Nuclear".
3. Drink (2) if the word is "terror" ("terra") and stomp a foot on the ground and say "terra firma" or some Latin-based joke.
4. Take a shot whenever he refers to the Democratic Party as "Democrat Party" then flick off the TV.
5. Drink, take a shot, and flick off the TV if he lies about the FISA bill (ie, he says that he'll be unable to listen to terrorist calls if the Senate doesn't pass his bill. Which is bullshit as FISA will NOT expire. The expanded provisions that let him listen to your calls and mine with no warrant will expire Friday if nothing else happens, but NOT FISA.)
6. Drink if he makes a bad religious metaphor.
7. Burn your couch on the front lawn if he comes out and says anything like "I've lied to you all, and in the interest of doing the best thing for America, I am stepping down as President, and turning Dick Cheney over to Interpol to stand trial at the Hague. He's a bad dude...hehehe."
8. Oh, and the killer: waterfall drink for every standing O.

8:45-Great line from Rock of Love II, "We had a serious moment...and then I looked down at her breasts..." I'll say this for Bret, he's honest.

8:50-It's a rerun, but I think Kristy Jo is gone (I missed it Sunday.) Something about saying "oh, I'm still married," should get you gone. Oh and "will you stay here in this house continue to rock my world" is such a great cheesy line. Used ironically of course.

8:54-please send the French chick home. That accent is too bad to be real, and apparently all she brings to the table is getting naked. I may be wrong, but someone getting nice "Every Rose Has Its Thorn" royalty checks probably has no trouble finding incomprehensible, personality-less women willing to get nude for him.

8:57-Roxy? He sends her home? She was one of the hottest girls there, and seemed to lack the bitchiness prevalent in many of the girls on shows like this. But, he did ditch the French chick.
Ok, time to switch over.

8:59-Dancing with the Whothehellcares is still on! Gah! My eyes, the goggles do nothing!

9:00-I like how the ABC announcer emphasized "Final" in saying "the FINAL state of the union address." In a year many of us will know how Krusty the Clown felt when announcing Poochy's death. Charlie Gibson missed a branch, unless Dick Cheney isn't showing up tonight.

Of course there's no "nostalgia" here. Bush has proved time and again that he really doesn't pay attention to history (he also mentioned that he was like Lincoln and Lincoln was disliked as he left office. For those of you that hated history, Lincoln was actually pretty popular, then was shot.)

9:03-Lyndon Johnson is the one to hate for all those previous years when the State of the Union address preempted your favorite show. With the Writer's Strike still ongoing, that's not as big a factor this go round.

Is it immature of me to snicker at the combination of the words "stimulus" and "package"?

9:06-He's at ease and enjoys these things? And still continues to butcher the spoken English language? Damn Bartlett, you could've said he gets a little nervous and folks would maybe go a little easier on the whole "nukeular" thing.

I'm not going to play my drinking game tonight...I'd...die.

I think we just saw the closest thing to a smile Dick Cheney's ever done...

9:10-Well there goes my hope that he'd throw a bone to Idiocracy fans and start out with "shit..."

Now when he says "cooperate" does he still mean "do whatever I want, otherwise I veto it"?

9:12-Wages are NOT up you lying SOB! Unless he's counting the minimum wage...

Hate to break it to everyone, but this "stimulus" bill will do not a damn thing for the economy.
$150 billion is 1% of the GDP.

Ok, the IRS joke was funny. But if you made 8 figures last year, and I hear you complain about paying 29% or whatever, I'd really want to kick you in the nads (but I won't, because you can afford really nice lawyers.)

Technically, letting your tax cuts expire isn't raising taxes George.

9:15-"Belowted"? But seriously, this could be the blind squirrel finding nut moment. It took him over 7 years, but now he wants to balance a budget. And cutting earmarks, if done bipartisanship, well, that I can get behind.

So does this mean Congress can debate those FISA ad-ons in the open too?

Wouldn't patients and doctors make better decisions if there weren't profit-driven insurance companies denying coverage?

Again, what about the insurance boardrooms making the decisions about your health? No mention at all of them...

9:20-Did he seriously say, with a straight face, that "no one can deny the results" of No Child Left Behind? It's only succeeded in selling more crap textbooks brother Jeb has money in.

One of my best-friends taught at one of those private, faith-based schools. His advanced English students barely knew what a pronoun was. Unless you're planning on going to Bob Jones or Regent U, they can't prepare you for anything post HS.

