Rod Blagojevich—Heir of Nixon, Corrupt to the Bone

"Blagojevich and aide allegedly conspired to sell U.S. Senate appointment, engaged in
“pay-to-play” schemes and threatened to withhold state assistance to Tribune Company
for Wrigley Field to induce purge of newspaper editorial writers."

That's the summary of the official complaint from the U.S. Department of Justice, filed today in the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The breadth and scope of these charges is simply staggering.

I can't say I've ever had a man-crush on Blago, but I can remember supporting the man as an ignorant eighth grader for one key reason: Ryan was corrupt, Ryan was a Republican, and therefore the GOP brand of Illinois politics had to make way for a Democrat Governor. How ironic, really, that the man who ran on a platform of "reform" is arguably MORE corrupt? I'll be thinking about this phrase constantly over the impending days—only in Illinois politics.

As far as the charges are concerned: it was a well-known allegation that Blago has been involved in "pay-to-play" schemes involving government appointments, and that he had rock-solid ties with convicted lobbyist Tony Rezko. In fact, during the Rezko circus trial, Ali Ata, an ex-aide to Blago, plead guilty to his own corruption charges, alleging that Blago offered him a government position in exchange for thousands in campaign contributions. Even more incendiary was Ata's testimony, which placed him, Blago, and Rezko in the same room weeks after Blago's first election, brainstorming fund raising strategies for a potential PRESIDENTIAL campaign.

As despicable as these charges are, we have to be honest and admit they are in the vein of "Chicago politics." The other two charges though are entirely unique to Blago's corruption process.

The first of the two charges alleges that Blago withheld state assistance to Tribune Company during their attempted sale of Wrigley Field. The reason for this? Blago was fumed over negative editorials that had been published in the Tribune regarding his governorship. SO HE WITHHELD STATE AID SO THE EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS WHO DISLIKED HIM WOULD BE FIRED. Nixonian to the bone, a modern incarnation of Wilsonian fascism.

The second, though, is the allegation that will forever define Blago's failed time as governor. In a move of stunning corruption and dishonesty, the Department's report alleges that President-elect Barack Obama's open Senate seat was, and I'll quote here, "conspiring to sell or trade Illinois’ U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama for financial and other personal benefits for himself and his wife." The report lists some of these benefits as:

< A substantial salary for himself at a either a non-profit foundation or an
organization affiliated with labor unions;
< Placing his wife on paid corporate boards where he speculated she might
garner as much as $150,000 a year;
< Promises of campaign funds – including cash up front; and
< A cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.

The entire complaint, in PDF format, can be found on the Chicago Sun-Times website (http://www.suntimes.com/index.html#).

What more needs to be said? This man was a walking bulls eye for corruption from the opening days of his administration, and I as well as many other Illinoisans are not surprised that he is finally being arrested. What IS surprising—flabbergasting, in fact—is the scope and decay of the charges, premises that, if true, will set a new low for Illinois politics.

My fellow Illinoisans: follow this story! and be enraged at what you find!

Scary Santa

Published: Monday, December 8, 2008 on the Ohio University Post website
Last Modified: Monday, December 8, 2008, 6:12:55pm

Every year for the holiday season, my family engages in a rigorous act of extreme home makeover, transforming our comfortable house in Bartlett, Ill.,into a haven of Christmas decorations and good cheer. During this process, my absolute favorite decoration surfaces: a photo album chronicling our annual trip to Chicago's Marshal Field's (now Macy's), specifically our visit with the Marshal Field's Santa. While the photographs of latter years are collections of joy, the earlier snapshots-where my siblings and I are in our toddler years-are personifications of agony, despair and fear.

The psychological fears of Santa - the fact that he can see us when we're sleeping, knows when we are awake, has carte blanche to determine whether we are good or not - was subject of several low-budget horror films entitled Silent Night, Deadly Night, where Santa kills naughty children, but that was not the source of our fear, at least not early on. While I like to consider my siblings and I as a modern day incarnation of Salinger's Glass family, it is very unlikely that as diaper-boasting tots we were aware of the implicit stalker status of the jolly head elf.

What did scare us, though, was the man's image. Our faces would twist and turn at the sight, becoming puffy with tears and red with stress as a freakish old man beckoned us to sit on his lap. Seemingly proud of the destruction he was causing, he would laugh maniacally at our terrorized glances. He hides his face behind a bushy white beard and gazes at us with beady old eyes. He is dressed in daunting black boots that thunder on the ground, an extravagant belt buckle that glistens like fool's gold in the light, and his trademark red suit, a horrific exercise in mass weight loss that appears to have sprung out of the seventh ring of hell.

Whatever the rationale, Santa is a seriously scary dude, and my family is not the only one to have experienced his frightening demeanor. Deck the halls with this hearty collection of petrified youths (my personal favorite is number five): http://www.sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/holiday/sfl-scaredofsanta-ugc,0,7181908.ugcphotogallery.

A clarification on GOP voters and McCain's latest strategy

I mentioned, in my last note on McCain's luck, how democratic voters are less prejudiced than republican voters. Before republicans lose their head over the remark, let me offer an elaboration, one to clarify AND to further develop why McCain's campaign is so despicable.

First, the clarification:

Movement conservatism, the radical fringe of the GOP that has dominated the party's policy for the last 30 years, is a movement grounded in racism (1).

While it is a strange idea for modern democrats like myself to consider, the south used to be a reliably democratic region. The logic was simple: FDR's New Deal offered showers of public aid to the impoverished regions of the South, areas that remained devastated from the evaporating manufacturing markets from the Civil War. While the area was still ripe with prejudice, it was short on ignorance, as southern voters were smart enough to vote for the hand that so generously fed them.

This continued until 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed. LBJ knew what he was doing. By supporting African-Americans in an unprecedented legislative effort, he was single-handedly offering the South to the GOP. And boy, did they exploit it.

Crazy as he was, Richard Nixon was a brilliant manager of campaigns. He knew what the people wanted to hear, but even more was his ability to run on raw emotion. Along with scare-tactics of communism, Nixon ran on racism, gathering strong southern support by matching their ugly ideology. It didn't matter that Nixon essentially governed as a liberal, raising taxes and pushing for universal healthcare. He ran on pure emotion, and that strategy left a strong impression on budding movement conservatives(2), who would use the campaigning excessively.

To be fair, I cannot credit the success of movement conservatism to racism alone. The movement was heavily financed by rich corporations that despised the high taxes of the New Deal, and the movement ran in equal hatred of such counter-culture themes as drugs, homosexuality, and promiscuous sex (I recommend finding a speech Ronald Reagan gave during his campaign for governorship of California, where he described "vile orgies" and a student dance that had descended into an orgy!).

The fruits of these early campaigns have flourished, as the GOP has held a thorough stranglehold over the South for a solid 30 years. Most recently, George W. Bush and Karl Rove composed a campaign of such cultural misogyny that Nixon would have wept a tear in pride. In 2000, they famously leaked a rumor that John McCain had an illegitimate black child--and during the South Carolina Primary, of all times (and I did mention the baby was black, right?). And during his 2004 re-election, Bush ran on constitutionally banning gay marriage.

These are two of the more egregious examples, but you get the point. Republicans have played on prejudice and raw emotion to win elections.

Now, the elaboration on why McCain is such a scumbag:

John McCain has, essentially, nothing to run on as president. His record as a maverick is laughable upon further inspection. His recent activities, from confusing Sunni and Shia tribes to making so many gaffes on the campaign trail that a campaign manager announced he did not speak for his own campaign, have raised more than eyebrows. And his latest flip flops, on key issues like taxes and immigration, make him progressive politics' worst nightmare.

It is not surprising, then, that McCain would demolish his alleged integrity and run on fear; after all, he is running against a black man with a frightening name. These actions alone are scumbag-worthy, as anybody with a stable internet connection can deduce that Barack Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class, is not a freedom fighter from the middle east, and is not good buddies with Bill Ayers. But again, McCain is a movement conservative candidate, so this was expected.

What I never anticipated, though, was McCain of the swastika. Watching the McCain rallies last week was like being transported to a Nuremberg rally. McCain practically bated the audience, asking rhetorical questions like "Who is Barack Obama?" just begging the crowd to should out words like "A Terrorist!" Sarah Palin was just the same, questioning the crowd at her rally on why a presidential candidate would buddy-up with former terrorists? prompting a crowd member to bellow "KILL HIM!"

This is unacceptable. In an unstable time, where a member of one of the most discriminated minorities in human history is running to shatter the ultimate glass ceiling, your campaign is whipping the uneducated, prejudice base you call "supporters" into a drunken, hate-filled frenzy.

Maybe they'll get lucky and someone will finally shoot Obama.

Despicable. Manipulative. Low. This is the dirtiest political campaign I have ever seen, and I can only hope that Obama wins in a route on November 4 and McCain is forever known as the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short man whose grisly politics cost him the election.






