My 15 Minutes

Hello everyone!

Well, I've officially made it as a blogger. Sort of.

Apparently, a snippet of my last post was picked up and reprinted in Huckleberries Online, a popular North Idaho blog that apparently has way more readers than I do and is connected with the Spokesman Review, the biggest Spokane, WA and North Idaho newspaper. There was also a link to my post, and as a result, I had new people commenting on my blog!

But the best part was that there were more people commenting on the snippet on Huckleberries Online than all the people who have ever read my blog combined! And it turns out that I have a lot of admirers! Let's take a look at some of the comments:

I have the feeling that Rob was so unlikeable that people in North Idaho just avoided him like the plague.
Posted by Frum Helen Back | 25 Apr 9:51 AM

No, people avoided me because I was in my "I refuse to wear deodorant or brush my teeth" phase. I also rubbed myself habitually.

I fear for the future of these semi-journalist hacks.
Posted by Cabbage Boy | 25 Apr 9:52 AM

Wow. I'm a "semi-journalist hack" and here I wasn't even trying to be a journalist. If I can be half a journalist without even trying, think of what I could do if I tried. Not much, I'm sure.

Why can't I be a "semi-millionaire hack"? I'd settle for $500,000.

Well duh! The guy is from Oregon. I have cousins in Portland who have to explain to their friends that we're not all a bunch of potato farmers who ride horses.
Posted by Digger | 25 Apr 10:06 AM

Amen. Every Oregonian I've ever met is a complete moron! Seriously, I don't know how this state even manages with a bunch of retards like us living here! When I moved here, I totally lost, like, 40 IQ points as soon as I crossed the border. Now shut your mouth, woman! Jerry Springer's on! JERRY! JERRY!

This guy is a real hack.
Posted by poolman | 25 Apr 10:47 AM

A "real hack"? How can one be a "real hack"? That's quite an oxymoron. It's like saying "military intelligence", "cold fever", "a near miss", "genuine imitation", "original copy", "elevated subway", or "good grief". Nope, I'm just a pretend hack.

TONY STEWART
NORM GISSELL
BILL WASSMUTH
BOB HASSERIES

He can take his "most of the locals didn't care" and blow it out his a**.
Posted by Transplanted Texan | 25 Apr 11:11 AM

That's not all I can blow out my a**. Would you like me to prove it?

Of course, everyone knows there are no racists or xenophobes in Eugene. Native Oregonians positively adore Californians and rich tourists.

But he's right that Eugene has North Idaho beat when it comes to racial diversity. According to the wikipedia, Sandpoint's population is 96% white, while Eugene's is 88% white. That means there are several more non-white people in Eugene than there are in Sandpoint!

But as long as we're looking at stats, lets compare Eugene's rainbow of diversity to some other backward, provincial flyover cities:

• Charleston, WV: 80% white
• Omaha: 78% white
• Reno: 77% white
• Garden City, Kansas: 68% white
• Flint, Michigan: 41% white
• Gary, Indiana: 12% white

I've never really able to put a finger on why I disliked living in Eugene so much, but I think this kind of gels it. It's fine to have a superiority complex about something, just make sure it's an actual real thing. Eugene is scenic, has a nice bike infrastructure and a good university. Those are great things to brag about.

But Eugene is not diverse, and isn't any more welcoming to outsiders than anywhere else in the country. And maybe if people there would stop pretending it is, they might start to figure out why so few minorities choose to live there.
Posted by Ken Paulman | 25 Apr 11:36 AM

Of course, Eugene is diverse. In fact, just today I saw someone with dreads and a tie-dye shirt talking with someone with dreads and a different color tie-dye shirt.

Oh, and our bike infrastructure is not that good. Sandpoint and Coeur d'Alene's are probably as good if not better.

Anyway, not everyone agreed that I'm a stupid hack with a superiority complex and no friends:

I love that rather than wanting to have a real, introspective discussion about this issue - and I think some of Rob's points are valid - people simply attack him. You know, him and his differing opinion.

Nope, no xenophobia there. ;)
Posted by Sam | 25 Apr 12:07 PM

And:

Eugene has the highest proportion of VW Bus owners in America. True fact.

But you all prove his point better than he could. Too funny.

And TT, typing four names in all caps doesn't exactly refute his point, in fact, it's irrelevant.

Most of the locals didn't and don't care and in fact probably secretly rooted for the neo-nazis as they knew it kept the area having a bad reputation for people of non-white cultures to visit and move to. A reputation, despite the ceaseless bloviating and boostering, it hasn't even begun to shed.

Just say "North Idaho" in any urban setting in the USA.

Task forces don't even penetrate into grocery stores, restaurants, homeschools, bars, job sites, farms, etc.
Posted by Bob | 25 Apr 12:27 PM

I guess I was wrong about there not being differing opinions in North Idaho! Hey, wait a minute. That's not even what I was saying in the first place! I guess straw man arguments are easier to criticize than, you know, what was actually said.