9:22-From somewhere in Texas, or possibly the great beyond (I don't know if Perot is alive or not) the mention of these South American Free Trade Agreements causes Perot to mention "that giant sucking sound" again. Yes, let's have more trade agreements, because NAFTA worked so well.

Columbia eh? Someone wants some hastily-imported blow...

Michael Chertoff should not be shown on TV. Unless it's his appearance as one of the Gentlemen in the classic Buffy The Vampire Slayer episode "Hush"

(I think Chertoff is the one on the left.)

9:27-wait, did he just admit global climate change exists? Did someone kidnap him and replace him with a lookalike? Boortz'll be so distraught tomorrow.

Congress should only approve the funding when they cut the "Intelligent Design" bullshit out of it.

Dick and Nancy both look bored.

The framing behind him is terrible...red and white stripes, without blue, just makes me think of a barbershop.

9:31-Wow, he mentioned NOLA. Didn't see that coming. Heckuva job Brownie.

If we weren't spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq, we could afford the influx of Baby Boomers to Social Security and Medicaid.

Or, if like every other administration fighting multiple wars, we raised taxes to pay for it.

Just a thought/rant.

A thought I'd like to hear from some folks in D.C.: "we should also try and work with Mexico to try and alleviate some of the reasons people so adamantly want to get the hell out of there."

His first three examples of "freedom" incidentally--we didn't really have anything to do with.

9:36-Perhaps when he was at Yale or in HS, some girl named Tara dumped him and that's why it's a War on Tara. (Yeah, I know.)

Prediction for what won't be said here: "if we'd just stayed focused on Afghanistan, that whole resurgent Al Queda in Waziristan wouldn't be going on. My bad about Iraq folks."

Ten months ago, 75% of the Iraqis wanted us to just leave. But that was never really said on TV, so it can't be true right?

UPDATE: turns out Ross Perot is still alive and kicking. Thanks Wikipedia!

Imagine how great things'd be for the Iraqis if Blackwater wasn't killing them--another thing you won't here tonight.

In 2002, Al Queda wasn't IN Iraq. So it's not like we're rooting out some deep-festering group here.

9:45-What worries me is will we offer enough support for our troops AFTER the fight. (That projected total cost, per Harper's: $500,000,000,000).

9:50-I can feel it, here comes the Appeal to Fear, where he takes the "They swear to attack Washington" part and tries to scare Congress to pass that bullshit FISA ad-on.

Well, maybe not just yet...

Still waiting to hear about Pakistan, which seems to be the true royal clusterfuck and greatest threat we've got (they have nukes, and Al Queda basically has their HQ in their mountains, though it's sort of it's own place, called Waziristan, now.)

More history for you: Iran was a democracy, up until the UK and the US got rid of their elected leader and propped up the Shah.

9:59-New rule: take a drink and refer to yourself as Bob Dole until 10:02.

Oh and I had to leave the room when he started in about FISA. I can't take that level of blatant lying, gross manipulation of the facts and bullshit.

10:00-I guess that's a program that Dick and Nancy have. When I first saw it, and Cheney was reading it, I saw the cover and thought he had a copy of The Handmaid's Tale, and that he was likely reading it for ideas.

10:02-He wrapped it up just in time to end the Bob Dole stuff. And did he really not mention Pakistan at ALL? Wow...

I'm going to keep watching, because I've heard nothing but good things about Gov. Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius, but I think I can take no more of the liveblogging (and I need caffeine like mad, as George Will's sonorous voice is putting me to sleep.) Goodnight, and Good Luck.

Really, Clearly Stupid Politics

AKA, the GOP IS Col. Jessup, and they don't give a damn what you think you're "entitled" to.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.quote.gif
insert blockquote
Taking a break from pointing out obvious dating issues and my sordid personal life today, instead I thought I'd stroll down a column on RealClearPolitics by Ruben Navarrette (who is clearly no Bill Kristol, as he doesn't even rate a Wikipedia entry.)

The jist of his column is this: the true biggest threat ever to face America (well, this week) is that too many non-rich folks want to be rich for doing nothing.

But let's pick apart his half-assed reasoning for fun anyway.

A stimulus may not work exactly as expected, but it's worth a try. Americans are overtaxed as it is, and anything that gets more of their tax dollars back into their hands is a good thing. And if they spend what they get, it'll be good for the economy.