1. Indeed: William Buckley, the creator of the movement, defended the Southern States rights to prohibit African-Americans, or, lesser humans, from voting.

2. And Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, the fattest piece of journalistic excrement ever spat upon this earth. And yeah, he did graduate from Ohio University...

A time when Rod Stewart was cool

Rod Stewart has become a whipping post among rock music circles today, and for good reason. As if his disco-inspired heyday in the 80s were not bad enough, with his spiked hair, leather pants, and leopard-skin jackets, Rod has made a comeback recently by killing American standards like “It Had To Be You” and “Blue Skies.” And yes, even in his ripe old age of 63, he’s still trying to be sexy.

Imagine the shock, then, that the man once fronted a serious and vital rock n’ roll band. And he was cool while doing it.

Faces, a group that also included Ronnie Wood of Rolling Stones fame and Ronnie Lane, rocked a hard, boozy rock that grooved like a motha and stung like a bee. Think of a bar-band type sound, one that is so aggressive, so sloppy, and so darn fun that it could internally combust at any moment.

The group released a number of strong albums during their brief time together (“Long Player” and “A Smile is a Good as a Wink” are the ones to look into), but to fully appreciate the group’s rockin’ talents and their (gulp) diversity, the true purchase must be “Five Guys Walk into a Bar,” a four-disc box set that is simply one of the finest box set releases in the history of rock n’ roll.
There have been better bands than Faces, but as far as the purpose of a box set is concerned—to provide an ultimate showcase of a group while offering music for beginners and music for diehards—“Five Guys…” exceeds on a gargantuan scale. Assembled by group keyboardist Ian McLagan, the set features a whopping 31 unreleased tracks, which include many wild live performances. While I was aware of the hard rock side of Faces when I purchased the set, it was the featured ballads that left me stunned. Yes, ballads! While a bar-band is not the typical benchmark for emotional songs of love and loss, Faces performs a striking series of ballads that all but defy their hard rock roots.

With beautiful melodies and glistening harmonies, songs like “Debris,” “Glad and Sorry,” and especially “If I’m on the Late Side” are as fine as rock balladry gets, offering a wonderful icy cool to the heated rock numbers. This is due in no small part to Lane’s influence, a wonderful and underappreciated songwriter.

A final note is worth being made about the musicianship. Fans of the Rolling Stones will recognize Wood, but his playing throughout the set is still a revelation. Aggressively hoisting his slide guitar to the front of the group, Wood harkens back to the blues with his rendition of “Around the Plynth,” and grooves like the devil in the white city during a live recording of “You’re my Girl.” And then there’s Rod Stewart.

I began this post with Stewart, so I might as well end it with him for the sake of bookends. Stewart is great on these numbers, almost making you forget of his recent dreck. He yelps and hollers with glee during the rock numbers, but sings with feeling and sensitivity during the ballads. He adds a potent charisma to each number, displaying that he had the goods to be a great rock n’ roll vocalist; and during the early part of the 70s, he was. It’s just a crying shame that he had to sell out.

Bottom line, Faces is a band well worth investigating, as they offer harder rock than the Rolling Stones while the sensitive balladry of any folk group. Give ‘em a chance, as I am sure you’ll be pleasantly surprised!

McCain want's somebody...to hold his hand

Poor John McCain. He had so much going for him! Aside from the fact that his campaign reeks of movement conservative politics, aside from his repeated gaffes on policy, aside from selling his soul to the radical lunatic fringe of the GOP, and aside from making the most irresponsible VP choice in modern political times, John has been hanging in there(1).

I find it exceedingly difficult, however, to imagine how his campaign can survive what has transpired the last 24 hours.

1. The stock market finished a horrendous week, dropping over 18% of its value. How bad is this? It's the worst week in the history of the stock exchange (yeah, worse than 1933). Any bad economic news is bad news for the McCain campaign, as the kind of policies he supports have directly influenced this melt down.

2. Earlier today, McCain defended the honor of Barack Obama, answering angry cries of Obama's religion and character at a Minnesota rally. After McCain made the statement, which was a basic declaration of what a decent family man Obama is, his supporters booed him for the gesture.

3. The bipartisan investigation into Sarah Palin's troopergate scandal was made public today, and it overwhelmingly concludes that Palin DID abuse her power as governor by firing Commissioner Walter Monegan, allegedly because Monegan would not fire Tim Wooten, a state trooper who was embroiled in a bitter custody battle with Palin's sister.

These developments are quite catastrophic, and they are the last thing McCain needed at this point in the campaign. His credibility slipping, his consistency nonexistence, and his integrity all but a mirage, McCain has nothing to run on. By deciding to avoid the issues, and purely run on the "controversies" and "scandals" of Barack Obama's character, McCain was playing on thin ice. These were the same strategies that Hillary Clinton employed during her own campaign battle with Obama, and obviously, Clinton lost that battle. By nature, however, democrats are less prejudiced voters than republicans, and by campaigning in such a fashion, McCain unleashed an electoral monster that he could have NEVER hoped to control, one united in racism and bound by their absolute hatred of variety. What did he expect to happen? Now that McCain has backed off on this approach, he has angered these supporters, and with them the powerful right-wing talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Idiots they are, but powerful they are as well, and their wrath will be swift.

The Palin is self-explanatory: the kind of scandal and abuse of power that we have come to expect as protocol during the Bush years. And she managed this during her first year as governor. Not only does it undermine the entire argument for her nomination--that Washington needs a new, fresh kind of politician--but it is the most blatant example of Palin's prevarication, as she was a staunch opponent to the investigation from the start, refusing to answer to subpoenas and hiding behind the McCain campaign's clout to crush the investigation. She failed, and the information is now out.

As I finish writing this, I'm listening to Otis Redding's rendition of "A Woman, a Lover, a Friend," and in the song, Otis sings:

"I want me somebody, to hold my hand. Somebody to love me, and understand."

Oh John, how Otis feels your pain.


1. With a practical tongue-bath by the press, mind you.

Leave it to Hustler: A Sarah Palin Porn Flick

How could I make this up?

Larry Flint's Hustler has made a Sarah Palin-themed porno film, and copies of the script have been leaked to the press.

I'll admit--it sure seems folksy!

P.S. While some have disagreed on the outcomes, we can all admit that this has been the zaniest, most unpredictable, and flat out wild presidential election in recent memory. Though I am still making up my mind on whether that's a good thing or not...

A Wink is better than a Nod...to a Horny Conservative

Richy Lowry has always been somewhat of a toad. Aside from editing the National Review, the biggest piece of garbage to every be printed on glossy paper, Lowry has also penned a book entitled "Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years," where he sticks every crisis of the George W. Bush presidency on Clinton while attributing all of Clinton's success to Reagan's reign.

His latest jaw-dropper, though, exceeds my wildest expectations for what idiotic conservatives are capable of. Get a load of this, his column following the Vice Presidential debate that was posted on the National Review website (emphasis mine):

"A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it."

Have you ever read anything so creepy? so fundamentally...icky? Rich Lowry gets his juices flowing by watching stunt doubles from "Fargo" mangle the English language. Aim...fire!

The VP Debate--Hyper Corkiness and Foreign Policy Smackdowns

Reflections

The only Vice Presidential debate has come and gone, and I have several observations regarding the content and substance of the evening (hint: it's not complimentary to Palin).

The game plan tonight for Palin was obvious: increase her folksy charm to hyperventilating levels, bypassing substance all together and blatantly ignoring the prompts by the moderator. On more than one occasion, Palin completely ignored the topic in discussion, answering with "yes" or "no" questions and then barreling into something unrelated, or, on one occasion earlier in the debate, literally telling the moderator she was not going to focus on her question.

Why would she avoid these questions? because her note cards did not provide answers. There is no bias involved in charging that Palin did considerable cramming for this debate, as her focus on international affairs, both economically and politically, was slim to none while Governor of Alaska. Her interviews the last two weeks display this in spades. In cramming for this debate, however, she pigeon-holed her performance. She was so reliant on the note cards and on her pre-set answers that any maneuvering--such as when she tried to explain the tax and health care policies of McCain, or when she was asked to differentiate McCain and Dubya--and her answers came off as awkward as a result. And for the record, she never once gave a substantive answer on how McCain is different from Bush.

Consider, for instance, the most moving part of the debate, where Biden made reference to the horrific car accident that took the lives of his first wife and infant daughter. Biden was noticeably chocked up over mentioning the incident, and it tied in quite well with his argument. Palin's response? Talking points, and cliche ones at that. As Chris Matthew said following the debate in regards to her scripted responses, "I felt like I was listening to a spelling bee."

She didn't burn the barn down, so in that respect, she succeeded. But did she provide any substance? any indicator that she has the capacity to be the most powerful person in the world? NO.

