The Tears of a Clown

So, apparently CNN.com's Ruben Navarrette Jr. is trying out for a job at Town Hall or some similar bastion of right-wing pseudojournalism. It's the only explanation I can come up with to explain his latest column.

It's just poorly written from top to bottom, jumping between subjects and mixing metaphors so that keeping track of his train of thought becomes nearly impossible. But beyond an overall writing style reminiscent of a barely-passing high school sophomore, he also manages to throw out some nuggets of stunning ignorance.

As Palin herself pointed out in a recent CNN interview, imagine if she had been the one to imply that electing Obama would invite calamity. Biden does it, and the media shrug.

Yeah, imagine. Or don't bother, since trying to find video of Palin implying that Obama cavorts with terrorists is about as difficult as finding furniture in an Ikea showroom. And McCain himself, just the other day, said that foreign enemies would "test" Obama, but would not dare to test him. So, yeah, no real reason to stretch your imagination, is there? You can just look at the stories run by the news network you work for.

I also thought the Democratic Party was supposed to go to bat for the little guy, the everyday Joe the Plumber.

Tell that to Joe Wurzelbacher, the Ohio resident who got his 15 minutes -- and 40 lashes -- because he dared question Obama about his tax plan.

Because a plumber making more than $250,000 a year? Totally normal. Hell, all the other plumbers at the country club probably make fun of him for driving a standard Corvette instead of a custom Porche. It takes about 2 minutes of listening to Joe Wurzelbacher to figure out he's about as genuine as a e-mail penis enlargement offer. This is not a guy who was ever wavering on who to vote for in this election. He's just another selfish douchebag who makes more than I ever will but doesn't want to pay his fair share. Fulfilling the "American Dream"™, in the mind of people like ol' Joe, means one should be exempted from contributing back to the system that allowed them to succeed. Fuck Joe Wurzelbacher and fuck people like him who think that their success should mean everyone else pays to keep them afloat. I should want my tax policy determined by greedy, entitled assholes like Joe Wurzelbacher? Fuck that.

Obama supporters like to talk about how the Democratic presidential nominee has lived the American Dream. So why is it to so hard for them to conceive of a situation where someone dreams of earning more money a few years from now than they earn today. Has Barack Obama consumed all the social mobility this country has to offer, so there isn't any left for the rest of us?

There's nothing wrong with dreaming of earning more money, Ruben, you self-righteous ass. If money motivates you, by all means, set some goals and try to climb that ladder. Where I start having a problem is with the idea that earning more money should lessen a person's monetary obligations to the society that allowed him to succeed. Taxing the rich does not make the rich poor. It makes the rich slightly less rich. That's it. The concept that taxes dissuade financial success is ludicrous. Being wealthy offers privileges and opportunities unavailable to anyone else, whether they pay their share of taxes or not. If those privileges and opportunities are important to an individual, that individual will work toward them, whether they'll gain bonus tax advantages or not.

And, frankly, taxation is a zero-sum game. You can cut spending, but at the end of the day, there's a budget that has to be met. If the rich get tax breaks, one of two things happens. The vast majority of Americans pick up the slack, so that the middle class is paying for the excesses of the wealthy, or we borrow more money, driving up the national debt and letting our children pay for the excesses of the wealthy. I don't like those options. I don't begrudge the wealthy the excesses their success affords them. But I think they can pay for them on their own.

Seventy percent of the wealth in this country is owned by ten percent of the population. Think about that. So if we cut taxes for the top ten percent, as has been done by the current administration, we're losing revenue on seventy percent of the circulating wealth. This is not a system that punishes the rich. We are paying for the rich to become richer, and they're convincing us that they're doing us a favor. Anyone who earns more than $250,000 is in that top 10%. Pretending that they are middle-class is a lie that is meant to evoke sympathy from people who hope desperately that they may one day be part of that elite 10%. 90% of them never will, and their children will pay for their short-sightedness.

Still, we're told, this tempest in a Gucci bag has some Republicans worrying that shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue might undermine Palin's everywoman image. To think, just last month, the criticism was that Sarah the Moose Hunter wasn't sufficiently sophisticated or glamorous. Now her wardrobe signals the hockey mom is high-maintenance.

No, you stupid, stupid fuck. You don't get to misrepresent what happened a month ago to make your idiotic point. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, was concerned that Sarah Palin wasn't "sophisticated or glamorous" enough to be vice-president. You're making that up out of whole cloth because it's the only way to lend any crumb of credibility to your argument. The argument was that she was too UNINTELLIGENT and INEXPERIENCED to be vice-president, and nothing has happened to change that. Now, frankly, if the Republicans want to spend $150,000 for their expensive wind-up talking Barbie doll, that's up to them. But they shouldn't be surprised when people who earn less than that in a year start to question the party's priorities.

