A statement from Detroit Pistons general manager Joe Dumars:
I wanted to say a few words about the Michigan Solution. No, not thattravesty of justice. I'm talking about a fair, common-sense resolution of the Eastern Conference Finals.
Some in the media are declaring the series over because the Boston Celtics have won four of the six games played so far. But I don’t understand why, with a series this close and hotly contested, anyone would want to shut it down before we play a seventh game and have all the results in. As anybody who follows the NBA knows, a seven-game series would be good for the league, and the added competition would make the eventual victor, whomever it might be, a stronger opponent against the Los Angeles Lakers in the Finals.
It’s no great surprise that some are trying to push us out of this series. From the beginning, it’s been clear that the media and league elites have been looking for an exciting new face, instead of a team, like ours, that has proven its mettle by making it to the Conference Finals six years in a row. We saw it in the Western Conference as well, where officials and news outlets made clear they were sick to death of the reigning champion San Antonio Spurs and behaved like cheerleaders for the media-darling Lakers. Heck, they almost managed to persuade fans that a hokey, small-town act like the New Orleans Hornets was a legitimate contender. It is safe to say that this has been the most rigged coverage in modern sports history.
But back to the series in question. Yes, Boston has won four games and Detroit only two. But it's hard to imagine a more arbitrary and undemocratic way to determine this series’s outcome than "games won." It is, after all, a bedrock value of the game of basketball that all points must be counted. But how can that be the case when every point beyond the winning point is ignored? There are literally dozens of layups, jumpers, free throws, and (yes, even) dunks that our opponents want to say don't count for anything at all. We call on the NBA to do the right thing and fully count all of the baskets that were made throughout the course of this series.
Once you abandon the artificial four-games-to-two framework that the media has tried to impose on the series, a very different picture emerges, with the Celtics leading by a mere 549 points to 539. Yes that’s right, the margin between the two teams is less than one percent—a tie, for all intents and purposes. This is probably the closest Conference Finals in NBA history, though I will thank you not to check on that.
How do we determine a winner in a series so historically close? First off, let's look at these so-called "free" throws, which are anything but. Who decides when these are to be awarded? Hard-working working-people like you and me? No, it's the officials, the league bosses, the elites. So no counting the free throws--unless and until (and I sincerely hope you guys are listening) the refs start breaking our way again. (By the way, you guys do know that Celts star Paul Pierce was involved in a stabbing a few years back, right? I only mention it because Phil Jackson is obviously going to bring it up in the Finals.)
If you take out free throws, Boston's ten-point margin in the series is whittled down to a single-digit, all-but-meaningless nine points. But this is still misleading. Let's be honest: We all know that some baskets count for more than others. (Yes, I know I was arguing for equal representation two seconds ago. What are you, Encyclopedia Brown? Chill out and try to stay current.) Take layups, for example: If you wander naively into the Finals thinking you’re going to win with layups, well don’t come crying to me when Kobe Bryant swats that lameass shit right back in your face. I know. I've been there.
So let's get right down to it: Big shots matter. It makes no difference when they happen, or who's leading at the time, or whether you're likely to make them against the Lakers, or any of that complicated nonsense. And we all know that the only real big shot is a three-pointer. So sure, Boston won more games than us, and scored more points, and made more baskets, and hit more free throws, and never tried to rewrite the rules after the fact. But we dominated them in three-point shooting, hitting 29 long ones to their 26 over the course of the series. Take this into account and it becomes apparent that we are by far the strongest competitor the Eastern Conference can field against the Lakers.
We again ask the league to consider all these facts and come to a fair solution. I’ll be holding a press conference at the Palace tonight, to which I’m inviting all Pistons season-ticket holders. I may announce our intention to drop out of the Eastern Conference Finals. Or I may not. But know one thing: If the media and league elites put the Celtics up against LA, they will lose, and we’ll be the first to say I told you so.
See you next season,
Joe Dumars (as told to Christopher Orr)
Oh well, I guess it's all a moot point anyway. I'm just glad we're finally done with this crap. Onward to stage 2: kicking some Maverick ass!