Anyway, I'm sure my 15 minutes of fame is probably just about over by now and I can expect to keep having the same four readers that I've had for a year and a half. You know, the same four people who have known for a long time that I'm a stupid hack with a superiority complex and no friends but still stick with me because, well, I don't know why.

And to those of you who want to criticize me? I just have one thing to say to you:


Rob

The Grand Old Daily Bee

Hello everyone!

Sometimes I waste time. I meant to use my lunch break as an opportunity to get caught up on my readings for class, but that didn't happen. Instead, I got sucked into reading the online version of the Bonner County Daily Bee.

For those of you who don't know, this is the local newspaper for a town in Idaho called Sandpoint, which is where I lived for almost eight years before moving to Oregon. It's where I met Cathy and many of the close friends that I've had for years. It's also where my parents, grandma, and my sister and her family live, as well as where Cathy's parents live. So basically, although I wasn't born there and never went to school there as a kid, I pretty much consider it my hometown.

But there's a sort of strange ideology there, and I'm going to try to describe it as best as I can. It's a sort of "libertarian-isolationist" ideology. The area is overwhelmingly white and Christian, like most rural areas. But the people there are generally really big on privacy, (or at least used to be) which is how the Aryan Nation asshats ended up there for so long. As long as they stayed in their remote compound, kept to themselves, and didn't harass anyone, most of the locals didn't care.

Now that's fine if you just wanted to live in a cabin in the woods and grow pot (which a lot of people did, and I'm sure still do). But because the area is somewhat geographically isolated, and I'd add because there were no colleges there (the main reason I moved to Oregon in the first place), racism among the locals developed differently. In fact, I wouldn't even call it racism, but more like xenophobia. In places like California, white racists tend to look at poor people of color and think there is something inherently wrong with them, whereas there really are hardly any people of color in Idaho, and so the ones who aren't racists that moved up from California are simply xenophobes. They like North Idaho the way it is, and anyone different who shows up is trying to change their home. For this reason, many locals hate rich tourists or transplants, Californians in particular, or any other outsiders. A person of color is clearly an outsider since there are hardly any who live there. Apart from a few exceptions, the only time North Idahoans see people of color is when they watch TV. But they hear horror stories about them from the transplants.

The point to all this is that this attitude often shows up in the newspaper under the letters to the editor. In the online version, there's a space at the end of the letter to leave comments. Sometimes I comment, and sometimes I don't. Today's paper featured a letter that was so ridiculously racist, I had to comment. However, my comment included a pejorative term (only because it was part of an official US policy name), so who knows if they'll publish my comment. Anyway, here's the text of the letter followed by my comments:

Illegal immigration has tremendous cost
Posted: Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 - 09:17:05 am PDT


This is in response to March 18 letter on immigration.
Dear liberals (not the middle-of-the-road Democrats); the subject is illegal immigration:

What is it that you don’t understand about the word “illegal?” I agree with the person who said go to Los Angeles, Arizona, Texas and other states that are suffering from the burden of illegal immigrants.

Would someone tackle that single question with honesty. Don’t put a spin on it; our society is going to crumble under the huge negative impact of illegals.

These immigrants are certainly voting (illegally) Democratic so they can get all the free health, schools, jobs, bringing us down to their level — a third world country. Our history years ago would only let in immigrants that would bring something worthwhile; they were educated or trained to work in our society.

Long gone are the days when we can allow all of the worlds poor into the US. We are running out of resources for our own children.

Why don’t you read what you write, then actually think about what your saying! Rome fell and so can we. My guess is those who really think that it is a good idea to allow illegals into the U.S. also have an agenda of their own; me me me maybe?

I’m disappointed in some of my fellow Americans, you certainly have not traveled to the other countries that are trying so badly to get in the U.S. We can’t bring all those poor people into our country. What do you want for your own children; poverty? These are sad times and it is because of the very left liberals not the middle-of-the-road Democrats who are clueless and dangerous to the U.S. By the way, right wing conservatives are no better than you lefties! Do you really want America to be a third world country?

CAROL ALBANESE

Priest River

My response:

This country's immigration history has most certainly not been about "immigrants that would bring something worthwhile." On the contrary, it has been a series of some of the most blatantly racist policies in our country's history of blatantly racist policies. Look up the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, The Immigration Act of 1924 and the National Origins Formula, and Operation Wetback (yes, they actually called it that) just for starters.

Once you learn about our history of racist immigration policies, you can move on to our history of exploitation of people in poor countries, particularly in Latin America. You should study NAFTA and the effects of American subsidized corn and how it devastated Mexico's agriculture industry. Then you can read about the American-owned Maquiladora factories that opened in the border towns and how many of the millions of Mexican people who moved there for jobs and suddenly found themselves out of work when China was able to do it cheaper. You can research about the indigenous Mexican people who were kicked off their farm lands by American corporations because they didn't have "legal documentation" that they owned it, despite the fact that their ancestors lived there for thousands of years. I'm sure you could no doubt find hundreds of other examples of American officials and businesses exploiting Mexicans and other Latin Americans and/or meddling with Latin American governments, including the CIA overthrowing or trying to overthrow democratically-elected regimes simply because they won't do business with American corporations.