Wait a tic...didn't we try this stimulus back in Dubya's first term? And here we are facing a recession again? Perhaps, if we try again, this time it'll magically work.

And "overtaxed?" Warren Buffett doesn't think he's overtaxed. The folks who are already millionaires who pay no more than 15% tax on investments (even eight-and-nine figure payouts--only 15%) aren't overtaxed.

When in the history of the US have we cut taxes repeatedly while at war? The last time we had combat missions in multiple fronts/countries was WWII and the top 1% was in a 90% tax bracket then.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and millions of people buying a Wii will save us from recession. Even though household debt on average is higher now than any point in my lifetime. And the Wii is made in Japan. Not here.

Navarrette says "The No. 1 economic threat facing the United States today isn't globalization, stagnant wages, unfair trade policy or illegal immigration." What happened to that ol' boogeyman "global Islamofacism?" No mention of that. Only that damned sense of "entitlement."

See, if you were really smart, you would have planned on paying health insurance premiums equal to or possibly surpassed by the cost of monthly rent or your mortgage. And you would blame yourself when you're denied coverage because you naively thought the insurance company would cover your risky heart surgery that saved your life--and worse, you didn't save back 120,000 to pay for it out of pocket "just in case."

Fifty years ago, Americans were a heartier bunch. They'd grown up in the Depression and defeated Nazi Germany and the other Axis powers during World War II, and they found honor in doing any kind of work. If they didn't earn enough money doing it, they took on another job, or another one after that. Most of all, they took pride in the idea that -- in this country -- our destiny is in our own hands.

Of course, fifty years ago, wages from the middle class and the top 1% weren't at the near Gilded Age disparity they are today. American manufacturing was the envy of the world and the automobile industry became a hugely booming sector thanks to--wait for it and prepare to gasp--government spending on massive infrastructure upgrades like Eisenhower's Interstate Highway system.

But no, to Navarrette, the Greatest Generation was just better, and it's those damn kids who ruin it for the rest of us: quoth "many members of 'Generation Me' walk into job interviews brimming with self-esteem and expecting to be put on a path to a corporate vice presidency." I must have missed that memo. Also, I could have sworn the "Me Decade" was run by Boomers, none of whom are in their 20s or 30s now...

Navarrette concludes the whole diatribe by felating McCain, ending with this nonsense:

That was awfully brave. But McCain could have gone further. He could have explained that organized labor helped bring about this displacement by pricing autoworkers out of the market. He could have pointed out that many workers went along for the ride because they felt entitled to the same standard of living that their parents enjoyed but didn't want to get the extra schooling or training to achieve it. He could have said that the situation is complicated by the fact that there will always be those who won't move away from their hometowns -- even when the towns are on life support. And, finally, he could have reminded voters that they can't always blame their problems on others and that, sooner or later, they have to grow up and take control of their lives and their destiny.

Yes, that must be it. It was labor wanting too much money that's hurt the Detroit automakers. Not the folks at the top churning out the same basic stuff year after year, while the Japanese automakers offered cheaper, more reliable, and more fuel-efficient competition, and the German luxury makers smoked them on performance. That's the union's fault entirely. If one of the big three actually had some foresight to prepare for a day when oil hits $200 and had come out with a hybrid like Toyota's Prius first, I have this odd hunch that people would actually buy it.

Standard of living? Well, leaving aside that for several generations the standard of living has gone UP each time, an undergraduate degree was usually the end of the line for most of the Boomer generation, with Master's being rare. So why then does it take at least a Master's to equal what a mere Bachelor's degree got you earnings-wise? Is that somehow my generation's fault too? (and don't even go computing inflation-adjusted income to your parents kids, it ain't pretty.)

And in conclusion, is that really the campaign you'd like Sen. McCain to run on Mr. Navarrette? "Vote for me: you may lose your job, move away from a city you lived in for decades, and be poor and destitute, but I'll be honest when I say it's all your fault." Really?

The Daily Show should hire me...

(Or maybe Weekend Update, or Conan, or Dave...)

Comic Improvs making fun of both the Yankees postseason impotence and Dubya's Iraq War impotence.

1st Variation:
The New York Yankees fell to the Cleveland Indians last night; exiting in the first round for the third year in a row. Worse, the Yankees haven't won a World Series title since 2000, and owner George Steinbrenner has spent $1.6 billion in payroll during that span.