Biden, however, was more sluggish in the opening. It seemed he was caught off guard by the pit-bull methods of Palin, and he struggled through the first half of the debate to find a clear voice. That all changed, though, once foreign policy was introduced, a topic that has always remained the piece-de-resistance of Biden's platform. Mr. Foreign Policy, as he is called, Biden plowed over questions regarding Israel, Iran, and Pakistan, where Palin, surprise surprise, lacked serious substance, even getting facts such as the commanding general of the Afghanistan regime wrong, calling him "McClellan."

After the foreign policy segment ended, Biden charged ahead, clearly feeling more comfortable with his forceful stance against Palin. I felt that he tried to play it down the center when the debate started, over-relying on facts and tone and letting Palin win on personality. Once international affairs became the topic, however, and the true Biden came out to play, he seemed remarkably cozy in attacking the platforms of McCain and Palin.

The News

Every debate, in one form or another, creates news, and for tonight's sparing it was Palin's jaw-dropping, outrageous comment that as Vice President, she would seek to constitutionally increase the power of her position.

WHAT?!?

This is clearly an issue that Palin will be clarifying in the coming weeks. The last eight years, we have been subjected to the most blatant assault on constitutional rights in United States history, and who was the man in the center of all this? DICK CHENEY. Here is a man who increased his own power and influence to unspeakable levels as vice president, leading the nation into an unnecessary war while dominating the president's ear on particulars. For Palin to suggest, after eight years of blatant fascism, that she would attempt to bring MORE power to the VP slot is maddening. Check that: it's inexcusable, and it proves my point that she is useless without her talking points note cards.

Press Conference--NOW

Which brings me to the most important issue now, for me at least: Palin in an unrehearsed press conference. The debate tonight appealed to her strengths. It was fast, it was frantic, and it allotted Biden limited time to question her lies on health care, taxes, and her record as Governor; additionally, it removed any time for follow ups by the moderator, as Palin's biggest lie of the night, that she supports rights for gay couples, went all but unchallenged by moderator Gwen Ifill. In a real press conference, with multiple journalists asking a multitude of questions, Palin will have to stand up for these sort of things. Maybe that's why she discouraged the idea of meeting with any more "mainstream media" reporters at the closing of tonight's debate...

P.S. Independent voter reactions are overwhelmingly in Biden's favor. We won't know the full impact of this debate until late Saturday/early Sunday, as those poll results will be post-debate, but the early news seems promising for Biden.

A Couple of Critical Clarifications on McCain's Iraq Platform

During the debate tonight, John McCain continued to pedal a couple of misguided, highly irritating stances regarding Iraq that I feel require critical clarification.

1. The Surge

McCain continues to applaud his support of the surge, boasting about how well the surge has worked, how he supported it, and how Barack Obama didn't. There a a few rather important points underlying this idea that McCain does not mention (and wisely so--it cripples his entire argument).

First, the surge has not "worked," insomuch as what the Bush administration itself said was the intention of the surge. Violence was never the goal of the surge. The point was to decrease insurgent conflict in order to further political reconciliation among the Iraqi government. Currently, we've gone full-circle, as the government is still nowhere near complete, universal agreement.

Second, a distinction must be made on the decreasing violence. While pouring more troops into a war zone will obviously lead to a reduction in violence, there are two non-related developments in Iraq that contributed more to the decrease in violence than the surge itself. First is the Sunni Awakening, an event where Sunni tribes agreed to aid the mostly Shia Iraqis government in fighting insurgents.* Second is bribery, as the US has literally paid off many insurgents to stop their assaults, while Muqtada al-Sadr, the powerful Shia cleric, has ordered a cease-fire for his troops.

So, McCain can wax faux-poetry all he wants on the success of the surge, but we should keep in mind that there is far more than meets the eye regarding the topic.

2. The Future in Iraq

McCain has wisely decided to ignore his support for the invasion of Iraq and instead focus on the future of the country, emphasizing the long-term goals of our occupation of the country and demanding that we do not leave until we can "leave with honor." A nice slogan, but absolute bullshit if you understand a tiny portion of what makes that region tick.

Leaving Iraq with honor is impossible. The circumstances surrounding our illegal invasion of the country and our embarrassing war-time decisions will haunt this country for the next half-century, and no matter how honorable our discharge, the first thought on America's mind regarding Iraq will still be WMDs and post-invasion blunders.

And beyond pre-war planning, we need to remind ourselves of how damaging Iraq has been on an international scale. Invading Iraq has effectively empowered Iran and dealt damaging blows to American credibility involving foreign countries, agency intelligence, and executive judgment. Based on what McCain is suggesting, it is not possible to leave Iraq with enough honor to replace the international pessimism the invasion has brewed.

Finally, one last note on the Iraqis: they want us OUT of their country. A point that Obama should have made in the debate was that Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's Prime Minister, publicly endorsed Obama's plan for a phased withdrawal of US troops! And beyond that, a recent poll of Iraqi citizens found that over 80% support an immediate withdrawal.

To conclude, John McCain is using his alleged expertise in foreign affairs to sell a highly misleading and potentially devastating foreign policy to American voters, and it is critical that we pay more attention to his statements and scrutinize the true facts behind his claims, because as I have demonstrated, something smells.



*This bottom-up approach to ending the sectarian violence was suggested by Barack Obama--two years ago. The Bush administration finally administers the strategy, and guess what? It exceeded beyond our wildest dreams. And Obama is supposed to be the one lacking foreign policy judgment?

The First Debate

Obama's most forceful debate yet, this affirmed the idea that he can tackle foreign policy "experts" like McCain with the vigor and aggressiveness that has been missing from Democratic candidates for the last eight years.

Several pundits are exclaiming that McCain won this debate, but I completely disagree. First, let's look at image.

History has shown us how pivotal image is in these televised debates. The first ever televised debate, between Kennedy and Nixon, proved this. Radio listeners, who focused on substance, thought that Nixon won the debate. Television viewers, who saw Nixon's sickly scragginess to Kennedy's perfect, clean shaven pretty boy, approved Kennedy overwhelmingly. In short: image matters, and McCain did not seem to get the memo.

All throughout the debate, McCain was hunched over, squinting, and grumpy. In fact, he never even looked at Obama during the debate, as the ever-uncomplimentary split screens showed. Throughout the evening, McCain repeatedly insisted that Obama was "naive," and that he didn't understand complex foreign affairs. At one point, he stated that Obama did not know the difference between a "tactic" and a "strategy."

On the flip-side, Obama was gracious in comparison, complimenting several of McCain's ideas while deconstructing his arguments with facts and reasoning. In this respect, Obama in a knock-out.

Now, lets move on to substance. From Obama's perspective, this debate could not have gone better. He appears fluent, confident, and aggressive with foreign affairs, forcefully challenging McCain on such heavyweight issues as Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and the financial crisis. If you doubted Obama's command of foreign issues before this debate, his bold charges of McCain's wrongfulness regarding Iraq, his idiotic opposition to communication with enemies (in which he brilliantly invoked Kissinger's support of the plan--who is a big-time adviser for McCain), and his undying support for the surge.

The worst thing that could have happened would have been uncertainty by Obama and cocky assurance by McCain. Instead, we had Obama defending his ideologies, and using facts and logic to debunk the claims of McCain. With McCain, we had showings of insecurity and a lack of planning (due in no small part to his ridiculous stunt to help with the bail out), and it all added up to a generally underwhelming performance from the next incarnate of movement conservatism.

In short: Obama big time, and I hope more people saw who the real president was on stage tonight.

What to Look for in the Debate tonight

The first of three presidential debates will occur tonight, and there are two major issues to look for between the two candidates.

1. McStunt: McCain made a horribly calculating, horribly STUPID move earlier this week when he "suspended" his campaign to "help" in negotiations for the bailout plans of Wall Street. I write "suspended" because the campaign did not stop, as ads continued to run and offices remained open. I write "help" because McCain's participation in the plan equaled an absolute destruction of everything Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and others had assembled the prior three days. I heard on NPR this morning that the executive meeting McCain was involved in went so poorly that Hank Paulson got on one knee and begged his fellow republicans to help pass the measure. As of today, no proposal is even close to being passed.

That was bad enough, but McCain went for the coup de grace in political mockery by asking for the suspension of tonight's debate, so, you guessed it, he could "save America" and work on the bailout proposal.

What McCain has done with all this posturing is raise expectations for his performance tonight. By going for the gauntlet of "looking presidential," he came off as lame, opportunistic, and shallow, lacking any of the substance that we expect from our commander in chief. McCain has never been much of a debater, but I think tonight will prove critical if his performance reflects the shady, scatter shot behavior we've seen this week.