Or you could just ignore all this and continue to foolishly blame immigrants for all your problems. After all, victims are much easier to blame than the perpetrators, especially if blaming the perpetrators involves looking in the mirror.

It's easy to talk about how aghast you are that someone would break a law when that law benefits you and punishes them, when that law provides you rights and opportunities but not them, and the only difference between you and them is that you were lucky enough to be born on this side of the border and they were unlucky enough to be born on that side.

I'm sure that posting this comment won't change anyone's mind, but at least they can't keep falling back on ignorance as an excuse. Still, it really frustrates me when people measure others based on themselves while completely ignoring how much of an advantage they have.

Unfortunately, I just put myself at a disadvantage by doing all this because I'm still behind on my readings for school. I better get to it.

Rob

The Fox is Wrong!

Hello everyone!

It's time to play your favorite game, The Fox is Wrong!



It's not that I'm surprised that TV news talking heads are full of bullshit. What surprises me is how full of bullshit they are. How do they cram so much utter bullshit into one business suit and then coat it with hairspray and makeup before it's time to go on the air? Do the talking heads gobble the bullshit, or do the news execs cram it down their throats? Wonders never cease.

Whichever the case, there's no bullshit shortage, and so they can spew it all over the place once they go on TV. Which is why I don't watch them. It's too bad there are those who do and actually think they're informed.

Even worse are the fanatics. These people remind me of the hanger-ons who would follow around the high school bully, laugh at every stupid thing he said, and pretend to like him so he wouldn't pick on them. They think politics and public policy is a sport, and they think the loud, ex-football player has a better shot at winning against those smart types.

Speaking of smart types, have you seen Steve Novick's new ad? Well, here it is:



Here are his others if you haven't seen them:





If you live in Oregon, you have until April 29 to register as a Democrat to vote for Steve!

Rob

The Last Time, I Promise

Hello everyone!

OK, I swear this is the last time I'm going to do this. Unless, I decide to do this again, of course.

Once again, Hunter at the Daily Kos hit one out of the park with his latest blog posting. It's like I'm beginning to develop a man-crush on this blogger, to the point that I'm creeping myself out a bit. Still, his (her?) postings kick several different types of ass, so here they are. The latest is about the sham of a debate that aired last night, which if you haven't heard, consisted of questions about Rev. Wright, flag pins, and other bogus non-issues while really, really, really important stuff was ignored. Anyway, here's the posting:

The Collapse Of The National Press

by Hunter

Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:34:35 AM PDT

After the first forty minutes of last night's Democratic debate, it was clear we were watching something historic. Not historic in a good way, mind you, but historic in the sense of being something so deeply embarrassing to the nation that it will be pointed to, in future books and documentary works, as a prime example of the collapse of the American media into utter and complete substanceless, into self-celebrated vapidity, and into a now-complete inability or unwillingness to cover the most important affairs of the nation to any but the most shallow of depths.

Congratulations are clearly in order. ABC had two hours of access to two of the three remaining candidates vying to lead the most powerful nation in the world, and spent the decided majority of that time mining what the press considers the true issues facing the republic. Bittergate; Rev. Wright; Bosnia; American flag lapel pins. That's what's important to the future of the country.

What a contrast. Only a few weeks ago, we were presented with what was considered by many to be a historic speech by a presidential candidate on race in America -- historic for its substance, tone, delivery, and stark candor. Last night, we had an opposing, equally historic example -- and I sincerely mean that, I consider it to be every bit as significant as that word implies -- of the collapse of the political press into self-willed incompetence. You might as well pull any half-intelligent person off the street, and they would unquestionably have more difficult and significant questions for the two candidates. It was not merely a momentarily bad performance, by ABC, it was a debate explicitly designed to be what it was, which is far more telling.

It is certainly true that a case could be made that the moderators explicitly set out to frame even the supposedly "substantive" questions according to GOP designs. The implicit presumption of success in Iraq when, nearly an hour into the debate, the moderators finally deigned to mention the defining current event of this campaign. Gibson, as moderator, lied outright about the supposed effects of capital gains tax cuts, and dogged the candidates over it to a greater extent than any other economic issue: does he really believe that of all the economic challenges facing this nation, the most pressing of them is supplication towards a decade-long Republican bugaboo? Gun control? Affirmative action? These are the issues that are most compellingly on the minds of Democratic primary voters, in 2008? Or were the questions taken from a 1992 time capsule, insightful probes gathering dust for a decade and a half until they could find network moderators desperate enough to dig them up again?

But even slanted questions could be forgiven, of the press; what was more inexplicable was the intentional wallowing in substanceless, meaningless "gaffe" politics. It says something truly impressive about the press that a few statements by a presidential candidate's preacher bear far more weight to the future of our nation than the challenges of terrorism or war. It is truly a celebration of our own national collapse into idiocracy that we can furrow our brows and question the patriotism of a candidate, deeply probe their patriotism based on whether or not they regularly don a made-in-China American flag pin, but a substantive discussion of energy policy, or healthcare, or the deficit, or the housing crisis, or global climate change, or the government approval of torture, or trade issues, or the plight of one-industry small American towns, or the fight over domestic espionage and FISA, or the makeup of the Supreme Court -- those were of no significance, in comparison.

If a media organization set out to intentionally demonstrate themselves to be self absorbed and ignorant, they could not have accomplished it better. It was not just a tabloid debate, but the tittering of political kindergardeners making and lobbing mud pies. It was politics as game show. The moderators demonstrated that to them and their supposed "news" organization, the presidency of the United States of America is about the trivialities of_politics_, which were obsessed over ravenously, not about the challenges of American governance, which were fully ignored.

Certainly, as mere citizens we could ask little of the network that unapologetically brought us The Path to 9/11, a fabricated conservative pseudo-documentary laying the blame for terrorism at the feet of everyone loathed by the far right. But it is not simply ABC that bears the blame: surely, one could expect similar drivel from any of the other networks or cable channels who have so successfully and self-importantly dimmed the national discourse, these past ten years. For his part, the chairman of the written intellectual wisp, the New York Times' David Brooks, marveled at the "excellent" questions:

We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.

Indeed, how dare his peon readers whine about these things: this is how the political game is expected to be played by the grand masters of our discourse. Symbolic tours of flag factories! Checkmate! That is the elite idea of "issues" in our national debate. Piss on the war, and screw the economy -- somebody find a goddamn flag factory to tour! That is how our most elite media figures like to see political opponents "exposed" as... well, what exactly? What does touring a flag factory prove, other than the media in this country is so astonishingly gullible, tin-headed and shallow that you can actually tour a damn flag factory and get praised for it by our idiot press as being a bold, disarming move against your opponent?

Truly, we have become a nation led by the most lazy and ignorant. It seems impossible to mock or satirize just how shallowly the media considers the actual world ramifications of each election, how glancingly they explore the actual truth behind political assertion or rhetoric, or how gleefully they molest our discourse while praising themselves for those selfsame acts. And that, in turn, is precisely how we elected our current Idiot Boy King, a man who has the eloquent demeanor of a month-old Christmas tree and the nuance of a Saturday morning cartoon.

It seems impossible, but we may yet have an election season in which we can be in a slogging, five-year-long war, and mention the fact only in glancing asides. We may yet have a series of Republican-Democratic debates in which the most pressing issues of the economy are entirely ignored, so that we can more adequately explore the "patriotism" of the candidates as expressed by their clothing. We may have yet another campaign season carefully orchestrated to leave all but the most glancing and hollow of themes untouched, while our press achieves multiple orgasms at every botched line, every refused cup of coffee, every peddled character assassination or character assassination-by-proxy peddled by the sleaziest of paid dregs. A campaign, in other words, perfectly suited to the bereft, rudderless, and substanceless self-pronounced guardians of our democracy.

Perhaps, if nothing else, it is time to take back the debate process and insist once again on moderators chosen for competence, expertise and neutrality, rather than network or cable network fame. The elites of our press have managed to botch the task time and time again; perhaps it should be left to someone with an actual interest in doing the job.

There you go. When we vote for people based on something their pastor said or based on whether or not they wear flag pins or whether they drink orange juice instead of coffee, we're screwed. Without the right kind of information and knowledge, our democracy can't work. And that's why I blog. Fortunately, stealing from others is one way to blog.

Rob

Rob Rips Off The Daily Kos Part Deux

Hello everyone!

Once again, Hunter at the Daily Kos showed the world a thing or two about how to blog. And once again, I'm going to rip his latest off and post it right here on Rob Dow's World. Here it is:

BitterJuiceBowlGate, Day Whatever + 1
by Hunter
Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:12:00 AM PDT

You'd think I was making it up, if there wasn't videotape. And, you know, ten years of the exact same behavior preceding it. Monday, on MSNBC:

['MSNBC Live' anchor Contessa Brewer]: It's interesting, though, because you always have this question that erupts around election time: Who would you rather have a beer with? And so, it's not just what the candidates are saying to appeal to folks -- they want to be seen as the guy or the gal next door -- but they also have to do it. So, we've seen these candidates now in Pennsylvania -- here's Hillary Clinton doing shots in a bar. And then we have video of Barack Obama tossing back a Yuengling, which, anybody who's been to Philadelphia knows they're very proud of their local beer out there. How important is the video? I mean, if -- do these pictures really speak a thousand words, Jon?

[Reuters Washington correspondent Jon Decker]: They do. And let's not forget Barack Obama bowling. You know, this cuts to "is this person real? Do they connect with me as a voter?" You know, for someone who's in a bowling league in northeast central Pennsylvania, in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, they can't identify with someone getting a 37 over seven frames.

My first reaction was the sensible one: to pray to God to please kill me, immediately. Preferably by meteor. But one of the defining characteristics of my life is that God just isn't that into me, and/or all the meteors are already spoken for, so it never works.

In lieu of divine homicide, then, I suppose the only other avenue left is to try to pry some sense from the nonsense. So here goes: what you see, above, is the defense of the petty, the vapid and the embarrassingly trivial as valid "news", worthy of actual air time. The premise goes like this: the news media reports some minor absurdity about the race. Various pundits go on television to tell Americans how the latest triviality should make them "feel". Ten times as many pundits appear to analyze what would happen if Americans actually felt that way. Then comes the man-on-the-street interviews to see if people really do "feel" that way, and regardless of what actually gets said, by how many, the hypothesis is pronounced correct, or at least "newsworthy". (Note: the definition of "newsworthy" is simply "something we felt like putting on television." This could be a story about Abu Ghraib, or a story about a cat that has learned to ride a skateboard, or a story about what Robert Novak thinks about something. It is, in other words a meaningless phrase.)

Then George W. Bush and a half dozen cabinet members in some back room somewhere authorize the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody, but we can't pay attention to that because we've all got to decide whether we want a president with good bowling scores.


Where did we get this notion that the President of the United States should be a drinking buddy? Where did we get the notion that the strongest nation on earth should be led by a folksy, easy-to-like drunk? I don't mean where did the country get this notion, I mean when did the media decide that this was a valid measure of a leader, something worth endlessly discussing, and analyzing, and tittering over? When facing down the leader of a rogue nation in a series of intense negotiations, I don't want the guy shooting pool at the corner bar, I want someone with a head for the job, for God's sake, and I don't give a rats ass if he likes buffalo wings, or bowling, or can smash an empty beer can on his head. (A point of trivia: the first President to try to smash a beer can on his head was John Quincy Adams. Unfortunately, beer cans did not exist back then, only kegs, so Adams gave himself a hell of a concussion attempting the feat.)

Yes, we all understand that, if no other information about a candidate is forthcoming, voters will attempt to divine a candidate's values, positions or general worth from whatever minor points of familiarity can be gleaned. This is human nature; this is how uninformed voters vote. But when that happens, that is a failure of our Democracy, not a strength. There is little excuse for not knowing the positions of candidates after two dozen Democratic debates and a passel of Republican ones, and when each candidate has more than an ample record of past records and statements -- regardless, though, how on earth did we reach the point where the news media themselves seize upon the trivialities and petty trinkets of the campaign as themselves as or more meaningful than the actual political positions and records of the candidates?

Yes, there are uninformed, dull-witted voters in the world, people who will decide who to vote for based on choice of beer. But why -- why, in the name of all that is holy, and several things that are not -- would the political media itself, presumably the group of people most informed about the actual issues of governance riding on each election, choose to celebrate that lack of substantive information and instead wallow in the meaningless?

What, is it a game? Laziness? Ineptitude? Stupidity? Most people who read this site know my own opinion, by now: it is a little of each of those things, but mostly it is institutional stupidity, a stupidity and vapidity enforced by a lack of corporate will or resources to fill the news day with anything more significant. Placing a talking head on television is, compared to covering any news story at all -- especially one that might require leaving the office -- free. It costs nothing more than a camera, a microphone, and the willingness to say whatever enters your head and pronounce it sufficiently pundacious.


In addition, and more troublingly, the shift in the attitudes of those that cover politics continues unabated, and with ever more ridiculous affectations. Political reporters no longer consider themselves observers, or balances to counter the powerful; they consider themselves an integral part of the political game itself. We are barraged constantly with the spin coming from every election camp -- and the spin itself is reported as the story. It is not enough even to report that spin, anymore; now the airwaves are filled with the actual spinners themselves, presenting the absurdity of the day directly to the audience without the noisome filters of reportage or fact checking or impartial rebuttal. The spectacle of debate is the story, not the thing actually being debated. The thing actually being debated, whatever it may be, is just the pointless MacGuffin around which two opposing sides can be booked to scream at each other for a few minutes between commercials.

Even torture is now nothing more than a MacGuffin for the two sides, now. Domestic espionage? Governmental corruption? An astonishing corruption of the Department of Justice itself? Merely trivialities around which two sides can be booked for boisterous, vapid debate.