I know I haven't been blogging a lot lately, and there are many reasons for that. But mostly, it's that this election has turned into a steaming pile of horseshit, and I can't wait for it to be over. Whiny bullshit like this commentary just mirror the whiny bullshit coming out of the Republican party. The McCain campaign is calling Obama a terrorist, and then crying foul over Liberals pointing out that Joe Wurzelbacher is a lying, rich douchebag. There's no sense of perspective anymore. Barak Obama is a good candidate, John McCain is a crappy candidate who has built a campaign designed solely for the purpose of convincing people not to vote for Barak Obama, and yet conservatives want me to believe that the discrepancy in the message is the fault of the media. The problem with the media is the same problem that allows someone like Sarah Palin to run on a major party presidential ticket: a dangerous percentage of Americans respect ignorance more than intelligence. And it looks like Ruben Navarette Jr. just figured out he can make money by pandering to them.

Highest Common Denominator

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. This is what a campaign should look like. Notice the lack of flashy graphics and dramatic music. There are no clips of celebrities, no unflattering pictures of the opponent. Just a candidate spelling out his position instead of marketing an image. There is, of course, an image being presented: that of a statesman. A statesman, of all things. In this day and age. Speaking as an adult to adults, no less. This is what we would have expected from John McCain, if John McCain were still the John McCain of 2000 election. But he sold his pride and integrity to the soulless marketers of the conservative political machine.

I'm not saying I think this will work. I'm not at all sure that it will. But if there's any hope for democracy in this country, then this is what people really want. This should resonate, even if you don't like the ideas, because it lets us respect a candidate as a statesman, not as a product to be consumed.

Fantastic.

The Democratic nominee for president just said that he opposes gay marriage because it violates the tenets of Christianity.

Why should I bother to fucking vote this year?

The Audacity of Doing One's Job

Sorry it's been slow here. Other projects going on, vacations, etc. So yeah. Kinda slow for a bit.

This cracked me up, though. Apparently, the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign thinks that some comments Barack Obama made to a meeting of Democratic congressional leaders was an obscene display of arrogance. Obama said that his campaign had "become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." The RNC circulated this comment under the heading "Barack Obama Audacity Watch."

So, according to the RNC and McCain campaigns, a politician actually trying to improve America and not being afraid to lay claim to that goal is just arrogant. Not, you know, doing what he was elected to do.

Barack Obama Will Surrender to Mexico!

Or so says the ever-growing anti-Obama lunatics. Apparently it's not enough anymore to claim that you disagree with someone. For instance, I am not showing proper involvement in the political process by saying something like, "I can not support John McCain for president. While there are many reasons for this, chief among them are his stated inclination to continue American aggression in the Middle East, his unwillingness to address serious economic concerns, and a belief that the Supreme Court should not be shifted any further to the right." Instead, I need to up the ante to be competitive. For instance, I could say, "John McCain is a secret bastard grandchild of Adolph Hitler, bent on carrying out his grandsire's plan for world domination. He drinks the blood of non-Christians to maintain his vigor, and plans to force all young Americans to spend two years as prisoners in a POW camp to 'build character'." Isn't that better? Isn't that good, rational politics?

Anyway, here's the video clip that came through my e-mail with a lot of bluster attached.



The general message attached to this video was, "See? Obama is a Muslim, because he wants your children to learn Spanish, and Spain was once a Muslim country! And it means he thinks all Americans should speak Spanish instead of English! English is the language of the World, but not once Obama becomes president!" There is no apparent recognition of the irony involved, as Obama's more general point about American education is underscored by the proud display, intentional or otherwise, of poor aural comprehension.

The worst part about this is that such bullshit is always perpetuated by exactly the people who stand to gain the most through educational improvement. There is no doubt that education is a mark of class in this country. The wealthiest send their children to private schools, where their children will learn Latin and at least one other language. The upper-middle class send their children to well-funded public schools where numerous language classes are available, some starting as early as third grade. Knowing a foreign language in America is a class marker; like foreign travel and an understanding of world history, the wealthiest Americans instill it in their children while underhanded nationalistic marketing targeted to the middle and lower classes convinces them that such endeavors are useless and unamerican. Anyone who thinks that America is a classless society has been fooled into thinking so by those who want to maintain their position.