These days, it's really easy to compile a list of reasons to vote for someone. It's also easy to compile a list of reasons to not vote for someone. But I've discovered it's a bit challenging to compile a list of stupid reasons to not vote for someone! Yet that's what I did. So without any further ado, here is my list of 10 stupid reasons to not vote for Barack Obama:
Reason #1: He's a Muslim!
No he's not. But the bigger question is "So what if he was?" The assumption here is that Muslim=evil or Islam=terrorist.
I won't even get into whether or not Islam is evil because it's a stupid argument. If you think the whole religion is any more evil than any other religion, or that its followers are inherently evil, then you're blinded by your beliefs and are incapable of rational thought, and you might as well stop reading this. I'm sorry, but this whole "My God is better than yours argument" is idiotic, and it only leads to lots of dead people. You can believe all you want, but you don't know, and so it's stupid to argue about it. Even stupider is to make blanket statements about all the followers of a particular religion, especially when your religion has no shortage of skeletons in its closet. This is why I'm fanatically agnostic.
As far as equating Islam to terrorism, that's a fair comparison, but only if you ignore all the non-Muslim terrorists in recent history, such as the IRA, abortion clinic bombers, Timothy McVeigh, so-called eco-terrorists, Ted Kaczynski, the CIA, the Chinese government, the Soviets, etc.
But then there's the whole illogic of equating the actions of a few to an entire religion.
I know some people would say that there are more than a few. Well, think about this for a moment. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, give or take a few hundred million. That's 1,500,000,000 people. Compare that with the population of Phoenix, AZ, which is about 1.5 million, or 1,500,000 people. If there were 1.5 million Muslim terrorists worldwide (there is no way to come up with a number, but still, this is an insanely huge number, and I really doubt it's anywhere near this high under most definitions), that would still only be 1 of every 1,000 Muslims, or less than 0.1%. Put it this way: it's about 1,000 miles from Chicago to Denver. Only one mile would be the "terrorist mile". So it's hardly fair to assume every follower of Islam is a terrorist, unless you're an ignorant, reactionary idiot.
Now, that's not to say that 1.5 million terrorists couldn't cause a whole lot of damage (and they aren't, which is why I think this number is way too high). But if you had to fight them, wouldn't you rather have the other 1,498,500,000 on your side?
Moreover, the definition of terrorist is so vague that anyone can be called a terrorist. I'm sure I could be called one simply for writing this blog. But don't worry, you're reading it, so that makes you a terrorist, too.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with Barack Obama, so let's move on.
Reason #2: He was raised in a Muslim terrorist madrassa!
Wrong again. I've already talked about the Muslim-terrorist claim. As for the bogus madrassa claim, my guess is that a vast majority of people who keep repeating this have no idea what a madrassa is. I didn't until I first heard this.
I suppose "madrassa" is a scary foreign-sounding word to some. But really, madrassa (madrasah) is simply the Arabic word for school. But I could see how people who are afraid of foreign-sounding words that they don't understand would also be afraid of school, or at least education.
But I guess if you're a complete moron, you can buy the line of reasoning that forty years ago, some grade school teachers somewhere in Indonesia concocted this great plan to select one of their students to be a sort of Manchurian Candidate who would one day become President of the United States so that he could singlehandedly destroy the whole country and convert us, as well as the whole Western World, into a bunch of freedom-hating Muslims. You'd also have to believe that they then thought, "You know, this plan is too easy. Instead of having a white guy with a name like John Smith, let's choose a black man named Barack Hussein Obama! They'll never suspect him!"
Of course, this also supposes that our country is so fragile that one guy can tear it all apart without any trouble. I guess if you have a low enough opinion of this country, you might think that. But that would mean you hate America.
Now I know some people might ask, "Hey, isn't one guy singlehandedly destroying this country right now?" No, he isn't. He hashadlotsof help.
Anyway, let's move on to reason #3.
Reason #3a: But he's Muslim! Look at his middle name: Hussein! What does that tell you?
...and...
Reason #3b: But he's Muslim! Look at his last name: Obama! You know, it sounds like Osama! What does that tell you?
Nothing. Neither tells me anything. And it shouldn't tell anyone else anything, either. Shall we play, "What's in a name?"
Joseph Lieberman and Joseph Biden would be horrible choices for president because their name is Joseph, and we all know Joseph Stalin was one of the most brutal dictators in history. Therefore, Lieberman and Biden would become dictators if elected president.