Talk about elitism: when, exactly, did we get to the point where an assortment of multimillionares can vie, every four years, for the title of most folksy, and most "common", and have the attempts reported with a straight face by the most supposedly intelligent and insightful political minds available? Are we serious? Watching a set of multimillionaires competing desperately to each appear the most down to earth, the most folksy and hick, challenging each other with increasingly "common" costumes, extolling the virtues of barbecue and hot dogs and grits, admiring the local sports team in every individual state they visit; admit it, it is hilarious. It is one of the few contests the rich have, among themselves, that the rest of us get to enjoy as well, for watching a lifetime establishment insider play dress up, and watching them play act as they pretend to be what they see us as being, namely complete and utter rubes, more obsessed with our backyard grills than the fates of our own jobs -- that is a fine play indeed, if you are into truly dark humor.

But we have perfected the game. Now we can watch dozens upon dozens of supposedly intelligent, jaded political reporters tool around the country after them, reporting on their gamesmanship and faux-folksiness with earnest expressions, reporting on their latest diner visits and photographs with puppies -- now that is the game within the game. The politicians consider us rubes. The press consider us rubes, too. And so they work together to tell us how we should feel, when the play is performed for us, and how we should feel when something goes off-script, and they are even generous enough to reuse the same storylines from one election to the next, so we do not damage our poor, piteous brains by having to relearn what we are supposed to think about the elitist, effeminate Democrat, or the foreign policy gravitas-having Republican.

Good God, it is impossible to express how insulted we should be that the guardians of our discourse think this is the only political slop worth serving us.


Very well; I give up. If, as the Reuters correspondent declares, common America has no hope of identifying with someone getting a poor bowling score, then the answer seems obvious. We must quantify how much "connection with the voters" is possible, given a particular score in the sport: this will then allow us to wallow freely in our own idiocy, not bothering the pitiable higher-ups of government or the press with our incessant demands for any more substantive information or knowledge. I therefore suggest the following crude measures of a man, so that the people of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre will not be left in cruel emotional limbo, unable to find an emotional bond with their candidates.

A score of 100 should be the minimum: if a candidate can bowl over 100, after practicing for a week, that signifies that they have the minimal personal integrity worthy of office. They are suitable for heading a lesser government agency, or an ambassadorship.

If a candidate can top 150, they show true intellect, and are worthy of at least a cabinet position. 170 indicates fortitude in the face of adversity, indicating perhaps a position in the defense department is in order. 180 signifies that their tax returns are in order.

If a candidate achieves a score over 200, that means that they are faithful to their spouse. A score over 220 furthermore indicates a loving relationship, and not just a marriage of convenience. A score over 225 signals that they have the love of their children as well, and that their children are free of drugs or unfortunate homosexual tendencies.

A bowling score of 240 or above shows a candidate as capable of leadership. It also testifies to a good relationship between with their God; the presidency may be viable. 250, the typical score of devout Protestants, cinches the deal, indicating God loves them back. A second term may be in order.

A score of 260 indicates competent fiscal management abilities; if they achieve this score on a league night, managerial competence is also likely. Bowling an impressive 270 is a sign of great foreign policy capabilities, possibly including past war hero status. At 280, you can expect a balanced budged to be achieved, as well as at least one great speech about the evils of communism.

A score of 290 will win a war, probably without a nuclear exchange.

And what of the perfect game, the elusive 300? Ah, my children, that indeed shows true greatness. In the entire history of the Republic, only one President has been a 300 bowler: none other than the Emancipator, the great Abraham Lincoln himself.

Because it was Abraham Lincoln's hard-fought perfect game, achieved in the dead of one cold and bitter winter's night, that allowed him to free the slaves.

Rob

General Petraeus's Testimony

Hello everyone!

In the interest of education, here's a video of General Petraeus's testimony:



Rob

Rob Rips Off The Daily Kos

Hello everyone!

Today's blog is going to be another copy-and-paste job. This time I'm going to blatantly steal from the Daily Kos. I do this because I believe my readers deserve to read good blog postings every once in a while. Here goes:

Barack Obama Shows Disrespect For Rural Americans
by Hunter
Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM PDT

NEWSCASTER BOB: Good evening, and welcome to the news. A disturbing revelation tonight, as reports indicate the abusive treatment of prisoners in United States custody was specifically endorsed at the highest levels of government. Vice President Richard Cheney, then Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft and CIA Director George Tenet specifically signed off on torture techniques like "waterboarding" that could be used on prisoners, including specific numbers of times some techniques could be used.

This contradicts frequent statements by the administration that these torture techniques were not used, and may have legal ramifications as --

PUNDIT 1: Bob, I'm going to have to break in here. We have breaking news that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama today turned down a cup of coffee, asking for orange juice instead. Could this be the gaffe that brings down the Obama campaign? Let's talk to our panel of interchangeable political experts.

PUNDIT 2: This is remarkable, Interchangeable Pundit 1. Can a man be president if he turns down a cup of coffee? I think that shows a remarkable elitism -- just a shocking blunder, on his part. How will Obama connect with rural America if he doesn't show respect for them and their beverages?