Pledge Drive

It's funny... I just heard this exact sentiment in my office, maybe an hour after reading Jay Ackroyd describe it over at Eschaton.

Email is a big cog in the attack machine this time 'round. I saw it for myself in Maine on caucus weekend when an old family friend resisted entreaties to caucus for Obama, saying he couldn't support someone who refuses to say the pledge of allegiance.

I mean, yeah, we all know this is demonstrably untrue. But that aside, what is the big deal with the Pledge of Allegiance? It's fucking creepy. I haven't said the pledge since 10th grade, and bear in mind I was a raging young republican back then. Why should I pledge anything, nevermind allegiance, to a symbol? Symbols can easily be usurped and bastardized. I have no allegiance to the flag, or even the nation that flies it. My allegiance is reserved for a set of ideals, those being democracy, liberty, justice and equality. I am proud to live in a country founded on those ideals, and that has continuously improved upon that foundation. But of late, I've been reminded far too often that things can change. I take giving my word far too seriously to pledge allegiance to something that could quite conceivably come to symbolize that which I abhor. Pledging allegiance to a flag is not patriotic. It is nationalistic. It is the worship of a symbol instead of a value. It is political idolatry. It's easy, and it's empty. It's appealing because it takes so little effort. You can stick a flag on the rear window of your pick-up truck and consider yourself a patriot. How do you stick freedom on your window? Or justice? Or equality? Those are concepts. They're not easy. Pondering them might make one miss American Idol. I mean, come on, "American" is right there in the name. That's patriotic right there. One can't be expected to waste time on things like 'concepts' and 'values'.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written for children. That an adult could be lambasted for not saying it, whether the accusation is true or not, says a lot about our maturity as a society.

Update: I just spoke to a friend about this, who pointed out that criticizing someone for not saying the pledge isn't really about patriotism, but conformity. I think this may be very true.

Popular Vote Fist-Pounding

Wow. There is a lot of underwear being tied into all sort of knots over the issue of who is winning the popular vote in the Democratic primary. Eschaton, Talking Points Memo, Shakesville, Alas, and plenty of others have been weighing in on this topic... actually, 'weighing in' isn't really the right word. Rules lawyering is more appropriate. Because not only is it important who has the popular vote, but how that popular vote is calculated. Do you count Michigan and Florida votes? If so, do you count all the votes or a percentage? What about caucus results? Do you count uncommitted votes? If so, who gets them?

It reminds me of a game of Dungeons and Dragons I was running once. One of my players, whose character was an impulsive monk not terribly unlike himself, wanted to try to wrestle a balrog to the ground. Per the rules, I had him roll to compare his strength against his opponent's. He failed. He became irritated, and wanted to be sure I'd included all the bonuses he was entitled to as per the official Player's Handbook section on grappling. Finally, I pointed out, with exasperation creeping into my voice, that it didn't matter, because he was trying to wrestle a 30-foot tall demon made out of fire, and no amount of bonuses was going to change the fact that he was a 3-foot tall halfling without a suit of asbestos armor.

The point is, it doesn't really matter who has the popular vote. By one person's standards it might be Obama, and by another's it might be Clinton. There is no need to argue over who is right, because it makes no real difference. Popular vote doesn't count for anything other than unofficial bragging rights. Even if you argue that it might sway the votes of superdelegates, all the argument proves is that the votes are close enough that the delegates should choose based on other criteria. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing. And not just tossing out an opinion here and there, but epic-length diatribes calling into question every popular-vote-grappling rule in the DNC Player's Handbook. This is what the Democratic party has been reduced to.

Remember how Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000? Remember how much that mattered? All it did was give Gore supporters something to put on bumper-stickers after the election was over. So hopefully I'll be excused for worrying that this pointless argument doesn't bode well for the unification of the party after the nomination is made. You will have people stridently claiming Obama's win was illegitimate because he didn't win the popular vote. Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money, in the post that seems to have set off the latest volley of 300-pound marshmallows, appears to agree, but then legitimizes the argument by participating in it. This is not helpful.

Say WHAT?

According to CNN.com:

"Clinton, who is banking on a large win in Kentucky Tuesday to keep her presidential hopes alive, also said she doesn't believe racism has played a role in the presidential campaign."

I would really, really like to see an exact quote here. Sexism has most certainly been a factor in this campaign, but to claim that racism hasn't is borderline delusional. I really want to believe something she said was taken way out of context.