2. Lock 'n Load: Obama MUST do well tonight, as this is the first time that all Americans--both democrats and republicans--will see him in a substantive policy debate. And on foreign policy, nonetheless, a topic McCain is still seen to have an advantage in (no matter how misguided that view may be). Thus far, Obama has been a fine, if irregular, debater. While his speaking abilities are beyond reproach, he is a tad more inconsistent when speaking impromptu, with his debate speeches and explanations lacking the flair and humility of his stump speeches. The effect? he comes across as too professorial for "bitter" voters whom he needs to win this election.

During the primary season, there was one debate where Obama was noticeably better than Clinton, that being the Ohio debate. In that presentation, he was charming, eloquent, and concise, never over talking his points while calmly asserting his presidential prowess. That's what he needs to do tonight, to make voters feel comfortable voting for a 47-year old black man. For many of us, that was never a factor, but for some it still is, and their fears MUST be squashed for Obama to win in November.

Why Paulson's Plan is Bullshit

I’ll be upfront: I have never liked Hank Paulson. Maybe it’s the glasses. Maybe it’s his perfunctory baldness. Or maybe it’s his spot-on imitation of Skeletor.(1) Whatever the reason, something always struck me as queer about the guy, and his hair-on-fire response to the financial crisis does not help his image one bit.

I am not discrediting the credit crisis in any way, as it has the potential to be the Great Depression Part Deux. Institutions are not only failing left and right, but the sheer magnitude of those institutions is enough to get any economist's blood boiling. AIG, for example, (the latest bank to go running for big daddy government) held over $1 trillion in total assets. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two government-backed loan enterprises that imploded and were subsequently inhaled by the government, held over $5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. We are talking about a huge amount of money here, and therefore government interaction is necessary.
The Paulson Plan, however, is wrong on so many levels it is startling. Here are some of the bigger points:

1. LOTS of dough...for Wall Street: We all see the magic number--$700 billion of our tax payer dollars to buy garbage mortgage backed securities(2), possibly at inflated prices. The total could balloon to the $1 trillion mark. Yet, nowhere does Paulson's Plan contribute any money to Main Street. No money for home foreclosures. No stimulus relief funds. Nothing. All the money would back the same, predatory Wall Street barracudas that launched this catastrophe. And once this lending is over, nothing is asked in return of the institutions. No further deregulation measures. No limits to CEO compensation. No higher taxes on future trading. Not even a measure that guarantees rewards for taxpayers should these securities increase in value after the governmental takeover. NOTHING.

2. Arrogance: As Paul Krugman said on "Countdown" the other night, there is a stunning arrogance to Paulson's Plan and his gung-ho of support for the measure. Since the plan's introduction, Paulson has not provided a single shred of argument on why his plan will even work. Appearing on “Meet the Press” this last Sunday, Paulson achieved a grand balancing act of fiercely endorsing his plan of unlimited buyouts while cautiously dodging any substantive questions from moderator Tom Brokaw. So we were treated with the familiar mantra of "this is a crisis, we need to act now, we need to act fast, more recession could follow," while there has been no substantive argument from the man on why we should even put our trust in this plan. A $700 billion proposal and the man provides no JUSTIFICATION on why it would work? INSANITY.

And all the while, Senator Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Banking Committee, has constructed a plan that is much more feasible and well-thought-out than Paulson's, though Dodd is a mere Senator compared to the “expertise” of former Goldman Sachs CEO/Harvard-educated Paulson.(3)

3. Fascism: This is the biggie, as Paulson's Plan is horrifyingly similar to the Iraq War Resolution that gave President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. And no, I'm not making that up. I quote Section 8 of the plan:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

In other words, Paulson has carte blanche, a free hand to use our money any way he pleases with absolutely no constraints. The man can literally lock himself in his office until December and not issue a single report on his actions. And then, when he emerges with worthless securities on his hands and plunges the country into a deeper recession, he will have no legal accountability for his actions. Newsweek had it right with their headline on the mess: "King Henry."

And once again: this is exactly like Iraq.

The language, the bravado, the eagerness. It's all the same. Paulson continues to press the idea that immediate action is needed. Act now. Act fast. TRUST ME. Haven't we fallen for this before? Are we ready to fall for it again? Considering that we are knee-deep in the failures of the worst administration in United States history, the last thing we should be doing is awarding that same administration with this kind of power. Our congressmen owe us that much.

1. Seriously: if this bid as Treasury Secretary doesn’t work out, Hank could be a shoo-in for the next season of “America’s Got Talent.”
2. So me economists are dubbing Paulson’s plan “Cash for Trash”.
3. And one more thing on that: Paulson is the same guy who, just one week ago, decided to stop government bailouts and let the institutions fail...until the walls started caving in the next day. So far, he has been a guy effectively out of his element with no idea on what to do and no premise to work with. As historians, is there any reason to put our faith in him now?

Herbie Hancock's "Speak Like a Child"

As somebody with over 14,500 songs on their iPod, there are several songs and artists that have had a profound, emotional, resonating impact on me. The examples are obvious to anyone who knows me well--Nick Drake, Joy Division, Van Morrison, Sly & the Family Stone, Miles Davis. When considering individual songs of profound impact, however, I constantly return to “Speak Like a Child,” a jazz composition written and performed by Herbie Hancock.

This beautiful, gorgeous song strikes me in a strange, alluring fashion, and it is difficult to put into words.

While the song has no lyrics, the title has a breathtaking, poetic quality, and is the first of the many mesmerizing aspects of the song. It is so simple, yet as the only words associated with the track, so meaningful.

And it perfectly complements the music of the track. One of the more interesting aspects of "Speak Like a Child" is the unusual instrumentation Hancock employs to support his piano. Casting aside the rudimentary Jazz language of the piano/trumpet/saxophone combo, Hancock instead uses flugelhorn, bass trombone, and alto flute, and rather than using the instruments for extended soloing, he uses them for mood and shading behind his own soloing on piano. The effect is a highly unorthodox but undeniably beautiful sound scape.

And then he plays, in such a light, delicate fashion. In other words, he speaks like a child. Hancock has always possessed a prodigious technique, capable of creating whirlwinds of sixteenths and thirty-seconds that confound traditionalists and amaze postmodernists. On this track, though, he forgoes all that jazz. Instead of power, we have lyricism. Instead of confrontation, we have sweetness. Along with experience, we have innocence, the innocence of childhood.

Listening to the song, to Hancock’s precious playing, and to his arrangements, I am flooded with memories of my youth. Not exactly one specific memory, but an entire cascade, an endless slide show of bits and pieces that all have one thing in common—the essence of childhood, and the innocence and adventure and carelessness that the time is defined by.

As I age, and more responsibility gradually crashes into my life, I can’t help but yearn for the simplicity of my youth. Listening to Hancock's music, I am saddened, thinking back to such simple times and wishing, so bad, that I could reclaim that joy for just another moment. Yet, Hancock’s light arpeggios fade off into the distance, and the song comes to a close. Great art is like our childhood; an evanescence, slowly melting away into the past.

I have never met the man, so I cannot be certain of this specific emotional response as what Hancock intended. What I do know, however, is that Hancock is as much a philosopher as he is a musician, and his composes his music with the specific goal to thrill, challenge, and above all else, move his audience. "Speak Like a Child," the title track off his 1968 release, it a sublime example.

We should be ENRAGED about Palin!

Andrew Sullivan puts it in a way that deems all other rants on the Palin pick inconsequential.

But I will say this: the Palin pick is unprecedented in its cynicism, its arrogance, and the underlying stupidity it reinforces regarding the American public.

Journalists were very critical of Obama when the Palin pick emerged, as he seemed sluggish in delivering a rebuttal to her choosing. What they saw as procrastination, however, I saw as shock, a genuine flabbergast that the American public could be this stupid and support a politician like Palin.

Now, Palin's numbers have gone down, and dramatically so; yet, McCain is still keeping it close with Obama, boasting an average poll total of 45% to Obama's 50%. I called McCain's bluff the moment the pick was announced, and my initial reaction to Palin was annoyance. Now, three weeks in and the poll remaining steady, the only plausible reaction to such an s ignorance and indifference is, well, outrage.

Outrage for the cynicism of the pick, outrage at the morals of a political party that would nominate such a conniving politician, and outrage as a public too stupid to figure it all out.

Palin Protesters! And a note on Personality

Sarah Palin's return to Alaska was welcomed with open arms--by thousands (I repeat, THOUSANDS) of protesters, all angrily holding signs in opposition to the psychopath's hard-right platform.

Here's the video of the Anchorage pit-stop. Anchors away!

And, as promised, a note on the alarming role personality is playing in the presidential election.

The strategy of the McCain campaign is simple: above all else, keep conversation away from the issues. Campaign chair Rick Davis put it best in a recent Washington Post interview when he said, "This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Admittedly, McCain's campaign has done a remarkable job avoiding the issues and focusing on personality. Consider the VP choice of Sarah Palin.