PUNDIT 3: I agree, Interchangeable Pundit 2. I mean, Obama is trying to court small town voters -- where does he think he is, the Ritz? How many of these people does he think have ever heard of something called "orange juice?"

PUNDIT 1: Exactly, Pundit 3. I mean, you have to think he's just offended so many of these folks. I wrote a column last year about how much good, decent rural Americans like their morning coffee. These people don't know what "orange juice" is. They've never had it. To have some guy come in to their town and ask for "orange juice", like he was a Prussian king or something -- I mean, that's really not going to go down well with these old fashioned, everyday yokels. Really, really a blunder. It really shows his lack of respect for these small town Americans.

NEWSCASTER BOB: ...Um, all right -- thank you pundits. Getting back... um... getting back to our top stories today, presidential candidate John McCain on the campaign trail today once again asserted ties between Iraq, Iran and al Qaeda that intelligence and military experts have repeatedly said do not exist. This was after several similar statements yesterday, and is seen by some as damaging to the credentials of the self-styled foreign policy expert. McCain has remained steadfast in his support of a war that has become overwhelmingly unpopular, and --

PUNDIT 1: Bob, I'm sorry -- we again have breaking news on the campaign trail. In a big blow to his campaign, it seems Barack Obama has not done well in a game of bowling. He bowled quite badly -- let's again to our panel of Interchangeable Pundits for their reactions on this important developing story.

PUNDIT 2: A huge, huge blow to the Obama campaign. Obama is at huge risk of being seen as out of touch and elitist, here. I wrote a column about this just last year, about how important bowling is to rural Americans. Every small town hick in America knows how to bowl -- I really don't think these plaid-shirt-wearing tractor jockeys are going to be able to accept a president who does poorly at such a blue-collar, all American sport. It really smacks of elitism -- not hitting the pins, I just think that's an insult that all the half drunk rednecks out here in this part of the country, who really are looking for a president who understands them and their indoor sports.

PUNDIT 3: Remarkable, yet again. Not wanting a cup of coffee, doing badly at a game of bowling -- this is the sort of stuff that these slackjawed hill people really look down upon. Obama really has to show he is in touch with these farm country cow tippers, that he respects them. He's not doing it, with blunders like this. "Oh," Obama says, "no coffee, thanks, just bring me the juice of a squeezed tropical fruit" -- I just don't know that that's going to play with these four-tooth hayseeds and shack dwellers.

NEWSCASTER BOB: So Pundit 1, getting back to our original story, you don't think the war is a big story, in rural America, you think coffee and bowling scores are what these Americans want to hear about.

PUNDIT 1: Absolutely, Bob. I wrote a column about this a few months ago, how these fine, upstanding turnip farmers are tired of hearing about the war, and just want a good cup of coffee and to go bowling. No matter how inbred they may be, you have to admire the simplicity of their way of life. Not elitist at all.

PUNDIT 2: Totally agree. You have to take into account that rural Americans are a simple people. This coffee incident is really the kind of story that could resonate with these wholesome, beer swilling cow tippers.

PUNDIT 3: I agree as well. Very much so.

NEWSCASTER BOB: All right then, thank you pundits... In a related story tonight: one hundred years. That's how long one presidential candidate says troops may be in Iraq. Meanwhile, the death toll rises almost daily. We'll speak to several military experts tonight on whether the Iraq War is draining resources from what some call the "real" War On Terr--

PUNDIT 1: Bob, hold on, fresh breaking news here. It seems presidential candidate Barack Obama has stepped in it once again, by claiming that some small town Americans are "bitter." We're going to have a one hour breaking news special on this, right after this news program, but before that let's talk again to our political experts.

PUNDIT 2: This is -- this is staggering, Pundit 1. Just devastating to the campaign. You have a regular guy like John McCain, who is really in touch with these halfbreed nine-fingered dirt pickers, who really feels their pain at their telecommunication companies having to answer to federal laws, or who are really, really alarmed that the Iraq War won't be allowed to continue indefinitely, or who just want to do their patriotic part for encouraging free trade by outsourcing their town's jobs and industries, and then you've got Obama over here claiming they're "bitter"? Wow. I mean, you have to marvel at the blunder. John McCain's spokesman immediately came out with a statement that everything is fine, and that these rural patriots are really quite pleased at the job losses -- if those job losses happened, which the spokesman denies.

PUNDIT 3: I agree, this really helps John McCain. For Obama to claim these cowpie chuckers are bitter, or that these people who have lost their jobs have been losing hope -- well, that's just the gravest of elitist insults to these flyover country half-human Sears-shopping trailer park squatters. How dare he insult them like that, by calling them "bitter"? You know, in my last column I talked about these fine small town possum scrapers, and how valuable they are to the country. These people go to laundromats where you have to put the quarters in the machines yourself -- yourself! No joke, I'm not sure Obama can really relate to something like that. He's certainly never written a column on it, that's for sure.

PUNDIT 1: Probably too busy drinking orange juice! Ha! But seriously, I agree with your agreement. I mean, between wanting orange juice, doing badly at a sport, and claiming people who have lost their jobs are bitter, I'm just not sure what demographic he's still trying to appeal to. Certainly not the fine roadkill-stew-for-dinner folks that make up our small towns and rural areas. They don't care about complicated things like wars and job flight, they care about coffee and bowling and leaders who understand how much they like wars and job flight. And laundromats.

PUNDIT 2: I agree with both of your agreements with me. I wrote a column two weeks ago about these very same steak and potato halfwits, and what a treasure they were. Obama's losing them, by talking about things like jobs and orange juice. Huge mistake.

PUNDIT 3: Indeed, if I could agree again with my agreement, I'm going to be writing a column next week about these corn-bred Godbillies. I'm not sure Obama could understand them as well as you and I do, having not written any columns about them. I think all you have to do is listen to country music -- the music of the people, I might add -- and you'd hear that these pickup driving dynamite-fishers aren't bitter in the least at the closing factories. If anything, they're grateful for the free time.

NEWSCASTER BOB: Now, hold -- hold on a minute here. What you're basically saying, what you've been saying all night, in fact, is that our rural Americans are essentially too ignorant and uneducated to follow stories about the war, or torture, or the failing economy, or even their own lost jobs. Instead, they want to hear stories about bowling, coffee and whether or not someone said they might feel bitter. Don't you think that's a bit insulting to small town America -- that you're essentially calling them stupid, not able to grasp anything but the smallest and most trivial of stories?

PUNDIT 2: Hmm, sounds like somebody hasn't been writing any columns.

PUNDIT 3: I agree. War, torture, and the economy? What an elitist question. You know, you should visit these people sometime, you'd see how simple and upstanding they are. They do their own laundry, even -- it's inspiring, that's what it is.

NEWSCASTER BOB: All right, I'm just going to let this drop, I think we really need to get back to real news now. Coming up, Vice President Cheney eats a baby. Will Bush pardon the baby for not being tender enough, or leave it to the courts to decide? Coming up, an interview with the baby's parents, who have apologized to the Vice President for their baby not tasting as delicious as the Vice President had expect--

PUNDIT 1: OH MY GOD, BOB, I HAVE TO BREAK IN HERE -- OBAMA JUST PUT A NICKEL IN THE TAKE-A-PENNY BOWL. THIS COULD BE IT, BOB, I'M NOT SURE THESE SUSPENDER-WEARING BEAN EATING SHEEP SODOMIZERS HAVE EVER SEEN THAT MUCH MONEY IN THEIR LIVES, HE MAY HAVE LOST THEM WITH THAT DISPLAY OF OSTENTATIOUS WEALTH. PUNDIT 2, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

PUNDIT 2: UM, I CAN'T TALK RIGHT NOW, I'M ACHIEVING CLIMAX -- ONE SECOND -- ONE SECOND --

PUNDIT 3: GET ME HOME! CALL THE DRIVER, GET ME HOME RIGHT NOW! I HAVE TO WRITE A COLUMN!

NEWSCASTER BOB: Um... OK... I'm being told we're going to take a quick break. When we come back: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Why has he never eaten a baby?

[end scene]

Rob

Senator John McBush

Hello everyone!

Question: How do you stay in Iraq for 100 years?

Answer:



Six months at a time!

I have a new slogan for him:

John McCain: Like Bush. Only seniler.

Rob

Double Digits!

Hello everyone!

It's a great day for me! It's a great day for Steve Novick! Actually, it's a great day for everyone! Why? Well, because of this:



That's right, double digits! Of course, there's still 40% undecided, so I'll be pretty busy for the next 6 weeks. Between working on the Steve Novick campaign, tutoring, and going to school full-time, I won't have much time left over for blogging, I'm sorry to say. Although, the last time I said I was going to be busy, I ended up blogging like crazy. Regardless, I am and will continue to be busy.

You can help me, though, by going here and volunteering for the campaign (you don't have to go crazy like I am--just a couple hours on a Saturday afternoon will do) and/or making a donation (again, I realize most people I know are poor, so buy a t-shirt or a bottle of Left Hook Lager if that's what it takes to justify your donation). If I can ask complete strangers to get involved, why not friends and family?

Of course, if you want to be selfish, it won't cost you any money, and it won't take much time to vote for Steve Novick in the Democratic primaries in May. If you don't live in Oregon, there's still 21 days left for you to move here and register (as a Democrat, naturally), and then another 3 weeks to fill out your ballot and vote for Steve Novick. What are you waiting for?

Rob

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

Hello everyone!

Here's the latest breaking news:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says



For more of the same, visit:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

You can't go wrong with The Onion.

Rob