Monsoon of Venom

There's an awful lot of Clinton-supporter craziness going on today. I suppose it could be because her projected landslide in West Virginia won't mean much, but even more likely, it's because the inevitable truth is beginning to sink in, and it hurts. It hurts enough, apparently, that the threats of staying home in November are threatening to flood the discussion. And I hate to generalize or paint with broad brushes, but the feminist contingent seems to be the loudest on this front right now. (With the notable and sobering exception of Amy, who, as usual, rocks out.)

I think it's great that you've got the determination and fortitude to stick to your guns and refuse to vote for any candidate other than Hillary Clinton. Really. That's fantastic. I hope you pass those admirable qualities on to all of your unwanted children and grandchildren when the Supreme Court, bolstered by McCain's justice nominations, overturns Roe vs. Wade.

Seriously, people. It's bad enough that we have to convince huge numbers of racist, blue-collar, and backwater Democrats that Obama is a better candidate than McCain. It'd be great if we didn't have to waste our time on activists who should fucking know as much already.

Being Mean To Hillary

Good holy hopping hell, people.

You know what? When people were saying two months ago that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race, it was bullshit and, to a large extent, carried sexist undertones, if not overtones. But you know what? Those days is all over, gang. Today is today, and today the math says Hillary can't win the nomination. That's not to say that Obama has, but Obama can, by the numbers, and Clinton can not. Does she have to drop out? No. Does she have the right to stay in the race? Yes. Is her dropping out of the race, at this point, in the best interests of the Democratic party and the nation? Yes. Yes it is.

It's not just telling her to take her boobs and go home, as some of her vocal blog supporters are fond of calling it. Her boobs have nothing to do with campaign funding, negative ads, and party distractions. The democrats need a unified front ASAP. You can jab at Wil Wheaton all you want, and you can make snide jokes about grade-school math, but in the end, you're just magnifying the problem, which is fracturing of the party. The left blogosphere is complaining way more about fellow Democrats than Republicans right now. It's been ugly, it's still getting uglier, and it is hurting the cause in a major way. I'm sorry if that rains on Hillary Clinton's parade. I really am. But accepting reality is not the same as promoting sexism. I don't care that Hillary Clinton is a woman. I never have, outside of thinking it would be great to have a woman as President. I care that the Democrats are diligently working towards losing the easiest race they've ever run.

Hillary Clinton should drop out, not because it isn't her right to continue running, but so that we can address the national election before it's too late.

If it's not already too late.

Dear Mr. Obama,

The more you denounce the very necessary message being brought forward by Reverend Wright, the more you distance yourself from my support. I'm sure you have analysts and campaign managers who specialize in figuring out these numbers for you, but I just wanted to let you know.

Thank you for your time.

Elitism

You know, I hope that I am never denied an upper-management level position because my bowling scores aren't high enough.

Knee-Jerk Umbrage

(sigh)

warmonger (wôr'mŭng'gər, -mŏng'-): a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.

John McCain is a warmonger. The question isn't whether or not Ed Shultz should have called him one. The question is whether or not you think that it's an insult. And if your values line up enough with John McCain's to vote for him, you shouldn't consider it an insult, because you are a warmonger too.

John McCain advocates and endorses the war in Iraq. You could even argue that he's been complicit in precipitating war with Iran, giving him the whole trifecta.

What I think is funny is that McCain supporters get all self-righteous when it comes to using Obama's middle name. "Well, Hussein is his middle name. There's nothing wrong with saying so." But calling McCain a warmonger is just beyond the pale. I'll admit, there is a notable difference. Pointing out Obama's middle name is an attempt to insinuate that he has direct ties to Islam, which is patently untrue.

Nap Time

Amy's worried about jinxing the election. She should stop worrying, because I've been at it for over a month now. If I was superstitious about anything except my socks*, I'd be afraid of being so openly cynical about how things are going to turn out. But frankly, I think the worst thing would be for progressives, liberals, and rational moderates to believe that we've got this thing in the bag. We definitely do not, and resting on our laurels now will just mean we have to endure watching McCain's inauguration with laurel-shaped welts in our asses.

The press is all over trying to make Obama look shaky, and has no problem running Clinton hit-pieces in the guise of stunningly poor journalism. McCain is getting none of this. None of it. The guy who doesn't know the difference between Iran and Al Queda is getting a pass from the media, because he's not in a real race right now and isn't very interesting.

And Amy's right about Obama's speech too. It was stunningly moving; without a doubt, one of the best examples of true modern-day statesmanship I've heard in a long time. Does it matter? Not at all. Nobody wants statesmanship. They want Hillary upstairs while Bill gets a blowjob. They want Obama's uppity pastor who don't know his place. They want governors with hookers, or maybe admitting to threesomes. Real statesmanship, well, that shit's boring.

