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.