John McCain, John F. Kennedy, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, John Edwards, John Kerry, John Negroponte, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, John Lennon, Johnny Carson, Johnny Cash, Johnny Rotten, Johnny Walker, John Deere, Elton John, Johnson & Johnson, Trapper John, MD, Johns Hopkins, and Olivia Newton-John are all unqualified to be president because they all have "John" as part of their name. Who can forget another "John", John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Abraham Lincoln. You wouldn't want to vote for someone with connections to a notorious assassin, would you?
Hillary Clinton is out of the question, too. Look at her initials: H.C. You know who else had H.C. in his initials? H.C.M., aka Ho Chi Minh, that's who. And Rodham? That's like Rodman, as in Dennis Rodman, the cross-dressing basketball player. And if that weren't enough, "Hillary" starts with an "H", and so does "Hitler". That would make her a cross-dressing, VietCong, Nazi secret agent! Well, your secret is out, Hitlery Nguyen Rodman Clinton!
Reason #4: Obama associates with people who hate America! That means he hates America!
Oh, brother. I have friends who used to do a lot of meth. Does that mean I used to do a lot of meth? I have friends who are gay. Does that mean I'm gay? I have friends who have been in jail. Does that make me a criminal? I associate with many women. Does that make me a woman?
Note: I'm not equating being gay and/or being a woman to doing a lot of meth and/or being a criminal. They're just all things I can't say about myself.
Then there's the whole exaggeration or complete misrepresentation of what was said in the first place. Here's a good comparison of the sound bites and the context of what Jeremiah Wright said. I mean really, he never said anything that was untrue. But I guess a loud, angry black man is too scary to some people. We can also get into whether or not the guy truly hates America, but then we'd have to look at his military service history in Vietnam and how he attended to Lyndon B. Johnson after the president had surgery, and that wouldn't make for a good sound clip.
At the same time as all of this, John McCain was endorsed by John Hagee, a guy who essentially said that New Orleans got what it deserved in Hurricane Katrina because of gays. I guess "God damn New Orleans" is OK, but "God damn America" is not. Either way, hardly anyone is saying McCain is unfit to be president because he sought out Hagee's endorsement, though that could be because there are plenty of other reasons McCain is unfit to be president.
Or there's Pat Robertson, a guy who agreed with another nutcase, Jerry Falwell, when two days after 9/11 he said, "I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen." Robertson also called for Hugo Chavez's assassination. He endorsed Rudy Giuliani, but nobody blamed Giuliani for it.
These televangelist types are doing a great job at arguing for a separation of church and state, though I doubt that's what they have in mind.
Reason #5: But Rev. Wright is his "spiritual adviser"!
In order to believe this means anything, one must first have to be so ignorant to not know what the word "adviser" means. The word adviser means, "One who advises, or one who gives advice." It does not mean, "One who brainwashes." I can understand why there would be a mix up since it does involve religion, an institution whose leaders have been known from time to time to try to brainwash its followers.
Nevertheless, the idea that Obama naturally agrees with everything Jeremiah Wright says is bunk, especially given that Obama has clearly on a number of occasions come out and said he disagreed with many of the things Wright said.
None of this matters anymore, anyhow, since Obama left his church this weekend.
Reason #6: Obama doesn't put his hand on his heart during the National Anthem and refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance!
Sigh.
This is based on one photo that appeared in Time magazine. Here's video of the "offending" incident:
So instead of putting his hand on his heart, he sings along. What an America-hater! Too bad he didn't sing louder in order to drown out that awful-sounding woman with a microphone.
Was he "supposed to" put his hand over his heart? According to USflag.org (yes, there is such a site):
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.
Well, there you go. Since they didn't remove their "headdress", I say they're all guilty of hating America. Except Hillary and that other woman as the rule apparently only applies to men.
Oh, and here's some video that I copied and pasted from snopes.com of Obama leading the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate. Notice the hand over heart:
Ah, but who cares about the truth when there are plenty of half-truths to go around?
Reason #7: Obama clearly hates America. This is why he refuses to wear a flag pin!
Good! The flag pin was most likely made in China!