When the pick was announced, I saw through McCain's initial justification for the selection, how he has chosen Palin for her record as a "reformer." It was a blatant and shameful play for PUMA voters (Party Unity My Ass voters, who supported Clinton and are refusing to support Obama) and the supposed "Reagan Democrats," democrats who are too stupid to vote in their own self-interest. And, Palin represented the kind of scientifically ignorant, cronyism infested charlatan that the GOP adores.

What I did not count on, though, was how distracting Palin would be. In that respect, I'll give McCain some credit. He chose a VP who was so ridiculous, so overwhelmingly dishonest, that the media and mainstream voters alike would be mesmerized by her presence, putting an absolute stand-still on the long-awaited scrutiny of McCain's platform.

The distraction has worked in spades, however. Currently, McCain LEADS Obama in national poll averages (which may be bullshit, as they neglect younger voters), and the once comfortable lead Obama enjoyed in the election market polls (think Vegas-style politics) is all but disintegrated.

This may be a mirage. The media may finally wake-up to Palin's lies and voters may FINALLY discover that McCain is George W. Bush with a turkey girdle.

Realistically, we'll have to wait until the debates, as that will present a venue where McCain will be forced to answer for his dreadful record on economics, foreign policy, energy, healthcare, and lobbyists.

But, even with debates, this epiphany did not happen in 2000; and it did not happen in 2004, either, so I approach these coming weeks with a skeptic's eye and a cynic's worldview.

HAHAHA!!! THE PALIN INTERVIEW!!!!!!!

The Sarah Palin interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson is a blogger's wet dream.

It really is rare for a single event to offer so much to mock, so much to laugh at, so much to RIDICULE.

But I'll keep it short and sweet: the Palin interview, in all its ignorance and stupidity, makes me jump up and down like a little schoolboy during music hour in Sunday School for her debate with Joe Biden.

While I'll be crossing my fingers for a discussion on nuclear proliferation (just to hear her Fargo accent mangle the poor, destructive word), I'm hoping for the really meaty topics of foreign policy to surface. Like renegotiation of NAFTA. Or trade relations with China. Or the Iraq withdrawal plan--which Iraq President Nouri al-Maliki supports but John McCain and Palin oppose--or, as we learned today that she still believes, Saddam's connections with 9/11!

It is bound to be a festive day

"Botero" drug creates sensation

New weight-gain drug has spear-headed a social revolution

“Chunky Mommas” leader Big Momma Ray rallies her troops at a Chunky Momma Convention.


Botero, the radical new innovation in the field of medicine that “plumps up women,” as drug creator Alfred B. Goodness said, has launched a new revolution of public image, creating a body of “Chunky Momma” women that, as Goodness explained, sends them “back to our natural predecessors.”

“The point of the drug is to bring women back to their roots,” Goodness said. “Forever women have been pressured to ‘tighten’ their figures and meet social standards. I am simply trying to bring us back to our natural predecessors.”

The drug works by slowing down the mitochondria of the body’s cells. The mitochondria, often called the “powerhouse” of the cell, generates a great deal of what is called adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is used as a source of chemical energy.

“I slow the mitochondria down, therefore slowing down the various processes involved in the body, such as weight loss,” Goodness said.

While the science community was originally skeptical of Goodness’ findings, repeated studies of the drug have shown that Botero only targets the specific function of the mitochondria involving weight loss. All other processes, such as cell growth and death, are left to perform fine.

“It’s an amazing achievement,” said Dr. Ralph Spellman, a biologist who teaches at the University of Michigan. “Goodness has achieved something that we biologists only dream of: the opportunity to play God and re-work his most precious creation, the cell; and, in the process, produce a thriving breed of healthy, juicy young women.”

And while the scientific merits of the drug have never been in doubt, the social impact was questioned during the first few months of the drug’s existence. Now, however, the drug has created a new breed of women who proudly declare themselves “The Chunky Mommas.”

“We ARE ‘The Chunky Mommas!’” declared group leader and self-described Botero junky Big Momma Ray at the latest Chunky Momma Convention in McCormick Place, Chicago.

“This was me five months ago,” Ray said, as she showed the 1,000 plus women in the convention a picture. “Look at that!” Ray said, “I only weighed 120 pounds! I was thin, frail, and constantly under pressure to trim my figure.”

“But NOW” Ray continued, as she walked from her podium to the face the crowd, “I am over 300 pounds of woman, and I am hard…to…handle!”

The crowd went wild, as Ray’s charismatic leadership has driven group membership in the hundreds of thousands.

“I suspect we’ll be at a million members by the end of the year,” Ray said. “This an all-out social revolution, and I want history to remember ‘The Chunky Mommas’ for what they were: bold, healthy, and very, very, juicy.

Note: this news piece is a total joke. I put it together for my graphics communication class. IT IS NOT REAL!!! :)

"Psycho" Revisited

Alone, and semi-bored, I found myself flipping channels Sunday afternoon on the old, semi-obsolete Philips television set I brought with me here to Ohio. I'm not much of a channel flipper, as the interminable exercise normally gives little benefit; today, however, was an exception.

I found the Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece "Psycho" playing on Turner Classic Movies, and while this is certainly not the first time I've seen the film--indeed, it is forever enshrined in my top 20 films--watching it again, in my current disposition and with all the knowledge I possess on Hitchcock and the film, was an immensely satisfying experience.

But first: the film.

What immediately struck me about "Psycho" this time around was Anthony Perkins. Perkins was a hot, rising actor in the late 50s, and he was even hailed by many as the next James Dean, due in no small part to the innocent sexuality he effortlessly exuded in his roles that drove the ladies oh so crazy. It was this characteristic, however, that would make him so appealing to Alfred Hitchcock, who wanted to cast an actor of Perkins' exact stature for the role of Norman Bates.

Though Perkins did accept the role, he was haunted by the decision, fearing that it would forever tarnish his career and lead to the ever-dreaded typecast. And it did, as Perkins was never able again to shake the image of the tormented, psychotic Bates.

But what performance to lose your career over! Perkins is flat-out riveting in this movie, creating an uneasy yet driving mood that pulses each scene he's in with the same horrified, caged fear of the stuffed birds that adorn Bates' office. While Hitchcock famously hated method actors, Perkins has an undeniable method to the madness of this performance, as his hollow eyes gaze longingly for passion, his face ticks with nervousness and shyness, and all the subtleties of his face--laughs, smiles, chuckles--just add to the coiled tension.

It's a brilliant performance, and while Hitchcock's direction has claimed legendary status, Perkins work deserves equal praise.

Not that the praise for the direction is misguided, mind you, as this film alone could establish Hitchcock as one of the greatest directors in the history of celluloid. Upon receiving the script for his next project, Hitchcock would immediately draw storyboards for each and every scene, and "Psycho" reflects this obsession with detail. Every scene features perfect framing, as Hitchcock is capable of placing the camera in choreographed places that progress the story AND enforce the subtle themes he is known for.

Consider, for example, the scene between Perkins and Janet Leigh, where she eats a sandwich Perkins has prepared for her. Beyond the weird, alluring chemistry between the two leads, Hitchcock shoots the scene with such consistency, allowing the actors their space while still examining the stuffed birds that adorn Norman Bates' office.

Not the whole film is straight-forward, though, as Hitchcock still uses virtuoso technique in several scenes, such as the thrilling crane shot through the Bates' house, which stops above the second-floor staircase as Bates carries his mother down the steps, or the twisting shot that examines Bates' paranoid face as he is questioned by a private investigator about Marion Crane's disappearance, giving him the appearance of a bird; or, the brilliant usage of lighting throughout the film, how Bates' face is constantly shown in a half-light/half-dark dichotomy, or the BRILLIANT lighting in the final, shocking climax where we discover the truth about Bates, as the swinging light bulb in the fruit cellar swings to and fro while the camera focuses intently on Momma Bates.

With Hitchcock's film, we get beautiful settings, excellent performances, and tightly controlled plots, but what films like "Psycho" display is that there will always be little, precise subtleties that will keep us watching these films into the future, and I look forward to the times of this future where I can enjoy films in the same way I enjoyed watching "Psycho" yesterday.

What to Look for in the next 60 days

We made it. The conventions are over, and the general election campaign has begun. While I never thought this day would come (remember: campaigning for the primaries began in February--of 2007), it is finally time for us to focus on the issues of the campaign and decide who we will ultimately support in the November 4 election. As there was any doubt, but you get my point.

Here are some of the top stories to focus on in the coming weeks:

Palin and the Sunday Talking Heads

Considering that nobody knew who Sarah Palin was two weeks ago, her meteoric rise in the GOP/Fundamentalist/Psycho Killer faction of the Republican Party has been phenomenal to watch, but what adds an extra layer of fascinating to Palin is the flurry of scandals and controversies that have exploded on the national scene at an equal rate. It is patently obvious that McCain's campaign did little to no vetting prior to selecting Palin, and it took the press a whopping 48 hours to tally more suspicious stories on Palin than Bill Clinton holds mistresses (consult this blog entry for further information).

Since these stories broke, though, Palin has offered no public comment regarding any of them, even going the extra mile and refusing to speak to the press or appear on ANY of the popular Sunday news programs (a la This Week and Meet the Press). John McCain supports this decision, and why shouldn't he? A idiotic response by Palin to any of these scandals would be catastrophic to his chances for the White House.

But, this will not continue, as Palin WILL eventually appear on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Though there is already a substantive amount of hype surrounding Palin's past, these relatively small rumblings will become all-out earthquakes when election day approaches, and Palin MUST address these questions on a nationally-televised program.

Plus, it would be great theater.

The Debates

The election season is currently embroiled in its most annoying phase, one I like to call the "Schoolyard Phase." One candidate says one thing about the other candidate. The other candidate hears about what the first candidate said and responds with his own little witticism. Evening news programs report on the repartee, and the process rinses, dries, and repeats the next days.

In other words, endless banter continues for an endless amount of time. That is, until the debates occur.

I've always had a love for debate, watching two minds square off in a pure, mano a mano fashion. It cuts through the bullshit of campaigning and allows us to see the candidates in all their eloquence, complexity, and, most importantly, stupidity. This debate between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton is a perfect example.

But beyond the theory of it all, the debates will be worth watching because of the issues, as the candidates will finally have a chance to call each other out on any inconsistencies or contradictions that have risen on the campaign trail. In particular, look for a very interesting debate on Foreign Policy between McCain and Obama.*

Polls

I know polls are polls are polls are polls are polls, and they are unreliable. What I think we should look for, however, is John McCain's numbers, as they represent a glaring contradiction in the voting public.

John McCain has voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time. He has changed his positions on tax cuts, torture, homosexuality, and abortion to mimic Dubya's hard-right, Jesusfied platform.

So let's look at this logically:

George W. Bush has a platform that has low approval ratings.
John McCain has a platform that perfectly copies Bush's platform.
Therefore, John McCain should have low approval ratings.

Except that is not the case! Though the similarities are undeniable, McCain's current average in polls is around 42-44%, which is MUCH higher than the Bush ratings, which have dipped past the 25% mark.

The only reasonable explanation for this is stoopidity. Republican voters, simply, have not looked deeply at McCain's proposals and seen the similarities, nor payed attention to the countless journalists and pundits who pointed these mirror images long before I have.

So while I am asking a good deal here (as far as I can tell, there is still no cure for stoopidity), we should still watch the poll numbers and see what develops.



*I would mention how much I'm looking forward to the Biden/Palin debate, but we should wait and see what happens with Palin before assuming she'll debate Biden in October.

McCain's Speech

I apologize for the tardiness of this post. I've been busy the last 48 hours moving into my dorm at Ohio University, and writing has unfortunately taken a back seat to the proceedings of driving for nine hours (!) and then fashioning the room with all the bells and whistles of the ideal metropolitan journalism major.

As for the speech, I'll state what everyone probably knows already: I didn't like it.

But of course, I will elaborate on that.

The beginning of the speech was dreadful. While I did not see the frightening neon-green background that supported Johnny's speech (I was driving to Ohio and heard it on the radio), I actually felt that listening to McCain as opposed to watching him helped him in the long-run, as I was deprived of the man's Uncle Munster appeal and ancient charm.

The first third of the speech, though, truly was dreadful. A basic, meandering beginning, and more irritating falsehoods about Obama's platform.

Then, things got more interesting. First, McCain offered a fairly shocking bitchslap of the current government, chastising it for it's ineffectiveness and blaming it for the way the country is now. More on that later. But then, he turned his attentions elsewhere.

McCain has long been a candidate slammed for his misunderstanding of the economy. He famously admitted during an interview that he knew very little on the subject, and last night's speech was a clear attempt by the "maverick" to rid himself of this negative image and show that he really does have a grasp on the single-most important issue to voters in this election.

Launching on a long, winding road of policies and theories, McCain outlined specific economic proposals that he (and his advisers) seem to think will dig us out of our current recession.

But oh, how wrong he is.

While I applaud the effort, McCain was undermined by one glaring contradiction: Reaganomics! The single dumbest idea in the history of economics, Reaganomics--the brilliant idea that cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans while raising government spending (namely military build-up) will somehow balance the budget, all the while decreasing government regulation on corporations and encouraging unlawful behavior--has never worked. It didn't work for Reagan, it didn't work for Bush I, and it surely has not worked for Bush II, as the current condition of the economy blatantly shows. So, with this kind of track record, what does John McCain propose we do to get out of the current recession? CONTINUE THE IDEALS OF REAGANOMICS!!! It was embarrassing.

The speech then turned to McCain's bread and butter: his time as POW in Vietnam. Now, I am not poking fun at what McCain endured as a prisoner. The tale, one of hardship, perseverance, and ultimate sacrifice, makes a beautiful, touching story, and I was genuinely moved last night when he recounted his experiences in the prison. Though it does not provide any prerequisite for the presidency--remember, Grant was arguably the greatest American General ever in the Civil War, and he SUCKED as a president--it does make for beautiful storytelling.

As the speech ended, McCain showed surprising energy, closing out the speech on a rare tone of "change," pleading for his supporters to fight with him to save our country.

Moving, but hollow, and I'll return to his criticisms of government to explain why.

I cannot possibly fault the actual message of McCain's speech. Washington is broken, party lines have become the most splintered since the 1920s, and our society is the most unequal since the Gilded Age. Clearly, the current style of politics is not working and a legitimate change must be made for any progress to occur. However, this will never happen with a McCain presidency.

It's all in the details. Going past the economy, many of the proposals McCain offered were Bush pt. Deux. Foreign Policy involving Iraq, Iran, Georgia, and Russia was straight out of the Dubya playbook, as was McCain's announcements on energy independence and, wait for it, OFFSHORE DRILLING, the dumbest idea of this campaign next to the gas-tax holiday. There is nothing new, nothing radical, nothing "maverick" about the specific policies that McCain offered in his speech last night.

So remind me, why is he the maverick? how is he going to change Washington? It's a mystery, and the speech last night, despite the beautiful POW passage, left me more frustrated and confused than motivated.

An Exercise in Annoyance--Palin's Acceptance Speech

I didn't exactly have high hopes for her acceptance speech--one I watched out of sheer curiosity, I might add--but Palin still managed to annoy the hell out of me.

Yeah, I knew we could expect the same soft-pedaled patriotic crap about how Republicans are there for all Americans, how they want to give government back to the people, and how John McCain is more patriotic than you.

What I didn't see coming was the sarcastic and condescending tone towards Barack Obama. While there was plenty of disagreement regarding John McCain's atrocious platform during the DNC, there was also plenty of respect for the man. Joe Biden even called the man a "dear friend."

Flash-forward to the RNC, and we get jabs at Obama's "elitism," a painful, faux-clever stab at how Palin's stint as mayor was different from Obama's as a community organizer because her job "had responsibilities," and, most annoying of all, a rekindling of Obama's woefully misunderstood "bitter" comments!

While these cheap and misleading attacks had me pulling my hair out, the key weakness of Palin's speech was its hypocrisy. Along with the aforementioned attacks, Palin followed the cliche GOP platform of attacking Obama's skillz as a speaker and demanding more substance from the man. Strange, though, how Obama's acceptance speech was dominated by substance and razor-sharp policy, while Palin's resorted to the same hollow pronouncements of how McCain is "the candidate for you!" while lacking ANY of the substance Obama allegedly needs.

So all in all, a cheap, flimsy, annoying evening, all from the modern-day Tracy Flick of politics. Hooray!

Palin fit de Battle ob Jericho

AND THE WALLS CAME TUMBLING DOWN!!!


Really, one has to sit back, admire the surge of bad press for Sarah Palin in the last 24 hours, and smile. A smile of triumph. A smile of self-assurance. A smile that with this, the most disastrous choice of a Vice President in modern times, John McCain has given the country a glimpse of his laughable executive skill and burned his bridge to nowhere, er, the presidency.

Here is a little snapshot, if you will, of the various scandals and controversies that have surfaced in the last 24 HOURS:

1. Secessiongate: Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party in the 90s, a radical political group that has been pushing for a legal vote since the 70s over Alaska's right to secede from the United States. Naturally, the McCain campaign denies Palin's involvement.

2. Babygate: Palin admitted earlier today that her 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. This is something that does not concern ME; as Obama correctly pointed out today, families should be off-limits to political charades, but this will not play well with the pure, wholesome, idiotic conservatives that McCain was trying to snag with his choice of Palin.