Reached for comment, President Bush remarked "$1.6 billion with nothing to show for it? That's nothing! Have you seen this new Iraq War Spending Bill? Now watch this drive."

2nd Variation:
The New York Yankees fell to the Cleveland Indians last night; exiting in the first round for the third year in a row. Worse, the Yankees haven't won a World Series title since 2000, and owner George Steinbrenner has spent $1.6 billion in payroll during that span.

Reached for comment, President Bush remarked, "It took them six years to waste $1.6 billion? We'd spent that much yesterday in no-bid contracts."

3rd Variation:
In a surprise move, Yankees Owner George Steinbrenner announced he would retire...to take a position with the Bush Administration. The President declined to comment, but White House Press Secretary Dana Perino issued a statement:
"We just feel Mr. Steinbrenner is a perfect fit for this administration: he's loathed by millions, makes completely irrational decisions on the spur of the moment, regardless of the facts; and he has no qualms about spending billions with no tangible results. He might even make a great president one day."
Reached for comment, Rudy Guiliani said, "9/11, 9/11, global war on terror, 9/11," before taking a planned phone call from his mistress...er, wife.

Your Asscrack Of Dawn Coffee-Perusal Quick-Hits

*Saying society in general keeps getting more and more nuts seems to be about as groundbreaking a statement as "People in Tuscaloosa like Nick Saban," but I think it says a lot that many people will have a hard time telling if this story, about a pro-nudity rally for Britney Spears, is real, or not. Oh sure, the group's called MUFF, but remember, NAMBLA is real and not just something on South Park, so if they get confused (or hopeful, especially considering the whole "Vanessa Hudgens plans on showing up" part) who's to blame them?

*Speaking of Hudgens, well...first....damn. Not too shabby. I'm not going to start watching the Disney Channel or anything, but the girl is fine. Overbearing, we-want-our-child-to-be-famous-so-we-can-live-vicariously-through-them parents considering sending their kids to Disney ought to know about the track record though: Britney, Christina, Lindsay Lohan--all sweet little girls with Mousewitz, and then...you know the rest. But the disappointing thing to me about the whole nude photo "Scandal" is the fact that so many people make the mistake that "nudity=porn". It's unlikely, but still possible, that despite disrobing and taking a naked (not "nekkid") picture and sending it to her boyfriend, she hasn't actually had sex. Yes she's young, hot, and probably not strapped for cash, but I'm just throwing it out there as another option in an effort to de-Puritanize some folks. Because if they still think all nudity=porn or =sex, then sex will more often than not be considered dirty and any girl who hints at not saving herself for marriage will get called a slut at some point in her life (meanwhile, true sluts will still not care) and thousands of people will claim to be offended by a woman showing too much skin instead of, I don't know, being offended that thousands of their fellow countrymen are getting killed so some rich asshats can live it up off of the spoils of no-bid military contracts.
I'm just saying our priorites are a bit fucked if a non-sexual picture of an attractive, naked, but over 18-year-old girl is more offensive than say, not restoring habeas corpus, the President saying he'll veto a bill to get medical care to sick children, a trillion dollars down the well in Iraq, far-right wing (as in, the type that considers Left Behind non-fiction) fundamentalists actively proselytizing huge wings of our armed services, the fact that the senate spent valuable time passing a "you're mean MoveOn.org" resolution instead of, you know meaningful legislation, etc. well, that's offensive to me.

*Speaking of screwy priorites, beltway GOP troglodytes are taking that whole "party above all else" mentality to insane extremes. Their current strategy seems to be "if the democrats want it, we must filibuster it." From Digby's blog, via Kevin Drum:





Seriosuly, look at the projected number here. Even the racist senators scared to death of dark-skinned people getting near them didn't filibuster like this. Somewhere in hell, Strom Thurmond is muttering, "wow, and they thought I was stubbon, racist and hypocritical."



*The Falcons signed Bryon Leftwich. I still say Andre Woodson starts for them in 20 games or so. Unless Byron plays on the offensive line, anyone but a mobile QB is going to be in a lot of pain behind the Falcon's OLine for the near future. You can't blame Vick, or Joey for this. You can blame Rich McKay however, who has had some hits in the draft lately (Norwood was a steal) but has used the early rounds to pick up WRs that have mostly been busts at a clip resembling Detroit, and the Lions at least got Calvin Johnson and Roy Williams out of the deal (plus they have a converted safety playing WR named Mike Furrey who just makes me think of that one episode of Entourage and laugh.)