Frankly, I think we've had way too much of this bogus, superficial patriotism and not enough real concern and care for this country. Anyone can wear a pin or put a magnetic ribbon on an SUV (one of the most unintentionally ironic statements a person can make), but instead of hollow gestures, maybe we should try doing something that actually helps the country, such as providing health care, working to pay off our national debt, or simply not fighting unnecessary wars.
Reason #8: Michelle Obama clearly hates America. She said she was proud of America "for the first time." I've always been proud of America!
Really? You've always been proud of America? Were you proud when we were committing genocide against native people? Were you proud when slavery was legal and blacks were considered 3/5 of a person for congressional representational purposes? Were you proud when we had segregation? How about when we passed the Chinese Exclusion Act? Or when we interned Japanese-Americans during World War II? What about when we dropped two nuclear bombs (the only country to ever do so) on Japan, or when we firebombed and leveled German cities? Were you proud of that? Or does that not count because it was a long time ago?
How about more recently? Are you proud that we started detaining prisoners Soviet-style: overseas, indefinitely, and without charging them with a crime? Are you proud when thousands of people were dying in New Orleans during Katrina while the president laughed and strummed a guitar? How about when the previous president was impeached because he lied about having receiving sex? Or how about when the two presidents before him authorized arming Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?
Mentioning any of this does not mean a person hates the America. Nor does it mean that a person is not proud. But if we ever want this country to get better, we first have to come to terms with the fact that we're not perfect. If this country were a person, it would be a John Wayne-type character, strutting around completely oblivious to its faults, which everyone else can clearly see.
No, it's not hate if you believe the country can do better and expect it to do so.
Reason #9: He has no foreign policy experience!
Well, how well do people with foreign policy experience stack up?
Dick Cheney: Assistant to the President and then White House Chief of Staff under Ford, five terms as US Representative At-Large from Wyoming, House Minority Whip, Secretary of Defense under Bush I, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Halliburton, Vice President under Bush II, shot a guy in the face.
Donald Rumsfeld: Four terms as US Representative from Illinois's 13th district, Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, White House Chief of Staff and then US Secretary of Defense under Ford, Special Envoy to the Middle East under Reagan, Secretary of Defense again under Bush II, Architect of the Iraq Quagmire, used a machine to sign letters of condolences to families of soldiers killed in said quagmire, resigned in disgrace in 2006.
Hillary Clinton: Former First Lady, twice elected as US Senator from New York, imagined gunfire during visit to Bosnia. Oh wait, maybe she didn't imagine it:
Anyway, with these kinds of results from experienced people, I'll think I'll take my chances with the new guy.
Reason #10: We don't know anything about him!
Two words: Goo-gle!
Well, I hope you find this list of reasons not to vote for Obama useful in your voting decisions. Vote early and often!
Have you ever heard of Liz Trotta? If you're reading this within a few minutes of me posting it, probably not. But I predict everyone will know who she is soon. Why? Only because of this:
Wow. Joking about assassinating Obama? Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
It was bad enough when Hillary Clinton brought up the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a young, charismatic presidential candidate who had locked up the Democratic Party nomination just before being shot--and whose similarly young and charismatic brother John was also shot a few years earlier after actually being elected president--oh, and whose other brother was diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening ailment the same week she made the comment--not to mention Obama himself, who had secret service protection earlier than any other presidential candidate due to death threats beginning the day he announced his candidacy almost a year and a half ago.
Wait, where was I?
Oh yeah, some Fox News host made a joke about assassinating Obama. That's messed up! What did she say? According to the Daily Kos:
"and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]....well both if we could [laughing]"
Ha-ha! Somebody should "knock off" Osama and Obama! I mean, their names sound the same, am I right? But only "if we could!" Hardy-hardy-har-har-har!
Sheesh, that's messed up. Let's watch the video:
Hmm. Did I hear that right? I don't know about you, but it sounded like she said, "well both, which we could."
Well that doesn't matter--"if" and "which" mean the same thing, right? Well, "if" is a subordinating conjunction and "which" is a relative pronoun (Who says you can't learn anything from my blog?). But that's just a bunch of stupid grammar talk, isn't it? Really, Liz Trotta, an experienced journalist who was apparently one of the first women to cover the Vietnam War, just decided to go batshit on national TV and make a joke about the assassination of a US Presidential candidate.