3. Recallgate: All the poetry that GOP mouthpieces waxed about Palin's time as the Mayor of Wasilla, news broke yesterday that Palin was nearly recalled in 1997 for the unjust firing of the Library Director and Police Chief if Wasilla. Why did she fire them? because they did not support her 1996 campaign for office, or, as Palin put it, they did "not fully supporting her efforts to govern."

4. Bridgegate: Palin's supposed opposition to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" is no opposition at all. Not only did she really SUPPORT the bridge, but she financed a road to the bridge! Call the "Road to Nowhere."

5. Troopergate: As Governor, Palin used her influence to order the firing of her brother-in-law, a state trooper, after he divorced her sister. When Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan refused to honor her request, she fired HIM! It should be noted that since the story broke, Palin has seeked legal counsel regarding the scandal.

6. Churchgate: Just breaking today, it has been discovered that Palin formerly attending the Wasilla Assembly of God, a Pentecostal Church in the town that has some very questionable beliefs and seems to have had a divine influence on the policies of Mrs. Palin.

In speeches before the church, Palin not only spoke of the messianic task of the Iraq War, but she also prayed that God would give cutbacks to her people of Alaska and authorize a $30 billion pipeline for the state. See for yourself:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

And:

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

And about the beliefs of the church? The senior pastor of the church, Ed Kalnins, preaches that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell (good news for me!), people who voted for John Kerry in 2004 may not be accepted into heaven, and, my personal favorite, that 9/11 and the Iraq War were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

While we'll never fully know how indebted Palin's views are with this nuthouse, her support for the church and it's preaching is unabashed. Consider this speech Palin delivered to the church in June: "Having grown up here, and having little kids grow up here also, this is such a special, special place," Palin said. "What comes from this church I think has great destiny."

FOUR MORE YEARS

Of these scandals and controversies, Palin's abuse of power as Mayor/Governor and her nutty church are the biggest areas of concern.

The abuses of power are obvious: a little, spiteful woman drunk her own power. Like Dick Cheney with a uterus. If we are to compare this to Dubya's administration, Palin's actions go hand-in-hand with Brownie and FEMA, the US attorneys firing scandal, and the hiring practices of the Department of Justice. Palin IS Dick Cheney.

And while these developments are catastrophic of Palin's image as a leader, they are even more incriminating of John McCain's own judgment. George W. Bush's presidency was forever squandered when he chose Dick Cheney as his Vice President, and the short-sightedness of that selection seemed, at its time, to have no equal...until now. We all knew what McCain was trying to pull when he announced Palin as his VP, but what we didn't realize was just how arrogant and egotistical he had been in this selection, how he met the woman only once, how he didn't even send a SINGLE team of legal experts to vet Palin's past and dig up chestnuts like troopergate. If this costs McCain the presidency, good, because it is a clear snapshot of his horrific and arrogant decision-making.

The church-related scandal is, again, a direct correlation to the hell we've visited with Jesus-freak Dubya as our president, a confused and disillusioned style of leadership where it is more important to pray for success than get down to the brass tacks and research that create intelligent, fully-rounded leaders.

Not only does Palin's association and support of the church inspire this kind of leader, but it presents very, VERY troubling information regarding her view of Islam. Whether or not Christians like it, Islam is a religion on the rise as it adds new members by the minute and country's that preach the religion gain international clout by the day. Without question, the next president is going to have to be a leader who respects the influence of Islam on the world and approaches the leaders and politicians of Islamic faith with humility.

Can a woman who calls the war in Iraq--an effort to effectively topple an Islamic regime and replace it with good, clean, Christian democracy--"God's task" really be capable of such understanding?

In a word: NO.

A Bug's Life

Yesterday, I enjoyed the last Lou Malnati's pizza I will have until Christmas break, and while I was enshrined in deep dish heaven, my brother and I revisited A Bug's Life, which revealed itself to be an underrated enry in the Pixar universe.

While it is not on the same level as Wall-E or the Toy Story films, A Bug's Life does have several notable qualities.

Animation

It should come as no surprise that the animation in a Pixar film is stellar, but the 3-d world of this film brings the bug universe to our television sets, a world where grass towers over our character's heads and simple raindrops are the most damaging of natural disasters. This is the kind of world that Robert Frost would have loved.

Humor

Again, this is no surprise, but the humor of A Bug's Life is wickedly clever to the insect world. For example, one of the lead characters is a MALE LADYBUG named FRANCIS, brilliantly voiced by Denis Leary. Maybe I'm just a sucker for clever inconsistencies like this that move beyond the paradigm, but that's one of the funniest Pixar jokes I've ever seen! Also, there are hilarious segments involving Bug Zappers, Flies, and other in-jokes that any Entomologist will adore.

Kevin Spacey

I have always been a fan of Spacey, as his versatility and talent has ensured that he'll be one of the more consistent and memorable actors of our time. Pixar excels at casting unexpected actors for their voice parts, and Spacey's casting as the evil villain of the film, Hopper the grasshopper, is the standout role is a uniformly excellent.

Spacey is deliciously evil, here, growling his lines in an intimidating timber of a voice that sounds nothing like the weak, pathetic sale manager from Glengarry Glen Ross or the loser suburban dad of American Beauty. Conniving, deadly, and disgusting as a parasite, Spacey is excellent.

Sarah Palin DOES have foreign policy experience--Just ask Cindy!

I already had zero respect for Cindy McCain.

Aside from the fact that she has become a big, dumb blond spokesperson for the more hurtful propaganda of her husband's campaign (see: her response to questions about Michelle Obama's supposed lack of pride for her country; get a vomit bag), she is one annoying character, one born into supreme wealth who lies about the existence of her step-sister on the campaign stump, making herself out to be some lonely only child and gain voter's sympathies.

But this takes the cake.

In her appearance on "This Week George Stephanopoulos" yesterday, Steph asked her about Palin's supposed lack of foreign policy experience, and Cindy replied--and I'm not making this shit up--that "You know, the experience that she comes from is, what she has done in government -- and remember that Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia."

Here in America, we become accustomed to being in the presence of idiots. We have a retarded president, voters who are more likely to recognize Darth Vader over Dick Cheney, and schoolchildren who cannot locate China on a world map. Yet THIS--from a woman who allegedly holds a Masters in Special Education from USC--is one of the dumbest things I have EVER HEARD!

See for yourself...and get a vomit bag.

The GOP and Science, pt. II: Global Warming

Continuing in the GOP and Religion theme, pt. II of this series will focus on the Republican party's ignorant resistance to global warming.

Global Warming



"A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."

John McCain VP and conservative queen Sarah Palin had that to say during an interview with Newsmax. While I cannot single-out Palin--this uninformed view on global warming is shared by an alarming number of GOP politicians--her jaw-dropping statement kindled my feelings on global warming.

Global warming is, undoubtedly, one of the more urgent challenges the human race has ever faced. Before I go into the politics of the crises, though, we should look at some key facts of the movement.

1. Global warming IS happening: Since 1880, average temperatures around the world have risen 1.4 degrees, with the most drastic rate of this rise occurring in recent decades. The last two decades, in fact, are the hottest decades in the last 400 years, with some data suggesting them the hottest of the millennium; and, the last 11 of 12 years have been the hottest since 1850.

2. Greenhouse gases, man: So what's causing this huge swing in temperatures? A little thing called the greenhouse effect.

Global warming, at its most basic root, results from an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most popular of these gases, accounting for half of the greenhouse gases. Together, the different greenhouse gases produce what is known as “The Greenhouse Effect,” a process where solar radiation from the sun is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus re-radiating heat in multiple directions and back towards the earth.

Now, the Earth requires the greenhouse effect to retain solar radiation and hospitalize its inhabitants; however, too much of these gases have a negative affect. Though all gases have witnessed a rise, carbon dioxide output in particular has increased, and what the increase in greenhouse gases does is maintain a greater percentage of solar radiation, leading to--you guessed it--more heat exposure to the earth's surface and a rise in temperatures.

3. Save the Polar Bears!: While the entire earth will be affected by global warming, the arctic regions are the serious panic zones. Areas such as Alaska (where Palin IS governor), western Canada, and eastern Russia have seen average temperatures rise at twice the global average, creating serious obstacles to wildlife. Polar bears, in fact, are one step away from the endangered species list, as the rapidly melting ice in the arctic regions are drowning the poor polar bears.

And here's a comforting thought: by 2040, arctic regions could be ice-free. This leaves us with two possibilities. The first and obvious effect is rising sea levels, which would be a dream for areas on the coast. The second and more frightening scenario involves the sun. Currently, the icy arctic regions act as a giant piece of tanning aluminum for the earth, reflecting the sun's more harmful rays back to the solar system. Once this ice melts, however, scientists predict that we could essentially bake under the unchecked, unreflected power of the sun. Let's put another shrimp on the barbie!

It IS our fault

Now for the politics. Most if not all of global warming has been a result of modern human stupidity. Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases beyond the amount of plants and oceans we have to absorb the gases. Alarmingly, we are so ahead of these plants/oceans that even if we became a carbon-free society overnight, the earth would STILL continue to warm, as several years will be needed for the atmosphere to stabilize. Clearly, Palin is dead-wrong on this issue and she is now two for two as far as idiocy goes with science.

Yet, even with this avalanche of evidence, we are stuck with a leader who has refused to listen to warnings of climate change and even censored scientists who dared speak out of the potential results (*cough* Katrina *cough*).

See: Dr. James Hansen, a NASA scientist and expert on climate change who has been studying global warming for over 30 years. Basically, throughout 2005 and 2006, Hansen was pressured by NASA officials per the orders of Dick Cheney and possibly Dubya to censor his material on climate change and soft pedal what he saw as the reasons for the change.

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," Hansen said. And the censorship didn't stop there. Those same NASA officials were given clearance to scour Hansen's lectures, articles, journal entries, and even BLOG POSTINGS for potentially incriminating charges.

This is an obvious and infuriating assault on free speech, and its implications add more negative baggage to the GOP's stance on science.

Preponderance preshmonderance

Let's look at this as scientists, shall we? Skepticism is a scientist's best friend. As I described the scientific process in my first entry on science regarding creationism, recent discoveries and hypotheses are welcomed with skepticism and doubt, as fellow members of the science community attempt to disprove their comrade's findings and, in the process, strengthen the hypotheses and develop a more full contribution to science on a whole.

That is the formula UNTIL a certain word pops up in correlation with certain ideas: preponderance of evidence. Once there is a preponderance, or, overwhelming supply of evidence, to support an idea, it becomes more trusted by the scientific community and there is generally less skepticism.

Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Cell theory is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Global warming is supported by a preponderance of evidence!

So why does the Bush administration censor documents, bully scientists, and hide data from congress to avoid potentially game-changing legislation? Oil and, of course, religion!

The oil angle is self-explanatory: carbon emissions are propelled by oil-driven cars, and some of Bush's more ardent supporters have come from citizens of Big Oil. I'm not one to cry conspiracy theory, but the non-action and laziness of the Bush administration regarding global warming is shocking--even by his standards.

The religion angle is what happens when a stupid man becomes a Jesus freak.

Dubya is, without a doubt, the most jesusfied president in the history of our country. Of course, some of our early leaders were devout worshipers of the deity, but they had one intense difference in mind when they drafted the constitution: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!! Despite being god-fearing men, early pioneers like Adams were vigilant in their opposition to theocracies, and this was a civics lesson that George W. Bush obviously skipped out on during his days at Yale (my guess is he was busy snorting coke and/or drinking beer).

The Bush White House is like a Sunday School retreat, with the building honey-combed in numerous areas with bible study-sessions and prayers and passages abound. The reason this is so dangerous with someone like Dubya is, as previously mentioned, the man's rather limited mental abilities.

If George Bush is perfectly content thinking that a celestial being rules over the universe like a holy Kim Jong-il, fine, but it should stop there. I hate to break to you, Mr. President, but God is not going to stop Hurricane Gustav, just like he was unable to stop Hurricane Katrina. Once again, I'm sorry to have to admit this, Mr. President, but God is not going to calm the Iraqi insurgents and create magical peace between the Sunni and Shia factions of the Islam faith. I hate to be blunt, Mr. President, but God is not going to do your job for you!!!

The last seven-plus years have been an exercise in religious doctrine, an uncomfortable combination of governing and dogma where prayer and faith are a more reasonable way to lead than policy and expertise. This simplistic view of the world has been a disastrous pigeon-hole to the American scientific community, and this ignorance is something I'll explore with more depth in my next note on stem-cell research.

The GOP and Science, pt. I: Palin and Creationism

Great: ANOTHER Republican who doesn't know shit about science


Solidification

I knew from the beginning that I was going to dislike Sarah Palin. For one, she's a Republican, and the only Republican that I can publicly admit to supporting is Lincoln Chafee (a former Republican-now-Independent who, among other things, opposed the invasion of Iraq, supports Stem Cell Research, supports gay marriage, and opposed Bush's tax cuts. Did I mention he was a Republican?!?). Then, I found out that she is a die hard supporter of the NRA, one of the most useless and infuriating "non-profit" groups in existence. And then, I read about her positions on science...and was effectively horrified; and not just at her exceeding ignorance of the subject, but how it is yet another blow to the self-proclaimed "maverick" image John McCain boasts.

Palin opposes stem-cell research, supports teaching creationism in public schools, AND she does not believe global warming is a man-made disaster.

Obviously, Palin is the perfect beauty queen for the GOP vice-presidency--she doesn't know shit about science. This is something that infuriates me about the Republican party and its general concession to religious doctrine, and with this first reflection I'll zone in on the embarrassing evolution/creationism debate.

Dumb as we wanna be

With where we stand as a nation, both in terms of wealth and technology, there should be absolutely no doubt on the validity of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Before I go into why it is such a sound theory, however, I should make the very important point about the very word "theory." To be a "theory" in science is like having your own theorem in math, or having your own grammatical rule in english, or having your own tempo in music theory. In other words, something being a "theory" in science is a big fucking deal, as the entire landscape of the subject is changed based on what theories are accepted by the scientific community.

But how does something become a theory? From years upon years upon years of tests and re-tests. Have you ever noticed the generally small number of scientific theories we have? Let's just rattle off a few, from the tops of our heads: theory of evolution; theory of gravity; theory of relativity; cell theory. The relatively small number of theories is demonstrative of just how difficult it is for a HYPOTHESIS (which is what creationism is) to become a THEORY.

Here is how science works: scientists conduct experiments with a hypothesis in mind. From this experiment, they draw conclusions, and then publish their work in various scientific journals for peer-review from the scientific community. Science and Nature are among the more influential journals in publication. Upon publication, these results are torn to shreds, as hundreds of scientists conduct their own tests of the original scientist's findings, desperately trying to find flaws and misconceptions.

Scientists love to prove each other wrong, but there is a purpose to this process. After the original findings are ripped to pieces, that original scientist goes back to his lab and begins MORE tests in attempts to refine and perfect his hypothesis.

When do these findings become official theories? When there is absolutely no doubt that the findings of the experiments will prove incorrect.
When there is absolutely no doubt that cells are are the basic unit of structure in all living things, the cell theory enters the scientific canon.
When there is absolutely no doubt that physical laws dictate gravitational attraction between bodies with mass, Newton's law of universal gravitation (and later Einstein's theory of general relativity) enter science textbooks.
WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT ORGANISMS EVOLVE BY INHERITING TRAITS IN POPULATIONS FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER, EVOLUTION BECOMES A THEORY!

Pale(in)s in comparison

So, to put it in cave-man terms--there is no question amongst true members of the scientific community on the validity of evolution, cells, or any other idea that carries "theory" status. So now you know how amazingly stoopid people sound when they insist evolution is "just a theory."

Let's see what Palin had to say on the subject of evolution/creationism:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Palin has one valid point in this ridiculous statement--that healthy debate should be encouraged in schools. If the topic were political ideologies, the true meaning of The Great Gatsby, or how history will judge the presidency of George Walker Bush, then hell yes, let the kids debate! but it is in the field of science where this argument becomes mute and Palin's ignorance is allowed to shine.

Before I make any further argument against this stance, I should be clear that creationism is not science. Why? because it is not TESTABLE. When I described the process of peer-review, notice how I explicitly pointed out the process that testing plays in science, how a scientist concluded his experiment through TESTING, how his peers double-checked his results through TESTING, and how his returned to his lab after publishing his results and commenced with more...TESTING. Testing is arguably the single-most important component to the scientific process, and the statement of creationism--that some heavenly figure (NOT GOD)* descended upon the earth, went POOF, and instantly created the 20,000 different kinds of grasshoppers we have on earth--provides us with a mechanism that cannot possibly be tested. Couple that with the truth that there is no evidence whatsoever for creationism, and you have a fairly terrible scientific idea on your hands.

Creationism is not science, so logically, the next step would be to keep it out of the science classroom.
Just like we keep run-on sentences from our children's english papers, we keep creationism out of the science classroom.
Just like we prohibit the false lessons that Columbus brought great prosperity to the native tribes of the indies, we keep creationism out of the science classrooms.

Get it? teaching creationism in a science class equals teaching your child unfounded, illogical bullshit, and we owe it to ourselves as human beings to give the subject of science more respect.




*This is an ever-evolving joke over the whole creationism scandal. Whether it is called creationism or intelligent design, the over-arching goal of the movement is to get religion taught in schools.