*Keith Olberman kicks ass.

*Weekend plans (for those planning to stalk me) include: going by the pool one last time if the rumored (I refer to weather reports more than a day in advance as rumors now) rise in temps for this weekend is true, hitting up a variety of venues hosting Atlantis music conference showcases, and watching a lot of college football. The Atlantis thing will be kind of bittersweet, what with me not having a band all.

UPDATE for lunchtime: seriously, the world's losing it's damn mind. I have a college degree. I work with people with college degrees, and that brain-damaged Miss South Carolina will be getting $25,000 a DAY?! Sure "Modeling" should probably be in quotes here but come on sex-starved, unattractive millionaires, surely no woman's that good in bed...

That's Debatable (II): On Voting, and How We Should Be More Like The French

I was going to backtrack completely and follow-up with a detailed rundown on the Democratic primary debate, but too many blogs have already hit that, so it's time to move on.

Instead I'm going to bring up for discussion two ideas Haley had while watching (one good, one almost frighteningly bad) and tie them into the recent French election.

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first: while I figure she's got the best intentions in wanting to "modernize" the political process, I think dumbing down the level of political debate--especially concerning the man or woman who will be in charge of the country for four years--is a horrible "snap decision."

Yes, more Americans voted in last year's American Idol finals than in the last election: that's not a good thing. But worse, turn the Presidential election into a popularity contest/reality show knock-off and we're asking for the political equivalent of Clay Aiken. And generally, Clay and co. seem like music for people that don't really care about music. It's bland, it's calulatingly the least offensive, broadest appeal. When the country desparetly needs change--major change--bland isn't going to cut it. Plus, my gut tells me that since early polls had too many people saying "well, Romney looked the most Presidential," the 2008 election would result in another GOP President. If soundbytes and style with no substance is enough to get elected, Rudy can sit back and have "9/11" repeating on endless loop from now until he's sworn in. Or, look at John Edwards. He didn't raise his hand at the debate when asked if he believed in the Global War On Terror, and the instant judgement of many: oh no, he's soft on terrorism. Dig deeper than some hand-raising though, and you get a naunced, intelligent answer:

And I don't know how many of you even noticed this or how many of you
watched the Democratic presidential debate from South Carolina, but I suspect
some of you did. But a question was asked whether you agree with the language -
the Bush language, which is what it is - "Global War on Terror." And I did not.
And I said, I took that position at the debate...
[Applause]
This is a
political frame and political rhetoric. They use it to justify everything they
do. They use that language to justify the war in Iraq. They use it to justify
Guantanamo. They use it to justify torture. They use it to justify illegal
spying on the American people.
[Applause]
It is time for us to quit
kowtowing to these people. We have to say what we really believe. Now, are there
really dangerous people in the world? Of course there are. We need to be smart
and aggressive and intelligent, use intelligence - did I say dangerous people? -
we have to use intelligence to fight them and stop them. Everybody recognizes
that. But the one thing that's been proven beyond any doubt as a result of
what's happened in the last six years is raw power alone will never make you a
leader. You actually have to have the moral authority. (HT: DailyKos)

If we go on snap judgements and soundbytes, Edwards is either "out of touch with the reality of the threat we face" (pick a GOP candidate to make that accusation) or "in denial" or who knows. If anything, as the debate is available as streaming video, and the all candidates have speeches all over YouTube and extensive websites/MySpaces/Facebook groups there really should be no excuse for not educating ourselfs about the choices out there--and in depth. I work 40 hours a week while attempting to land a better job, updating this blog, keeping up with UGA football, Red Sox baseball, reading several blogs/websites daily, and working on my book, so there is likely time for most of us to get at least semi-informed. (What I've learned today: Mike Gravel does seem like a crotchety old dude, but some of his thoughts about getting the US out from under the thumb of the Military-Industrial Complex are spot-on, whereas Ron Paul has way too many statements blaming crime on black men to be a "safe" GOP alternative, his progressive stances on the Internet and ending the war nonwithstanding.)

But Haley's 100% right in that our current voting system could use an overhaul. The problem here becomes: who handles it? Ask some Ohio voters how much they trust Diebold, just get your guard up first. For starters (as in, something we could do in time for 2008) is to spread the word about absentee ballots. I voted twice via absentee ballot (in 2000 and 2002) as there were some pressing issues back in the home county and I was struck by how easy the process was. (And why wasn't I registered in Athens Clarke-County? Well, let's just say that my middle years at UGA were a black hole as far as dating was concerned, and up until let's say November 2002 you couldn't get me out of the state of GA fast enough.) If you anticipate a long day at the office for the primary or the election, sign up for an absentee ballot. If you need another reason, claim you have agoraphobia or even whatever Latinate construct would approximate "seeing too many 'Bush/Cheney' stickers on cars makes me vomit" (Ryan, I'm looking in your direction here...just give me a long Latin phrase, then -osis can be added to it and: instant disease.)

Online voting should be the wave of the future (or even texting of voting)...the issue here is security. American Idol had voter fraud issues last year (I think, I'll Google this later to make sure my mind isn't pulling a Geto Boys song on me) and it has big corporate sponsors. Super SSL-encrypted sites and online voting look, to me at least, as the best option. The other plus we could shoot for? No more Super Tuesdays.

France had over 83% turnout in their election, and coincidentally it was held over the weekend, not on a random weekday. Neal Boortz, in a bit of specious reasoning that I surmise was more about radio ratings than truth, claims democrats will never allow this (because, he claims, no one with a steady, demanding job would ever vote democrat) and that a 24-hour Tuesday is the answer. It's better than what we've got now sure...but how do you staff the polling places for 24 hours? Move it to Saturdays, less folks have to work=more volunteers, more time to vote.

So my quick hopes for 2008 and beyond: we all do our damndest to actually resemble and informed electorate (I don't want to hear "he looked cute," "seemed like a nice guy to have a drink with," or "because she's a woman," as reasons for voting unless there's some solid stuff to go with them). We get off our asses, TiVo HOUSE or whatever must-see Tuesday show is on (yes ladies, even if it's Dr. Addison's new show and Taye Diggs is going to be McHalf Naked) and vote in truly record numbers. And then we work towards Saturday elections and secure online voting options. But, even if we get suckered into a Duncan Hunter/Tommy Thompson presidency (the "Hunter S.lash Thompson" stickers fool a surprisingly high--pun intended--number of younger voters) it's probably better than the crap we have now.

In Honour of Presidents' Day

First I have two reasons to be really happy tomorrow. The first, obviously, is that it is Fat Tuesday, aka the night everyone in town goes out on a weeknight and acts nuts (because in theory the Catholics amongst the debauchers can hit up confession the next day...and yes, I know there's more to Lent than that, but work with me here, this is supposed to be a parenthetical aside and that alone and see how off track I am already?) but the second reason is that I shouldn't have to hear that horrible "Crunk remix" of "Hail to the Chief" on the Chevy ads. It's my fault really, I thought they couldn't top the "This is our country" ads for sheer musical annoyance, and yet here we are...















(Ladies, this is the real reason you get dumped right before Valentine's Day...)



And now, some more important stuff (especially among the betting-inclined members of my tiny readership.) It's time for the
REALLY RIDICULOUSLY EARLY 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HANDICAPPING (BUT NOT QUITE)

It's not quite handicapping because I'm not going through the increasingly brobdingnagian list of potential presidents-to-be in the 2008 election. Instead, I'm going to focus on some of the top candidates for each major party (sorry Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, and Anti-Masonites...we'll get to you later...perhaps at a time I'm less inclined to refer to myself with the "royal we" for no real reason beyond "it sounds kinda cool.")

First up, the "defending champions (at least for the Presidency)" (sic), the Republicans:
















Rudy Giuliani - It's possible that even if you've been living under a rock, in a cave, on Mars, with your fingers in your ears for the past few years you've still heard of Rudy. He was arguably the most popular political figure period in 2002, primarily because of his handling of NYC after 9/11. Reeeeeally early polls have him as the favorite in the general election. But not so fast...there's a chance he might not make it through the Republican primaries. Dubya and friends rode to the White House on chariots pulled by the Religious Right, and that sub-group won't take too kindly to a candidate that has pro-choice views that also doesn't share their (and Tim Hardaway's) views on gay people. So all fans of irony should watch with great interest to see how the GOP deals with the fact that their best chance to beat the Democrats not only doesn't toe the party lines on some major social issues, he also (cue *gasp* from the NRA--and someone get the medics ready, Mr. Heston's getting on in years) actually advocates some forms of gun control. Then again, millions of card-carrying Republicans voted for W. in 2004, despite the fact that Shrub was increasing both the size and spending of the Federal government and I had always been under the assumption that those things were just not done by the Grand Ol' Party...

John McCain - He's giving it another go. I'm not going to write too much about McCain. Yes, I did vote for him in the 2000 primary, but Mr. David Foster Wallace has a story about that campaign called "Up, Simba" that does a far better job on McCain than I ever could. In addition to those pre-existing issues, McCain also has to deal with being hamstrung financially by the McCain-Feingold bill (somewhere Alanis Morrisette is playing...), and a really long paper trail that should make for some cringe-inducing negative ads.

Mitt Romney - He's a Republican...from Boston? That can't be right...ok, here we go: Former Gov. of Mass., and Mormon. In theory then, if he could either sway or outflank the liberal Bostonians and Irish Catholics to become Governor he must know a thing or two about politics. On the other hand, he has previously espoused some Pro-choice views (he's since "recanted"), and then there's the issue of how the Evangelical base will feel about a Mormon president (however it's unlikely they'll get angry enough to serenade him with the song from that South Park episode, because...well let's just say the odds that James Dobson watches and enjoys South Park are even greater than the odds that Jessica Alba, Stacy Keibler, and Vida Guerra all read my blog, have fallen in lust with me and come knocking at my door to take me off into a wet and wild foursome... btw, I hate it when people knock at inopportune times and turn out to not be fantasy-cum-reality. And that doesn't mean what you think it means. Really.)



























(Forget bouncing quarters off it, she can deflect 50 cent pieces...)

Newt Gingrich - He hasn't actually said he's running, but he did fire up the GOP back in 1994 with the whole Congressional revolution and all. If enough people are sick of the Neo-Cons and their "betrayal" of the party, he could be a favorite. Then we could get reminded of how his dislike of Clinton led to millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on investigating a blowjob once the general election rolled around.













(Obligatory Monty Python - Newt Visual Gag)



And in the blue corner...the Democratic Candidates:















Hillary Clinton - she's potentially the front-runner (at least in the whole experience of her staff+money being raised=front-runner equation) and has the added bonus of two easy media angles: 1. could she be the first female president and 2. she's the wife of a former president. Complaints and falsified stories about mountain-climbers-inspiring-her-name aside, she is very politically savvy. But...we've already had two decades with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House, wouldn't a change in last names be nice? Plus to some, Hillary's "savvy" isn't near the league of her husband's. If a lot of potential voters feel everything you say is calculated to manipulate them, how can they trust you enough to vote for you?

Barack Obama - I'll admit I have a bias here. I own one of his books, and I hope he'll get a good shot at the general election. The basic message of "the current system's not working right, we should work together to fix it" overrides any current sort-of-Libertarian, and former Republican-influenced qualms I might have about his call for universal health care. Hollywood seems to like him (and the Dreamworks SKG has deep pockets). He's a great speaker (and surely even Dubya's most ardent supporters won't argue that our current prez is good at public speaking). On the other hand, he's got very little major political experience, and hasn't had to run a competitive campaign. (But then again, after Giuliani dropped out, neither has Hillary...people forget that.) The key for Obama will be spinning lack of experience in Washington as a good thing, and he's got a message that can fit with that strategy. His handling of past drug use was excellent. No cutesy "I didn't inhale" nonsense, just "I did it, it was kind of dumb, I don't do it now," that seemed straight from the formerly drug-loving Baby Boomer/Gen X parenting playbook.

John Edwards - He was the runner-up in the '04 primary and is back for another go-around, but this time he's got the "outsider" persona going, as he's no longer in Congress. He should have the strict anti-war crowd locked up, because unlike Senators Obama and Clinton he can call for troop funding to be cut or other drastic measures without actually having to follow-up on them. Promises you can't make until you're President are a lot easier to "keep". He does seem more polished and better with the media than before, but will the hardline anti-war stance be enough in this primary? Plus, his trial lawyer past can play right into certain Republican/Right Wing stereotypes about liberals.

























(Ah politics, where even the Otter schemes...)

So my early guesses? One of the favorites above does make the general election, and the other comes from out of nowhere (after all, who called George Dubya in early 1999?)














(So go on, place your bets)

(Final footnote: I have to share this excerpt from Vida Guerra's Wikipedia entry: "She often appears on Spanish television shows and is well known because of her ample buttocks." Now that's good stuff.)