At first, I was cynical enough to believe it, particularly since it was Fox News. Yes, this is how bad our government and news media has gotten--that it's completely believable that someone would go on national TV and joke about killing someone, especially a Democratic candidate who is inspiring record turnout.
But then there was the grammar tutor section of my brain that kept going back and forth:
If.
Which.
If.
Which.
And I couldn't stop going back to that quote and thinking, "Both, which we could."
Wait, does that mean they could assassinate both Obama and Osama? Who does this lady work for? Who the hell is "we"?
None of this made any sense.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are organizations that could assassinate both of them within a few hours notice if they wanted. But I doubt some has-been journalist working on Fox Cable News during Memorial Day weekend is part of any of those. And if she was, I'm sure she'd know well enough to shut up about it.
Let's look at the whole quote again, this time with "which" instead of "if":
"and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama ....well both, which we could."
"We could" what? Where else is there a "we" in that quote?
"we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama"
Hmm.
How about this. Perhaps she's suggesting that "we could have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off both." But I have no idea what that means. It's too convoluted.
What else is it that "we could" do?
Maybe we could read what Hillary said as "a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama."
Let me repeat that without the name screw up: We could read what Hillary said as "a suggestion that somebody knock off Obama."
Here's the quote one more time with "which":
"and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama ....well both, which we could."
Maybe she just felt like an idiot for confusing "Obama" with "Osama," and so she tried to cover but only made things worse. It would be nice if we had the full segment to get a bit of context. Hey, look:
What do you know, she's being very critical of Hillary, especially for her even bringing up RFK's assassination. In fact, besides the name screw-up, she didn't even mention Obama at all other than in the context of what Clinton said.
After the fact, the other guy, whatever his name is, says, "Talk about how you really feel." This could be because he thinks she wants Obama to be assassinated. Or perhaps, maybe he was simply referring to how critical of Clinton Trotta was. But we don't get to see that in the short clip, do we?
Look, I'm the last person to defend Fox News, but I think this thing is blown completely out of proportion. As of 1:19 am PST (wow, I need to get to sleep) there were 1337 comments on the original Daily Kos post about this. I didn't read them all, but there was no sign of anyone saying, "Settle down, everyone." So I'll say it here, "Settle down, everyone!"
After seeing both clips multiple times, I am convinced that this woman was not advocating, nor was she even joking about the assassination of Barack Obama. Yet I have not come across another single person on the Internet during the past six hours who is saying that. That scares the crap out of me. Is there something wrong with my hearing, or is everyone else hearing what they want to hear?
Our country has a nasty history of assassination, yet we bury our collective heads in the sand, saying, "It can't happen here." Think about this: there are piddly ass countries, such as ones in Africa, where there are no natural resources to speak of, where it's almost impossible to grow crops because each year it rains for three months straight and then doesn't rain again for nine months, where AIDS and starvation run rampant, but people are still willing to kill each other in order to take charge of that shithole. Yet somehow we think it's impossible that someone might entertain the notion of committing murder in order to take charge of the most powerful country on Earth? Hell, there are some neighborhoods where people are willing to kill you for the rims on your car. There are even areas will people will kill you because you're gay. So really, is it that much of a stretch to think someone would kill (or hire someone to kill) in order to become President of the United States?
It's natural to get emotionally charged whenever someone brings up assassination, particularly when it's directed toward someone we're rooting for. But when we start seeing things that aren't there and we get all wound up over it--well, that's dangerous. We become hysterical and reactionary.
Of course, that's the whole point, isn't it? That's when you get people posting this reporter's home phone number and address on the YouTube message boards, and well-meaning people suddenly look like crazed lunatics to those who don't share their beliefs. If you can blame a candidate for his pastor's words, surely you can blame a candidate for his supporters' actions.
I'm not offended by what Liz Trotta said--I'm offended that a news show dedicated a whole segment to discuss the implication of one presidential candidate insinuating that she should stay in the race in the event that the other candidate is assassinated. No, actually, I'm offended that one candidate even mentioned the word "assassinated" in the first place.