We are screwed.

*I never wear matching socks. This message brought to you by Americans Dedicated to Exposing Useless Information About Me.

Aw Hell...

Not that it's a shocker at this point, but for the first time, McCain is running even with both Clinton and Obama in national polls. This should surprise absolutely nobody. While Clinton and Obama do everything in their power to ensure that the other is unelectable, McCain gets to make photo-op trips to Iraq, looking oh-so-presidential and carefree. The media loves him, and the Democrats are too busy infighting to do anything about him.

The Democrats are blowing this election. It has been handed to them on a gilded platter, and they're blowing it. Go ahead and read the comments section under just about any CNN Ticker post about either Democratic candidate. I hate to base anything on web commenting, but I think it's relevant that there are very, very few Republicans taking part in the argument. It's just line after line of Obama supporters calling Clinton a liar, or Clinton supporters calling the Obama campaign a cult. A frequently expressed sentiment goes along the lines of "If [Clinton/Obama] is the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for McCain." Really? Then you're an idiot. But since you're already doing the work of his campaign staff, why not toss him your vote too?

Hillary Clinton Pops an Artery

This is so precisely calculated, the irony floors me. Karl Rove tactics, in my opinion, are far more subtle and manipulative than a mailer featuring arguable spin. They might include, for instance, exaggerated response to a perceived slight to turn attention away from the issue at hand and focus it instead on invented integrity issues.

Is Karl Rove Working on Clinton's Campaign?

AP via Yahoo:

Attached to the Obama complaint was an instruction sheet that Bauer's letter attributed to the Clinton campaign. The sheet offers guidance on how to persuade caucus goers to caucus for Clinton.

One line states: "It's not illegal unless they tell you so."

What the shit, people. This is why I'm not a Republican anymore. I'm not asking for much. Could we maybe just avoid asking our supporters to break the law for us?

They Can't Resist

CNN.com decides that if all the other major news sources are going to insult southern black women, they're not gonna miss the bus.

Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days.

For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

Because voting on politics is apparently more than we can expect from the monolithic entity of South Carolina Black Woman Voters. We are to believe that they can understand nothing deeper than skin tone and bra size.

Regardless of how this thing turns out, I think it's safe to assume that this will go down as the most embarrassing political race ever in terms of journalistic integrity.

Who Told You To Stop Dancing?

Oprah Winfrey is just shocked that she's getting negative blowback from some of her fans over her support of Barak Obama.

Really, Oprah? You didn't know that a large portion of your fan base is made up of pearly-white upper-middle-class soccer moms who depend on you for a reading list but would prefer you keep your progressive, socially responsible politics to yourself, thankyouverymuch? 'cause I did.

Also, when a black celebrity supports a black candidate, that is automatically an attempt to pit blacks against whites. Really. It says so right there on Oprah's comments page.

Also, Chuck Norris supporting Mike Huckabee is an attempt to pit ignorant hicks against intelligent people.

Taking It Personally

CNN.com declares:

Attacks get personal between Romney, Giuliani

Uh-oh. Really? Are things getting personal? Let's take a look. According to the article, the attacks follow this pattern:

Giuliani criticized Romney's appointment of Judge Kathe Tuttman, who Romney is now calling to step down after the judge released a convicted killer who then murdered a couple in Washington State.

Romney defended the appointment based on the judge's previous record, and pointed out that given the issues surrounding Giuliani's appointment to police commissioner Bernie Kerik, maybe picking good help wasn't Giuliani's strongpoint.

Giuliani than expanded on his issue with Romney, claiming that the incident was illustrative of Romney's poor record on violent crime.

Romney then criticized Giuliani's fiscal policies while mayor of New York City.

Uh... huh. You know what I can't find? A personal attack anywhere in there. All criticism was directed toward what the candidates did in the course of their duties as governor and mayor. Giuliani didn't call Romney a Mormon whackjob, and Romney didn't respond by calling Giuliani a revolving door for ex-wives.

Holding a candidate responsible for their political and professional record is a good thing. I don't care much about this particular exchange because both candidates are unrepentant waffling panderers who have abandoned their principles to appeal to the social extremists that make up much of the Republican voting base, and are therefor unworthy of the office they're running for. But this smacks of the same nonsense surrounding Obama and Edwards supposedly attacking Hillary Clinton on a personal level, something that hasn't happened despite being widely reported. I want candidates forcing other candidates to defend their platforms and ideologies. It's not negative campaigning, it's responsible politics.