I don't blame Liz Trotta for this. I don't even blame Fox News for this. There's only one person I blame for starting this whole conversation. One person who needs to do a whole lot of repenting or she will never, ever get my vote for anything, ever:
After my post about Bill O'Reilly a few days ago, I thought it would be appropriate to point out that while he is typical of the corporate media, occasionally one of the talking heads on network TV gets it right:
Granted, Olbermann is no Any Goodman, nor even a Jon Stewart, but these days I'll take what I can get.
Heck, even Chris Matthews jumped in on the act:
Here you have a guy who keeps repeating the same right-wing talking points without even knowing the history behind them. This is nothing new, but a TV host calling him on his ignorance is pretty rare these days. I like it!
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, reallyimportantstuff was ignored. Anyway, here's the posting:
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.
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?
Finals have been kicking my butt this time around. Fortunately, there have been a lot of good comics out there to entertain me for a few seconds per day. Here are some of the ones I've enjoyed lately. Some of them are difficult to read, but just click on them for a larger view. Enjoy!
Here's a local comic by A. Miel (who knows what the "A" stands for) called Tales from America. Yes, Oregon has talented people, not just a bunch of microbrew and coffee drinkers. However, this particular comic was guest drawn by Geraldine Ferraro:
Here's more election fun by Ruben Bolling at Tom the Dancing Bug. Tom the Dancing Bug is basically a different type of comic strip each week, not just a different episode of the same one. This week it's the Super Friends (I'm too young to remember The Mod Squad) meet the presidential candidates:
Here's a Ted Rall comic. He's so cool that he doesn't need to give a name to his comic strip--it's just one of Ted Rall's three weekly comics! That's all you need to know:
And finally, here's a fantastic comic by Leigh Rubin called Rubes. It's funny because it's true:
You know, I liked these much more before I had to explain them. Hopefully, I didn't ruin them for you.
B-Bama: Sit yo' ass down. You just mad 'cause you got yo' ass whooped tonight.
Dee-Dodd: Yo Hill-Dawg, you just got f'd in the a, be-yotch!!
B-Bama: Yo, Dee-Dodd, I don't roll like that.
Dee-Dodd: Sorry dawg, but you do, man. You did with Dawn, you did it with Shondrella, and you did it with the triplets LaTeesha, LaTasha, LaToya...
Rally Nizzader: These two crews right here is what I call bad. I'm talking bad as in utter bad, yo. As in not good. What I mean is the liberal intelligentsia has allowed its party to become a captive of corporate interests. Peace out, yo.
Lately, I've been busy sprucing up Rob Dow's World somewhat. If you look to your right, you'll see a whole new set of links, unless you're reading this on myspace or somewhere else, in which case you should click here. Anyway, these links are great links to great sites with great things posted by great people, so click on them often (no, I'm not getting paid for this) and enjoy. Then come back and read the rest of this posting. Go ahead, I'll wait for you!
Now that you're back, let's get on with this post! The 2008 presidential election season sure is heating up! Unfortunately, my favorite candidate, Dennis Kucinich, dropped out, er... was forced out of the race due to a complete absence of corporate media coverage on his campaign and due to him being kept out of the Democratic Party debates, despite the fact that he won the same number of delegates in the Iowa caucuses as Rudy Giuliani (0) and more votes than Fred Thompson in New Hampshire (3914 vs. 2,905), both of whom have been allowed in all the Republican debates. But I guess that's what happens to those who speak the truth.
Now I don't know who I'm going to endorse. I like a lot of what John Edwards is saying. The mainstream media is ignoring him, too, which makes me like him even more. I could probably vote for Barack Obama without feeling like a dirty, dirty whore. But I'm not sure about all this talk about reaching out and working with the Republicans. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been trying that for a year and it's gotten them nowhere. I'm not interested in compromising with people who claim to be moral and then ignore poor people, who trash our environment and economy in the name of private corporate profit, who underfund our infrastructure and educational system while overfunding our military, and who believe the earth was created 5,000-6,000 years ago and that we should teach that in public school science classes.
I wouldn't be caught dead voting for Hillary Clinton or any of the other Republicans. I'd most likely go third party.
Anyway, the candidates are really beginning to pull out all the stops. For instance, take a look at this ad:
If that weren't enough, some of the candidates think they're comedians:
But once the two main candidates are chosen, then we'll have to sit through the conventions:
