I'm back...Psych!

Sorry, that was mean. When was the last time someone used a psych joke? (not counting Raff. I know Raff loves 'em.)

But I did want to let you all know that I'm not gone completely, or for good. I'm currently fully entrenched in the world of fiction, which is largely alien territory, and it's going better than expected. Grad school applications are well under way, and perhaps more importantly I've got a few projects brewing that I'm pretty happy with.

I'll be back. I can't tell you when. But I'll be better for it.

In the meantime, I've been thoroughly enjoying Pat and Suzy Corc's London blog. I eagerly await the European beer tour.

Thanks for reading...

Hmmm...

I like people who challenge assumptions:

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

McCain the Snake

Do people actually like this guy, or is a lesser of two evils kind of thing?

http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1

Gotcha!

I usually hate this guy, but in this article David Brooks has succeeded where many have failed: he's managed to zing Barack Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/opinion/29brooks.html?em

Bravo, David Brooks. The Zot and the ZZUPP are one step closer to reigning supreme.

Thanks for reading.

Forgive Me, I've Failed You

Sorry I've been so bad at this, guys. My mind has been elsewhere. On the bright side I'll soon have a shiny new pile of short stories. Or kindling.

Thanks for reading?

Poetry Slam

Here's a little flavor of what I've been into lately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znIXyFh6dsI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF5Rnwx5X4I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE-4k55Odug&feature=related

The first video is a little long (Anis Mojgani performs three different poems), but if you make it to Shake the Dust (#3), it will be well worth your while (and the first 2 are pretty kick-ass).

In the last one the guy does kind of a rambling intro before he gets into it, so you can skip the first 2:30 or so.

Just when I thought poetry was dead. Who knew?...

Thanks for reading.

WEFEST

Feelin' great in 2008!

Ummm...

Sorry folks, I've got nothing for ya today. I'm up to my neck in grad school research, and am working my ass off in an effort to get my writing to not suck so I can apply to schools and not get laughed at by the admissions committees.

Things That Make Me Want to Punch a Kitty

If you pay any attention to modern media, you face a daily deluge of idiocy that I fear our society may be growing numb to. Every self-proclaimed “expert” gets an op-ed piece or five minutes of air-time to preach on some supremely important cause, prophesize about our inevitable demise, or take umbrage at some perceived affront.

The latest example I submit to you comes from the op-ed pages of the esteemed New York Times. Our expert for the day, Steve Ross, is the “supervisor of behavioral and cognitive research at the Lester Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes at the Lincoln Park Zoo” (this wording is taken directly from the article, and makes it impossible to discern whether Mr. Ross and the Lester Fisher Center’s mission is concerned with the study and conservation of apes as a species (and the center happens to be located at the Lincoln Park Zoo), or merely with the study and conservation of the apes housed at the Lincoln Park Zoo. In my humble opinion (I concede I’m not an expert), if they’re having conservation problems at the Lincoln Park Zoo it may be a terrible zoo, and perhaps the animals would be better off in the wild.)

This little ambiguity aside, the aforementioned op-ed is perhaps the most…what’s the word I’m looking for…inane thing I’ve ever read. At first it didn’t even occur to me to take it seriously. I forgot where I was on the WWW and assumed I had somehow stumbled upon The Onion. But then I realized that Mr. Ross was serious. And this article was written to be read seriously. And it had been deemed serious enough by the NY Times, a traditionally serious publication, to consume valuable real estate on its pages.

They can’t be serious.

Read it for yourself here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/opinion/21ross.html?th&emc=th and form your own opinion, but for those of you with actual things to do, or those reluctant to fill limited brain space with absurdity, I’ll sum up: In Chimps Aren’t Chumps, Mr. Ross finally takes a stance against that greatest of all evils: dressing Chimpanzees like people. That’s right, CareerBuilder.com, PG Tips Tea and producers of Ed (though they ought to apologize for a number of offenses beyond chimp exploitation), you people are monsters. My eyes have been opened to a new wickedness threatening the very fabric of society. Yes people are starving, being slaughtered in wars, sold into slavery. But these chimpanzees are wearing hats, sunglasses; are being put in humorous, personifistic situations for a cheap laugh (or more poignantly, to ask the age old question: what if people were monkeys? Or monkeys people? Oh the humanity…). It makes me sick. And if you’ve ever sent a Monk-e-mail, welcome to my shit list (kidding, I love ‘em. Please send more to grueri@bethel.edu).

Alright, I’m not being fair. Mr. Ross is looking to make an important point: chimpanzees are still an endangered species and people often forget this fact because commercials make their lives look so comfortable. They are intelligent, thoughtful creatures that should be afforded a degree of respect.
Perhaps I’ve keyed in on Mr. Ross because his sincerity on this (to me laughable) issue makes him an easy target. He’s vulnerable, there’s a chink in the armor, I can smell blood in the water (insert your own predator/prey metaphor). But his belief that chimps dressed as people are a major problem shows that he’s woefully out of touch with the real world.

And here’s the real kicker: Mr. Ross is hoping to protect chimpanzees from being dressed up in business attire and forced to sit in cubicles. It’s inhumane! It’s degrading! It’s beyond cruel! But I dress in business attire…and I sit in a cubicle. So who’s the real chimp (or chump?)

Mr. Ross believes that chimps deserve rights. They’re not that far removed from humans (on an evolutionary scale, a debate I’m not looking to start here) and should be granted certain civil liberties. But, not to be an unsympathetic bastard, if chimps deserve the same rights as me they also deserve the same responsibilities. If I can’t pick bugs and throw feces all day long, neither can they. Hear that, chimps of the world? Get a job. Maybe in advertising…

Now, my favorite passage: “Would we condone putting funny clothes on human children so that we could laugh at the way they look like subhuman buffoons?”

Yes, we would. It’s called Halloween.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. I’m considering making “Things That Make Me Want to Punch a Kitty” a recurring series. Thoughts?

Love or Something Like It

The closest I’ve ever been;
we met for drinks, a friend of a friend.
I took her hand (she had incredible skin),
said my name is, yours is?
I made her laugh; she drank like a man (gin).
I admired her shimmering smile, mine more a grin.
Again I took her hand (was this too fast?),
we talked about the present, past.
The table hid our knees, in secret brushing.
Our eyes met, my god, so cliché, both blushing.
I pondered War and Peace, she didn’t get it.
Well…that was quick.
My fickleness an unrelenting spring,
falling in and out of love: the damndest thing.

Beijing Infested with Overgrown, Martial Arts Loving Reptiles

Government officials have confirmed reports that an infestation of large, Renaissance-influenced and English-speaking turtles has been wreaking havoc on China’s largest city and site of the 2008 Summer Olympics, emerging from city sewers to decimate the pizza supply, stalk young female journalists and unleash so called “Turtle Power” on unsuspecting citizens.

This outbreak serves yet another blow to the great nation of China, hoping that the 2008 games would serve as its grand introduction as a major player on the international stage. The latest disaster in a series of unforeseen, purely coincidental environmental setbacks, the turtle debacle follows closely on the heels of rumors that the world’s top marathoners would decline to participate due to dangerous levels of air pollution and an invasion of unsightly green algae sludge floating atop the Yellow Sea.

The mutant turtles, according to eyewitnesses, are adolescent in demeanor, demonstrating a penchant for silly antics and catch phrases such as “cowabunga,” and wear colored eye bands, presumably to tell one another apart. They are highly skilled in the martial arts, well armed, and should be considered extremely dangerous. It is believed they are led by an equally oversized, wise beyond his years rat, though reports of the creature could not be confirmed.

Chinese scientists have yet to ascertain the origin of the turtles, though they speculate the mutation was caused by some sort of ooze, the chemical composition of which is a secret. They do emphasize, however, that the presence of these “teenage mutant ninja turtles” is only loosely related to China’s atrocious pollution problem.

Thanks for reading.

Gone Baby Gone

Sorry all, no new post this week. I'm heading to the Black Hills to visit Werd Yelof for the 4th. Have a great weekend!

Thanks for reading.

P.S. anyone want to take a stab at PCorc's Barack Obama questions? Anybody? Bueller? To be honest, now that he's gone back on his word on public financing, I'm getting ready to write him off. Not that it's a huge issue, and I recognize that by foregoing public financing he has a huge fundraising advantage, but it's a matter of principle. He claimed he was a supporter of public financing, and that he was going to work with his opponent to reform the system. I'm personally a huge fan of public financing because it limits the amount of money these people can spend on their campaigns. I think it's sick that our economy is in the dumps, people are starving globally because of soaring food prices, it costs $60 to fill up my car (which makes me want to cry), and these people are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on commercials, buttons and billboards. What's wrong with us?

Obama's right to say that the system is broken, but I say the fix is to give each candidate $50 million to start (still a ridiculous sum, but it's a start), and any dollar spent over that amount results in a disqualification. All of a sudden political races are focused on issues, not star power fundraising and lobbyist donations. Policitians will actually have to focus on the people they represent. Imagine...

The solution is not, as Obama would have us believe, to give candidates the right to spend convievably limitless sums of money. I don't really care if you can raise and blow $500 million in the 6 months before election day. It's a question of should you. All things considered, wouldn't a demonstration of fiscal restraint be wise?

This was a severe lapse in integrity for Obama and I'm having a tough time moving past it (especially when my initially high hopes and expectations are taken into account). But don't get too smug, McCainanites...he's no peach. We don't need me to air his dirty laundry to prove he has no soul, but that doesn't mean I won't.

Truthfully, I'm starting to have slightly disconcerting doubts about the viability of democracy. Winston Churchill once said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." But I propose a new political philosophy: Intellectual Oligarchy. More on this to come...

Op-Ed

Check out this Op-Ed from the NY Times. Good stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/opinion/25hart.html?th&emc=th

Reviews: A Potpourri

Over the last three weeks I’ve been lucky enough to enjoy several epochal cultural phenomena, and always eager to share that which has knocked my socks off, I submit to you all the following can’t miss works of art:

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Jonathan Safran Foer: To say this book blew my mind is an understatement, for it altered every idea I had about what a novel is, was, and could hope to be. To be honest, when I picked it up and read the synopsis I was skeptical at best. I have little tolerance for exploitation and I saw the plot, a young boy dealing with his father’s death in the World Trade Center, as exploitative schlock at its worst. But I’ve never read a book that dealt so poignantly with grief, human connection and self-knowledge. The book is everything at once: a wild adventure, a love story, a pacifist tome, a reflection on memory, a historical fiction, a comedy, a tragedy, etc. etc.

But in the end it’s the simple story of a boy seeking understanding, and it’s phenomenal. In a way, it’s depressing that the best possible novel has already been written. But you should read it anyway.

Henderson the Rain King, Saul Bellow: This book takes us into the heart of undiscovered Africa with Eugene Henderson, a middle-aged patriarch and wealthy heir seeking to burst his spirit’s sleep and quell the internal voice that screams I want I want I want. This book explores self-consciousness and happiness (or more specifically contentment). Is it enough to just get by, to live life and ask for nothing more, or by doing so are we suppressing our call for something better? This theme particularly resonated with me, and I suspect it will with some of you as well.

Ragtime, E. L. Doctorow: If you have even a minor interest in American History this book is worth checking out. Seamlessly weaving real historical figures (Houdini, J.P Morgan, Henry Ford, Emma Goldman) and fictional characters in early 1900’s New York, Ragtime is one of the more engaging narratives I’ve read.

Big Bang Theory: This CBS sitcom is fairly formulaic in the 30-minute laugher tradition, but in my opinion does it better than any other show on TV right now (The Office seems to have lost its bearings). It’ll never live up to Seinfeld or Arrested Development standards (and it follows more of a linear story line…think Friends), but in the huge pile of sitcom shit it definitely rises to the top. It has likeable characters, a funny premise and every word out of Sheldon’s mouth is comedic gold.

Viva la Vida, Coldplay: The progression of Coldplay’s career has been an interesting one for me. The first major release, Parachutes, was simple, sincere, not quite gritty but far from produced. Just four great musicians with serious melodic intuitions playing great songs. Guitars, piano and drums. No fanfare. No expectation. It was also the source of a few songs that remain my favorites to this day.

Then came A Rush of Blood to the Head, their sophomore effort that produced major pop hits, including Clocks and The Scientist, making Coldplay bonafide superstars and the heir apparent to U2. They turned political, donning the equality sign to show their support for Fair Trade. Lead singer Christopher Martin married Gwenyth Paltrow. They became rock stars, and celebrities.

In X&Y this newfound rock star status, and their efforts to meet expectations, showed a bit. Every song felt like an epic. The organ became a featured instrument. They sounded like they were trying to bear the weight of the world and right every injustice with each lyric. The music was still amazing, the melodies still spot on, but it was exhausting (and Chris Martin was starting to sound like more and more of a sissy with the falsetto. Don’t get me wrong, he’s got a good falsetto, but a little goes a long way).

Viva la Vida says f*%$ that. We’re four damned good musicians and this album’s for us. And by the way, you’re gonna like it. And I do. Sometimes it’s funky (Lovers in Japan), sometimes it’s bluesy (Cemeteries in London), sometimes it can only be described as twangy orchestral (Yes). At least one song ought to feature Ludacris (Lost), and the single Violet Hill is arguably Coldplay’s first true rocker (or close enough).

Thanks for reading.

P.S. Mr. A, thanks for the link in the last comments section. James Dobson is a douche and a fraud. Maybe I’ll bring back People of Note in his honor.

Clinton Backers Bolstering Negative Stereotypes

The latest chatter out of that special circle of hell reserved for poli-pundits is aflame with speculation that large groups of avid female Hillary Clinton supporters are so disillusioned by alleged “misogyny” during the primaries that they are threatening to defect to McCain in the general election.

I don’t grant this conjecture much credence, as it’s based largely on ambiguous polls and anecdotal evidence, and trust it will prove wholly ungrounded as we draw closer to November. The “survey group,” shadowy figures that have vaguely hinted they may leave the Democratic camp after Hillary’s loss, may well be the same ignorant West Virginians who still assert that Obama is a Muslim (sorry to generalize, West Virginia, but I’ve seen a number of interviews starring your residents that have made the state look, to put it bluntly, laughably uneducated. It’s tough to find such blatant racism in America these days, but your citizens are either too dumb or too bold (maybe on account of all the guns) to censor themselves on camera. If the shoe fits…) or bra burning Ferraro types who believe Obama has had all the breaks because he’s black (that’s a new one).

Despite my reservations about the plausibility of large swaths of Democratic defectors, the fact that this group of Hillary-gone-McCain backers exists, and is surprisingly vocal considering their lack of a public face or organization, raises some interesting questions about how well the Clinton campaign actually served the feminist cause.

Generations of women in power positions, politics and intellectual circles have had to dodge charges of being spiteful, bitter, and begrudging. They’ve had to prove that they’re capable of making rational, calculated decisions based on the best interests of those they serve and influence, putting petty squabbles aside. They’ve had to prove they aren’t illogical, emotional flakes persistently afflicted by bouts of PMS and dog-eat-dog b-word-iness.

These are unfair stereotypes, no doubt, but now we have a group of women willing to split their party and ignore their values because they feel slighted by media-bullies. Willing to self-sabotage their political efforts, throw the election and ostensibly everything their hero Mrs. Clinton has worked for, all in the name of vengeance. They are securing a reputation for themselves as illogical, emotional flakes.

Throughout the primaries, Obama backers were accused of following a cult of personality. But here we have Clinton supporters demonstrating that they either don’t understand or don’t care about the issues (on which Obama and Clinton are, in some instances, alarmingly close) and apparently backed the candidate as a deluded act of hero-worship

If the issue of race entered the discussion (such as Bill’s thinly veiled racism in comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson or the Reverend Wright fiasco or the multiple insinuations that Obama was a radical Muslim in disguise) Barack was accused of taking umbrage, of using race to his advantage, of playing the proverbial race card. But now we have the defeated party playing the “poor little girl excluded from the boys-club” card. The hypocrisy is exhausting and sickening. I have to wonder if these people feel truly wronged or if they’re just pouting because they didn’t get their way.

Too bad for feminism. It’s hard to kill stereotypes when you have members of your own ranks exemplifying them.

On the other hand, would I have voted for Hillary in the general should she have gotten the nod? Hell no! But I wouldn’t have played the race card either. I would, however, have played the “Hillary is a slimy, pandering, lying she-devil of a politician” card. Does this make me a hypocrite? Technically, no (I’m not a registered Democrat). Does it make me a misogynist? If misogyny is defined as: a dude who finds the prospect of another 8 years of Clinton chicanery absolutely nauseating, then sign me up.

Thanks for reading.

As a side note, did you all hear any of Obama’s weekend speech on the failures of young fathers? Yet another honest discussion of a serious social problem, and a confrontation most politicians wouldn’t have the cajones to take on at this stage in the game. Kudos.

Zizzle-Zot Buys Macbook, Feels Quite Smug

I make it no secret that I consider myself an elitist. I like big books, foreign films, theater, museums, fine dining, and to top it off I’m somewhat of a beer snob (I have no time for people who choose to drink Budweiser). I live in the arts community of Northeast Minneapolis. I think pop culture is slowly but steadily killing us. I think well over half of Americans are too dumb to govern themselves (scary, considering they make a majority), which is why I’m thankful we’re a constitutional republic and not a true democracy (attribution to Aaron Russo). I can’t comprehend the uproar over Barack Obama’s perceived elitism (would we really want a true populist – one who appealed to the lowest common denominator – to be president?)

Truthfully, the very nature of this blog is elitist, and by participating you all are, at the very least, elitists by implication. We have the audacity to criticize the world, to discuss moral absolutes, to philosophize on better ways. We have liberal arts educations. Our idea of a good time is Star Wars: Epic Duels (oh wait, that just makes us nerds). Regardless, we’re firmly entrenched in the elitist camp.

Unfortunately, I find myself lacking several of the trademarks of a true elitist. My car isn’t a hybrid (that’s right, it’s powered by old-fashioned gasoline, and to be honest I suspect hybrids are only a few steps above ethanol on the “stupid ideas that stupid people think will save the world” scale. Honestly…these people with their hybrid SUVs that get 26 miles/gallon…are they being serious? Show me a feasible hydrogen-powered car, and I’ll call you an innovator). I’m only fluent in one language (four years of Spanish and nothing to show for it). I don’t buy organic food (too expensive).

I don’t even own a Mac…

Oh wait, yes I do! In fact, I’m writing on it right now!!! I guess there was no point to this post, other than to let you know that I’m extremely excited about my new MacBook (which you could probably tell because of the unprecedented use of multiple exclamation points).

Sorry all, I’ll try to be less self-serving next week.

Thanks for reading.

To respond to Cassel’s final comments on last week’s post: I think it’s absurd that Obama is getting slammed for saying he would be willing to talk with reviled leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and Fidel Castro (or I suppose now Raul). These men, and the countries they lead, pose a threat to the global community and there is simply nothing to gain by refusing to meet with them. It will only serve to further alienate and radicalize them (and sanctions hurt the people, not the governments).

I understand the idea is to force them to make concessions before we will come to the table, and we hesitate to legitimize their governments by paying them official visits. But we need to face the fact that they don’t really care if America legitimizes them. Years of mismanaged public relations have cost us our moral authority, and while we remain a power player, we are no longer the sole global superpower we once were. It’s amazing how much ego gets in the way of progress. All of this posturing has the feel of an eight-year-old refusing to invite a friend to his birthday party because of a spat over the last cookie.

It shows that silly partisan politics have a stranglehold on foreign policy. Since when is pragmatism naïve?

The News

Over the weekend I enjoyed a spirited discussion with Cassel concerning the value of news, and I think it would be interesting to get the rest of you dudes in on it.

The conversation started when I mentioned that I was considering going to grad school for journalism, a pursuit I consider noble and important. It’s long been my belief that as living, thinking and functioning members of society, as well as active participants in history, it’s our responsibility (and right) to be socially aware. To this end I’ve made a concerted effort over the last several years to become a tireless consumer of current events, scouring multiple sources daily to educate myself on global injustices, government processes and notable figures. I often find myself lost in a world of bylines and inverse triangle story structure, breaking news and continually updated feeds scrolling across the bottom of my computer screen. At times I become irritable, too busy inhaling policy discussions and opinion polls to take a minute to breath. Too distraught by death and tragedy to live my life in the here and now. And when people around me are oblivious to the world and don’t see the harm in their ignorance, I’m disgusted.

It boils down to this: the news makes me a pessimist. Politicians are lying snakes. People in general are cruel, bigoted, and irredeemable. We’re all fated to die by war or murder or natural disaster or reliance on foreign oil. Every corner of the globe is rife with hatred, greed, jealousy, rage and violence. And I’m in Minnesota, living my life, not saving the world, and too powerless to know where to begin.

Awareness of mass injustices that I can do nothing about only raises my awareness that the world may be utterly hopeless. My righteous indignation, diluted as it sprinkles over the planet, doesn’t save lives, doesn’t right wrongs, doesn’t change the hearts of the oppressors or lift the spirits of the oppressed. My skepticism over the validity of even “just wars” will never end war (I read somewhere that in 3500 years of civilization there have been a mere 230 years of peace). I fill myself with stories of wrongs that I can’t right, that have no outlet. My outrage is internalized, and I fear I may one day explode. I’m like Mr. Furious from the movie Mystery Men (obscure reference alert).

Thus I arrive at this proposition: perhaps ignorance truly is bliss.

What do you think?

Thanks for reading.

Hmmm...

Sorry folks, no post today. I could give you a bunch of excuses (It's a short week, I've been busy, Hillary's dead in the water so my work here is done), but what it really comes down to is I'm just not feeling it.

California Becomes Real Life Musical

The entire state of California spontaneously broke out in song late last week, creating widespread work stoppages, traffic jams and general mayhem that will cost the local economy an estimated $340 million in lost productivity and the government untold time and resources dedicated to the clean-up effort.

Local officials are attributing the unexpected surge of gaiety to a sudden influx of homosexuals, undoubtedly caused by the recent legalization of same-sex marriages. Census takers theorize that following the California State Supreme Court ruling, the entire casts of Cabaret, Rent, Singing in the Rain, and Grease descended upon the state to legitimize their once taboo relationships.

It is widely believed that the musical uprising originated at the Harris/Michelotti wedding, where 27-year-old San Francisco resident Steven Harris allegedly dedicated an emotional gay love song, “The Man of My Dreams,” to his new “bride,” 32-year-old Steven Michelotti, originally of New York. The seemingly innocuous tribute to his man-partner escalated into a snappy, upbeat dance number, at which point he was joined by the wedding party, the priest presiding over the ceremony, and both sets of parents. Before the situation could be contained, the entire audience was gripped by a dance fever that quickly spread to the streets.

As confetti dropped from the sky, limiting the visibility of harried motorists, and the choreographed tap dancing of millions of Californians placed untold pressure on already strained fault lines, some residents worried that their worst fears about the repercussions of homosexual marriage were coming to fruition. “I always knew the dancing queens would overrun this sissy state” grumbled grizzled old Barstow Mayor and humbug-in-residence Bill Winkins, “but I assumed it would be over my dead body.” Mayor Winkins proceeded to rev the engine of his two-ton pickup before speeding away, swerving off the road to run down a kick-line of bejeweled performers.

A final assessment of the damage done by the statewide chorus number is still incomplete, but Governator Schwarzenegger has authorized an emergency task force in hopes of removing the thin layer of glitter coating buildings and roads, designing a plan to disperse the massive rainbow now casting its cheery, ominous shadow over the once smog-filled state, and finding a way to restore the pessimism, resentment and greed that Californians once held dear.

Despite the best efforts of the government to undo their nefarious deeds, the spirits of the big gay mischief-makers remain high: “It’s so exciting to be living in a place where high kicks are socially acceptable” exclaimed 24-year-old Pasadena resident Christopher Casselman as he demonstrated his ability to kick higher than any man ought. “Yippeeee!”

Thanks for reading.

P.S. I came down pretty hard on China in my Boycotting Beijing post. I stand by my original thoughts, but to be fair I think they should be commended for their handling of the recent earthquake disaster in the Sichuan province. They acted quickly and decisively to minimize the tragedy, have accepted aid from countries with whom they have tense relationships (Japan, Taiwan), and have shown the utmost concern and sympathy for their citizens. Kudos.

P.P.S. It was revealed yesterday that Senator Edward M. Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor, and the prognosis does not look good. Senator Kennedy has been a major figure in American politics for over 40 years. Expect a future post…

Tyrannical Stupidity

On May 3 Cyclone Nargis ripped through southern Myanmar, devastating the Irrawaddy Delta and Yangon, the country’s main city. The definitive body count is still sketchy, but most estimates put it in the 30,000 range (the “official” government count is 32,000), with that number potentially escalating into the hundreds of thousands should food and water not expediently reach the hard-hit masses (the UN is now estimating as many as 215,000 deaths should current trends continue, more than the powerful Asian tsunamis of 2004, and are saying the government is drastically and intentionally underestimating the toll).

As villagers struggle to clear debris and the trail of bodies flowing downstream, rebuild their homes and some semblance of normalcy, the oppressive government has done everything in its power to prolong and exacerbate the suffering.

Myanmar has been under military rule since 1962, when General Ne Win staged a coup and toppled the civilian government. Ne Win ruled until 1988, first as military ruler, then as self-appointed president, then as political overlord. The current junta, led by Senior General Than Shwe, took the reigns in ’88, turning over democratic parliamentary elections as a first order of business.

General Than and his cronies are insular, paranoid, and power-hungry. They maintain vigilant watch over media influences and potential dissent. They crush uprisings with brutality and efficiency. Witness, for example, the 2007 protests staged by Buddhist Monks over rising fuel prices. The government’s response was swift and merciless. The military arrested, beat and murdered hundreds of the peaceful spiritual leaders.

Their isolationism has led to what can only be labeled a humanitarian crisis in the country. Thousands have unnecessarily died due to the government’s slow response, leaving many wondering why the military, so quickly mobilized when sent to murder and oppress, is now dragging its feet when asked to help the people it, theoretically, exists to protect. They have cut off the flow of foreign aid to the people by refusing to accept aid workers (there is a standing order to detain foreigners), making it difficult for aircraft carrying necessities to enter the country, and confiscating the few supplies that successfully penetrate the borders.

Their motivations are clear: they want to prevent the democratically-tinged whisperings of westerners from reaching the susceptible ears of their disillusioned citizenry, and they want to make their junta the embodiment of benevolence by acting as the sole faction serving the people. Accepting foreign aid would make the government look weak, unable to provide, and foreign workers would highlight the gross failures of General Than’s “leadership.”

But at these goals they are failing miserably. Most of the country is still without power. Homes that were decimated remain decimated. It has become clear that the confiscated food is feeding the military ranks, with only rotten leftovers reaching the people.

Apparently, General Than needs a primer course in tyranny: to rule with an iron fist the people must, at the very least, be placated. If you can convince the people that your oppressive rule is in their best interest, even better, but the masses must be apathetic: “yes, our freedoms are limited and our dignity is degraded, but we have food, water and a roof over our head.” You must keep them in psychological and physical limbo: weak enough that they live in constant fear of your crushing power, but well-off enough that they’re thankful it isn’t worse.

But the people in Myanmar are now without food, water and shelter. A beleaguered population denied basic necessities is a recipe for revolution. When a man is deluded into thinking he has something to live for: a pathetically low paying job, a meal a day, the illusion that he’s providing for his family, then that man can be made to crawl on all fours like a dog. But when that man is forced to sleep outside in the rain, to watch his children starve to death, then that man realizes there are things far more important than physical preservation. And when many men who no longer fear death converge on a time and place, there will be revolt.

All that remains to be seen is whether the people’s rage will overcome their despondency; whether they can rise above mental and physical trepidation long enough to deal a crushing blow to a weak and arrogant government.

If they don’t, they’re even dumber than the tyrant who fails to grasp even the simplest tenets of tyranny (I wonder if General Than wants to borrow my copy of The Prince…)

Thanks for reading.

Barack Obama Throws Reverend Wright Under Bus Figuratively, Literally

Late last week Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, seeking to distance himself from what has become a political train-wreck, threw his former spiritual leader Reverend Jeremiah Wright under the proverbial bus, condemning the incendiary statements of the good reverend as “divisive and destructive,” not “accurately portraying the perspective of the black church,” and “giving comfort to those who prey on hate.”

But fearing this symbolic denunciation wouldn’t be enough to dispel the apprehensions of race-weary voters, campaign manager David Plouffe convinced a reluctant Obama to literally throw the spiteful, spotlight hungry old man under a fast moving city bus, effectively silencing Reverend Wright and proving to voters once and for all that he no longer considered his pastor a close personal friend.

In a statement released after the gory incident, Obama lamented that “it’s unfortunate the situation escalated to such dire necessities, but if forcing the wrinkled old body of a largely irrelevant and historically ignored fringe theologian under the moving wheels of a fully loaded and incredibly heavy city bus was necessary to prove once and for all that I don’t hate white people, which should have been obvious since I was raised by a white mother and white grandparents, enjoy soy lattes and exotic cheeses, and have not once in my life said the word ‘aks,’ then so be it.”

The radical move serves the secondary purpose of demonstrating to timid Democratic superdelegates that Obama is prepared to play hardball against Hillary Clinton to secure the DFL nomination and, perhaps more importantly, will do what it takes against John McCain in the November election. “I’ve taken the first step by throwing Reverend Wright under a bus,” Obama declared at a rally in North Carolina, “now who’d like to see McCain crushed by the wheels of the Straight Talk Express?”

Thanks for reading.

Shouldn’t it be Warmer?

I woke up on Saturday morning to a winter wonderland. The ground was covered with snow, my car was covered with frost, and I was cold, literally and figuratively (as in, the numbness in my outer extremities was outdone only by the numbness of my summer-lusting soul). We do live in Minnesota, so such weather occurrences are to be expected. But it’s the end of April. And I was promised global warming.

Scientists have been telling us for years that the arctic ice is melting, polar bear habitats are disappearing, penguins are sipping Mai Tais while lounging in Tommy Bahama cabana wear. The warming trend is now reaching catastrophic proportions. Stronger weather systems are creating increasingly destructive tropical storms. Lengthy droughts are leading to widespread famine. Aforementioned melting ice is leaving elevated water levels. The apocalypse is nigh.

But really, April 26 and I can’t get a barbeque worthy day? I want explanations, damnit.

I’m no scientist and on the facts I’m sketchy at best, but I can’t help but suspect that global warming is a whole heap of rubbish. Throughout the history of the planet Earth there have been countless climactic shifts. These are well documented and scientifically accepted.

What caused the ice age? Methane emanating from Mammoth asses? And what about the warming that inevitably arrived with the end of the ice age? Would today’s scientists have spurred a panic then? New research reveals that 70,000 years ago the human race nearly went extinct due to a massive drought. The entire species was confined to small pockets of Africa. Did this die-off coincide with the discovery of fire?

No. These shifts were the result of the ebb and flow of the planet’s climate. Natural causes. Unfortunately, a focus on long-term patterns doesn’t win grants, voices of reason don’t get air time on the evening news. So even in the world of science we’re left with fear-mongering and panic-jockeying.

I’m not suggesting that global warming is pure fiction, but I am suggesting that it’s far too soon for us to fully understand the repercussions of our beloved chlorofluorocarbons, and it’s awfully presumptuous of us to believe we fully understand the whims and subtleties of our 4.5 billion year old planet.

The basis for global warming theory is the idea that “greenhouse gases” prevent warm air from dissipating in the atmosphere, leading to a rise in temperatures globally. But why do we assume that greenhouse gases trap warm air in? Couldn’t they just as plausibly keep the sun’s heat out? Could global warming be explained, at least partially, by the booming population? I’ve got to believe that billions of extra sweating, farting human beings heats things up pretty quick. Would scientists then advocate mass executions (won’t somebody show a little mercy for the polar ice caps)? Hell, maybe Mother Earth is trying to reduce us to ashes because she’s tired of our egoism.

It’s a poignant demonstration of our self-important, narcissistic nature to believe that our actions can irrevocably alter the course of the planet, while in ages past dramatic events (obscene, inexplicable climate changes, mass extinctions) were completely attributed to natural causes. We’re so refined and sophisticated and smart that our insignificant little deeds must have some impact. Right?

This, in my opinion, remains to be seen.

But really, what difference does it make? Stewardship of the planet is a shared responsibility that we are born into. We all know that pollution is a problem. The smog that hangs over major cities is real, as is the startling asthma rate. The extinction of species caused by blatant disregard hurts us all, and deprives future generations of their right to live a fully realized life. There’s no excuse for lining the ocean floor with plastic grocery bags and dirty diapers.

Why is this not enough to shake us from apathy? Why do I need a cataclysmic event to spur me into action? Threats of incineration shouldn’t be necessary to convince me that I should ride a bike every once in a while.

But truth be told, even such outlandish threats prove insufficient. You could tell the general population that they would die immediately if they neglected their environmental responsibilities, and I’m betting a quarter would still refuse to walk 50 extra feet to find a recycling can. We are an odd species.

Thanks for reading.

BitterClingElitistGate

Last week Barack Obama violated fundamental political law. In a speech given to already smug San Franciscans, Barack denigrated voters in Pennsylvania which the following, deliciously repeatable sound bite:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

In a mere three sentences he offended, with a jaw-droppingly precise combination of blatant and implied generalizations, an entire state a mere week before they held a crucial primary. The most offensive part of the statement can be debated ad infinitum. Maybe it was the (hopefully unintended) implication that religion is a negative force that serves as a crutch to the weak (a la Jesse Ventura). Maybe it was that he reinforced the stereotype that Pennsylvanians (and all working class states by association) are gun-toting psychopaths. Or maybe when he insinuated that they’re racist isolationalists.

I don’t personally believe Obama intended any of these negative connotations; call me delusional or hopelessly naïve (or how about hypocritical – would I show such grace towards Clinton or McCain? Hard to say). He made the mistake of forgetting his role as Barack Obama, public official in the spotlight of a vigilant media, and slipping into his role as Professor Obama. He’s done it before (which explains his largely unsuccessful history on the debate circuit) and will undoubtedly do it again. In this instance, he was lecturing as a detached, disinterested anthropologist assessing the struggles of a beleaguered people. He was speaking as if they were a historical case study, long ago undone by economic forces and internal strife. This approach has worked when he has spoken of the African American community, but there is a major difference: his identity is linked with the black community, and when he offers assessments of the tribulations they face he speaks as an insider. When he philosophizes on rural Pennsylvania, he becomes an outsider judging their values and lifestyle (never mind that he is just as much Kansan as he is Kenyan).

But in the end, Barack Obama was merely being honest. He was giving his Harvard educated opinion of an important voting bloc. Unfortunately, in our leaders we rarely desire honesty. We want to be placated, justified. We want leaders to have a beer with us while they tell us who to blame. We want leaders to suffer with us as members of the proletariat, not leaders who deign to step in front and (image that) lead.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on perspective), Barack’s blunder had seemingly minimal effect on the Pennsylvania voters (the primary went largely as predicted, with Clinton riding a wave of old people and uneducated people to a 55% to 45% victory).

The real story here is that Obama’s speech unmasked him as (spoiler alert!) somewhat of an elitist.

And I say: Of course he is. What of it?

All presidential candidates are, by necessity of the position they put themselves in, elitists. They need to believe that they know what’s best for you and I, that they understand our interests better than we do (whether they actually do or not is another issue). They have spent years in high government having their egos inflated by pushy lobbyists and spineless yes-men. Did you know that Senators don’t even pay for postage? Don’t get me started on the postal service, an obsolete, archaic organization that should be done away with, but still, they don’t pay for postage! How bourgeoisie is that? These people are pomp-machines kept afloat on delusions of grandeur. As much as I hate to be the one to shatter any perceptions of the politician-next-door: they think that they’re better than you.

What’s sad is not that our politicians are elitists who think we’re dumb and need to be pandered to. The real tragedy is that (warning: generalization) we ARE dumb and DO need to be pandered to. So Hillary Clinton shot a gun once as a child and Barack Obama spent some time living in Kansas and John McCain served in the Navy. Does this really qualify any one of them as an “everyman?” Do we imagine they can connect with the average American because they go to church sometimes (when the media is present) or have visited a farm in Iowa or because they held a baby in the projects on a press junket and can honestly say that they went slumming once too?

Look at the numbers: McCain’s wealth is somewhere in the $25 million range, and this doesn’t include his wife’s estimated $100 million fortune. The Clintons pulled in $20 million in 2007, and have an accumulated estate of $50 million. The Obamas, poverty stricken by comparison, made $4 million in 2007 alone. These people will never understand what it means to live without medical insurance or worry about paying $4 a gallon for gas. Yet we allow them to commiserate with us.

We’re fools for buying into it time and again. The biggest knock on Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 was perceived elitism. Their values were out of touch with America. They were incapable of speaking to the masses. Never mind that Bush was an oil-baby and Yale graduate. His muddled thinking and tenuous grasp of the English language were proof enough that he was our buddy, our pal.

This is the game the Republicans understand so much better than the Democrats. They recognize that we don’t want a well-spoken, privately warm but publicly unapproachable aristocrat. No, we want someone who will show us where to point the finger, someone who will arouse our greatest fears, someone who will get our blood boiling.

As a result, the Republican Party has hijacked the vote of a group of people that they (by all reasonable measures) despise. The Republicans are the elitists offering tax breaks to the uber-wealthy and asylum to major corporations, denying health care to the masses, exporting jobs, throwing our hard-earned money at unwinnable wars. Yet they dominate the southern blue-collar belt. They oppress, and the people love them for it.

I liked Cassel’s summation in last week’s post: “It's not that Republicanism or Conservatism is such a horrible ideology. It's that those who represent this ideology (the current admin.) have failed miserably to manifest the foundations of the politically Conservative ideal that it is supposed to stand for!” Speaking personally, the liberal revolution I underwent over the course of several years could be fairly judged as reactionary. I was simply tired of the Republicans so smugly taking my vote (along with the votes of my family, friends, etc.) for granted while doing everything in their power to deprive me of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

I by no means believe the Democratic Party has all the answers. They promise new programs without offering any plan on how they’re going to pay for them, showing themselves to be either A) delusional or B) lying, pandering snakes. They see American opinion has turned against the war in Iraq, so they threaten to immediately withdraw our troops with nary a thought to global consequences. They show their extreme, inexplicable hypocrisy by decrying capital punishment while supporting the termination of unborn children. How can you claim injustice when a psychopathic criminal is executed, yet be perfectly comfortable “executing” an unborn baby that has not even had a chance to sully its innocence? I’m not advocating a stance on either issue; I’m just saying it’s inconsistent.

I freely admit these criticisms; now let’s admit that the Republican Party is not what it claims to be. If they stand for less government, why do they push so hard to regulate abortion and homosexual marriage? (again, not espousing a position one way or the other on the issues; I’m just saying it’s, once again, extremely hypocritical) They say they’re about conservative spending, but let’s talk about the costs of multiple wars and pork-barrel projects (Ted Stevens’ “Road to Nowhere” and Don Young’s “Coconut Road” to name two recent examples). And as with the democrats, they’re stance on the sanctity of life is wildly inconsistent.

Cassel suggests that “The right is simply not working, so let’s try the left.” But what if that’s not good enough? Why will politics as usual be any better?

So I propose a third party. A party that is actually in touch with American values and concerns, a party that follows a consistent ideology and works tirelessly to realize a vision of global peace, prosperity and enlightenment. I submit to you, dear readers, the Zizzle-Zotian United People's Party (ZZUPP).

As the first order of business, I’d like to announce my candidacy to become the President of the United States of America. Unfortunately, there’s some silly, arbitrary rule that I need to be 35 to become president, so I’ll spend the next 12 years launching ruthless smear campaigns against every American born man, woman and child. By the time 2020 rolls around, I’ll be the only viable candidate.

Applications for Vice President will be taken immediately.

Thanks for reading

Don’t Get Me Wrong, Kobe Bryant’s Still a Boob: Thoughts on the NBA

In recent weeks we’ve all read articles ad nauseam by basketball analysts, pundits, bloggers, personalities (all self-proclaimed “experts”) on the resurgence of the NBA, due in large part to the unpredictably of the Western Conference playoff push. Sports writers have latched onto the punny potential of the western theme with stories titled “The Wild Wild West” and “How the West Was Won.” Casual fans have jumped on the bandwagon, donning replica jerseys and foam figures as their home teams battle for a spot amongst the elite. And, I must admit, after going through several years of finding the prospect of watching a televised, regular season game completely unpalatable, I have been drawn into the excitement. That’s right, I’m once again a fan of the NBA.

It’s unfortunate that this is the first season in my NBA memory in which star players are giving their top efforts on a daily basis, but I’m thankful for the show. The offseason trades by the Celtics for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, which essentially restructured the league by establishing a legitimate powerhouse in the East, has spurred a veritable arms race by competitive teams to acquire top-flight talent.

In the East this has resulted in a magnificent class separation between the haves (Celtics, Pistons) and the have nots (pretty much everyone else). The top two teams are also the top teams in the entire NBA (the Celtics and Pistons currently have the best records), while at least two teams below .500 will make the playoffs. The lowly Hawks, hopeless underachievers and perennial losers, have earned themselves the noble task of being manhandled by KG and the Irish in the first round. The Pacers are 11 games below being OK, and consider the season a success. To summarize, the good teams are very good, and the bad teams are just gross.

But in the West we have ourselves a dogfight (don’t tell Michael Vick). The migration of superstars (Pao Gasol, Shaq, Jason Kidd*, Kyle Korver…fine, not a superstar, but look at the numbers and you’ll see he pushed the Jazz from good to great), coupled with the maturation of up-and-comers (Chris Paul, Deron Williams, David West) has created an atmosphere of super-competitive superstars.

Every playoff team is a likely 50 game winner. The Warriors, last year’s Cinderellas, won’t even make the big show despite a record that would put them ahead of King James and the Cavs for the fourth seed in the East. Every game is war. One win or one loss completely redefines the playoff picture.

Pay attention, because never again will you see a rejuvenated Shaq diving into the stands for a loose ball. Never again will you hear both Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony talk about the game in terms of “we” instead of the preferred “I.” And take advantage now, because never again will you see Tracy McGrady play defense.

This is a season ripe with bewilderments. How did the ragtag Rockets win 22 straight games AFTER losing superstar Yao Ming to a season ending injury? How did the Hornets jump from an obscurity with literally no fan base to the force that will save New Orleans? How are the Heat so bad? (OK, so this one’s easy: they’re purposely tanking to secure the number one draft pick. A middle lineup of Wade at shooting guard, Marion at small forward, and Michael Beasley at power forward will be fierce, and B-Eazy will look good in black and red.)

Or perhaps the greatest mystery of all: How did Kobe Bryant morph from disgruntled child demanding a trade to messiah demanding MVP consideration? It fills me with an indescribable sadness that he’s my favorite player to watch, for both his athletic skill and his competitive nature, and yet he’s such a jackass. It’s a dichotomy: the Lakers have a real shot at becoming NBA champions, and Kobe has led them there. This makes him the MVP. On the other hand: he nearly destroyed the team in the offseason, ridiculed his teammates on a national stage, and put his heart into the game only after the Lakers started winning. Not behavior you’d expect, or would want, out of an MVP.

This year four players have a legit claim to the award. Chris Paul is a floor general solely responsible for the success of the Hornets (and is indisputably the best PG in the league). Lebron James has an improbable stat line (impossible for mere mortals) and will once again carry a team of bottom-feeders into the playoffs. Kevin Garnett (though this is not his best year statistically) has managed to convince Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and the rest of the Celts that defense IS important. Whatever the results, the battle has been a pleasure to watch.

On a side note, I’ve also enjoyed watching the sinking of the SS Timberwolves. They’ve finally escaped the clutches of mediocrity and find themselves in a hard fought contest for the toilet bowl. It’s refreshing.

* A disclaimer about Jason Kidd: I hated everything about this trade. It was a huge downgrade for the Mavs, who gave up a young playmaker that could create for himself and score in the lane (a rare skill in Dallas) in exchange for an egomaniac that shoots 30% from the field, averages about four turnovers a game, and is expecting his first social security check in the mail any day. On the other hand, it fills me with great joy when I look at the Dallas boxscore and see this stat line: 7 points on 2-11 shooting, 6 assists, 5 rebounds, 5 turnovers. Ha.

Thanks for reading.

PS I’m sure many of you were expecting a reaction to the Barack Obama “bitter” explosion. To be perfectly honest, I’m not yet certain what to say. Give me some time to percolate, and I’m sure I’ll devise a perfectly reasonable deconstruction of Obama’s comments. He’s come too far to commit political suicide just as a Hillary comeback seemed impossible. Gulp…

PPS A “reaction” post has gone from likely to pending to imminent, and it may (or may not) be a doozy. Just call me the spin doctor and sign me up for a think tank.

Hillary Clinton Eats Baby; Does Other Bad Stuff Too

A shocking photograph taken over the weekend and released late Monday has caught Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in the act of devouring a still living, too cute baby, hat and all. The picture, taken at a Pennsylvania family restaurant as Clinton was campaigning across the state, confirms long-held suspicions that not only is she a terrible candidate, but is, in fact, a monster (as has been alleged by former Obama advisor Samantha Power) and a baby-eater.

Reports indicate that Clinton and her team stopped at a busy Big Al’s Family Diner Saturday afternoon for a late lunch. When the complimentary bread had been consumed and the harried waitress was slow to refill the basket, the noticeably hungry Clinton snatched the baby from his screaming mother’s arms and bit the precious child’s head off even as the boy’s distraught father attempted to rescue his son from the junior senator’s surprisingly strong grip. Horrified onlookers rushed from the scene in a frenzied panic, many slipping on the way out in a large pool of accumulated blood and vomit as several patrons lost their barely digested lunches.

Shortly after swallowing the last morsel of baby, Clinton perceived the hubbub engulfing Big Al’s Family Diner and grew visibly embarrassed as she realized the magnitude of her error. Quickly regaining her composer, Clinton stood and offered the few remaining diners a ghastly, blood stained smile: “Ladies and gentlemen, we need a leader who is ready on day one. A leader who is strong and tough and will eat a baby if that’s what’s necessary to quell her hunger. I am that candidate. Yes I am! Yes I am!” Clinton continued the chant as an aide quickly escorted her out of the restaurant to a waiting vehicle.

In an interview later that day, the boy’s mother stated: “Until today my husband and I were undecided. Yes Clinton has lied, stolen and cheated, but today she ate my baby, and that is unforgivable.”

This latest gaff comes on the heels of a scandal involving (now former) chief strategist Mark Penn and a trade agreement with Colombia, which he lobbied on behalf of. Details of the agreement are still sketchy, but it can only be assumed that he was acting as an intermediary between American cocaine dealers and Colombian drug lords, offering the Clinton campaign fund as a laundering service. Penn has stepped down as a result of the incident, but will continue to oversee Clinton’s “Procurement of Shady ‘Donations’ Committee.”

In a related story, an insider in Clinton’s camp has accused Barack Obama of “waving to a street vendor known to have sold fresh produce to a guy whose wife is the housekeeper of the brother of a well-known Al Qaeda operative.” The incident, reportedly occurring during Obama’s brief stint in Indonesia as a child, could not be confirmed by secondary sources, but the Clinton staffer cites Obama’s “alarming fondness for fresh produce” as conclusive evidence.

On the Republican side, John McCain, bored by months of uncontested campaigning, has apparently sought to engage in a ruthless smear campaign against John McCain. When early attempts to display complete ignorance concerning Middle Eastern foreign policy (he still doesn’t know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni…maybe he should read this: http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2007/04/very-brief-history-of-middle-east.html) proved too subtle for the average American voter, McCain lowered his aim to a more common denominator by unleashing a barrage of “John McCain is so old…” jokes.

Thanks for reading.

So Tired...

Sorry I haven’t responded to any comments yet. I’ve been out of town for a while, and haven’t checked in for some time.

Chris, I agree that you should definitely reply to old posts. I guess there are three ways to do it. One option is to reply on the original post, and like P Corcs said just let us know so people will go back and look. Another option is to let us know which post specifically you want to talk about again, then write your comments in the most recent post (since this is the one people will most likely be checking). Or you could send me your comments and I can add them as an entirely new post.

Like I said, I’ve been gone for a while and now I have some catching up to do, so whether or not there will be a post this week remains to be seen. Stay tuned…

Boycotting Beijing

NOTE: I'm posting a day early because those bastards over at Slate Magazine just put out a story on the same topic, and I want it to be known that they're ripping me off (I wrote this over the weekend). I'm not sure how they hacked in to my computer, but I'll get to the bottom of this. Enjoy!


The recent turmoil in Tibet has brought to the forefront, yet again, China’s abysmal record on human rights and its desperation to cover up said record. Following days of protest and civil unrest over Tibetan autonomy, the Chinese government hurriedly tidied up the messy affair, clearing streets of debris and downplaying reports that over 80 civilians had been killed by Chinese forces (their official report is 16). And to a large extent, their public relations efforts seem to be working (they’ve been removed from the United States’ top ten list for most egregious human rights violators).

This in itself is a sickening display of political pandering. It’s clear that America, and the international community as a whole, tip-toes around China for fear of awakening the beast. They have developed into an economic powerhouse with intimidating military might. From a sheer numbers standpoint, it seems essential that our governments remain on good terms, and for this reason we choose to ignore the repressive regime of Hu Jintao.

What’s more despicable is we are providing this government with our tacit approval by allowing them to host the 2008 summer Olympics. This international event is intended to serve as a display of global goodwill, connectedness, humanity and equality. By allowing China to host the games, and not uttering a word in protest, we have turned them into a PR farce made possible by China’s deeply disturbing habit of employing brutal tactics to silence dissent.

Jintao and his cronies can imprison every journalist, murder every protestor, and the fact remains that the Chinese government represses and/or exploits citizens in the name of progress, illegally detains vocal opponents and crushes potential uprisings with an iron fist. They fund tyrants, provide genocidal governments with advanced weaponry and implicit approval (most notably in Sudan) and are indignant of international pressure to change these practices, let alone intervene.

We have at our fingertips a unique opportunity to tighten the screws on the Chinese. Their international awareness is unprecedentedly sensitive, and it is crucial to this still developing country that the world takes them seriously. If we were to take the lead and even hint at an Olympic boycott, the global community would follow and force the Chinese to make their first ever good-hearted effort to improve their policies on human rights.

To start, they need to play hardball with Omar al-Bashir and the Sudanese government. If China pulled its economic support the Sudanese government would crumble. There would be no more supplies (military or otherwise) to be funneled to the government-supported Janjaweed militias. Al-Bashir knows this, and would fold at the suggestion. In addition, China should be required to send peacekeeping forces to drive the militias from Darfur. Next, China must free imprisoned dissidents and grant greater freedom to journalists. For a government to be legitimate, the people must have access to at least a rudimentary picture of its practices. Finally, China should allow the Dalai Lama to return from exile and should grant Tibet greater autonomy.

We have the power to make this happen with a simple phone call: “Good morning, President Jintao. Take human rights seriously, or we boycott.”

But, as usual, we’re far too short-sighted for such a proposition. For the boycott to work the threat must be real; we must be ready and willing to pull our athletes out of the games, to bar our television stations from airing any portion of them, to prevent any of our journalists from reporting results. But for economic reasons our threat to boycott would be a bluff, and if China called us on it the result would be disastrous.

So, as usual, we’re behind the game. A number of prominent figures have already either officially boycotted or hinted at boycotting the games. Steven Spielberg, originally slated to serve as art director for the opening ceremony, has backed out, saying that he could not in good conscience support the Chinese Olympics. France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has urged the European Union to consider boycotting at least the opening ceremony (though in my opinion this would serve solely as a publicity stunt. We must be willing to boycott the games in their entirety). Several international groups reportedly have plans to protest at various sections of the torch lighting ceremony.

In the span of a lifetime, the opportunities to truly stand against injustice and to better the world for future generations are few and far between. This is one of them. And think, it would require no bloodshed, no armed conflict. All it would take would be a unified international voice shouting “we don’t approve of your oppressive government, and we won’t participate in the charade.” True passive resistance.

On the other hand, let’s review America’s record on human rights. We, too, fund governments that have horrifying habits of repressing citizens (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) and genocidal madmen (Saddam Hussein in the ‘80s). We, too, illegally detain citizens (think Guantanamo), spy on citizens (the Patriot Act), and attempt to silence opponents (look at the Scooter Libby scandal).

We didn’t put up too much of a fuss when Nazi Germany hosted the summer Olympics in 1936, which makes me suspect that, despite all of our high-minded rhetoric and efforts to play the global moral authority, we just don’t give a shit.

So maybe an American protest would just be a grandiose display of our own hypocrisy.

You decide for yourself, but Zizzle-Zot,etc. officially boycotts.

Thanks for reading

Oh The Madness!

Listen closely, ladies and gents, and one can already hear the cries of victory and defeat, celebration and heartbreak, heroes and inevitable zeroes. This is the season of competitions settled in waning seconds, legends made in defining moments, upsets, cinderellas, sleepers, programs built or destroyed, myths made reality, dreams shattered.

This is March Madness

I dedicate this post to the spirit of the greatest sporting event of the year. Let’s talk about who we love, who we hate. Which team will make a surprise run into the elite eight? Which team is primed to be picked off in the early rounds? And keep in mind that this is largely speculation, which is the beauty of March Madness. Any one of these teams can hit a hot streak and ride it all the way to the Final Four in San Antonio. Likewise, a powerhouse by conventional wisdom could find themselves with an injured star, or unable to deal with an unanticipated full court press, or unable to cope with a hostile crowd, and turn out to be the flop of the tourney. Nobody knows. I’m as much a March Madness authority as those talking heads on ESPN. We all are. Eat it, Dick Vitale.

East Regional

Zot’s Favorites: The East is North Carolina’s to win or lose. They stay in their home state until the final four, where they will be enthusiastically supported by most of the North Carolina student body. It’s tough to root against consensus Player of the Year Tyler Hansbrough. Not only is he significantly stronger and smarter than any defender he faces (not to mention surprisingly athletic. Did anyone else see him dunk on 7-foot-7 Kenny George of UNC-Asheville?), he has the biggest heart of any player in recent memory. Note that when star PG Ty Lawson injured his ankle and sat out seven games, Hansbrough played out of his mind and willed the Tar Heels to a 6-1 record (despite lacking a feasible PG option).

Other Goodies: Overall, the East Regional seems designed to clear the way for North Carolina to mosey into the Final Four (which is precisely why they’ll probably lose). The problem here is consistency. There are some teams that can be very good. Tennessee, if they’re hot, will dominate. But if they’re cold, they’ll have trouble winning (more on this later). For a good chunk of the season Indiana was a great team, but they’ve shown a tendency to choke on the big stage (and they lost to the Gophers in the Big 10 tourney). I like Notre Dame to get into the Sweet Sixteen. They can put up big numbers and I’ve seen some impressive wins from them this season, but they would need an otherworldly effort from Luke Harangody (a lot to ask considering he’ll most likely be covered by Hansbrough) to get past UNC.

Houston, We Have a Problem: Watch out for Tennessee. If they’re on, they could make a bracket or two. They can score like madmen, are surprisingly resourceful and scrappy (and have shown themselves to be capable of rising to the occasion when they beat then #1 Memphis), and if they’re shooting well…yikes (their offense is designed to shoot in the first seven seconds of the shot clock). On the other hand, they live and die with the 3-ball. Come tournament time, I hate teams that need to be shooting well from distance to win. Three of their starters are 6-2, and the tallest guy in their 7 or 8-man rotation is 6-9. What happens if they’re shooting poorly?

Sleeper: South Alabama gets to play their first two games close to home (Birmingham), have a couple of solid guards, and thrive in an up-tempo setting (which should help them against Tennessee in the second round). But will they be able to keep up with Tennessee’s star power?

Midwest regional

Zot’s Favorites: The Wisconsin Badgers play fundamental basketball, solid defense, and completely lack star power. I love them for it. They have the experience and scrappiness to keep any game close, will squeak past Georgetown when Hibbert inevitably finds himself in foul trouble, and do the same to Kansas when they inevitably self-destruct. They don’t rely on any one player to have a huge game to win, making them greater than the sum of their parts. They will have trouble if any of their opponents are able get out and run on them, as this lack of stardom means they may have trouble keeping up in a score-fest.

Other Goodies: Clemson looked strong in two games against the Tar Heels (one I watched in its entirety, the other I saw highlights) losing both in overtime. Buyer beware: their free throw shooting is a major liability.

Houston, We Have a Problem: I’ll grant that this isn’t really fare considering they aren’t necessarily a top seed, but USC has been getting a lot of hype in recent days, and I’d like to be the first to dispel any rumors that they might get past the second round. Big man Taj Gibson is their cornerstone and sole inside presence, but seems to find himself watching many games from the bench after early foul trouble. Freshman phenom OJ Mayo is almost as over-hyped as Indiana star Eric Gordon. Folks, when you shoot 5 for 23 from the field and 10 for 17 from the charity stripe, it wasn’t a good game. I don’t really care that you scored 20 points. It was a bad game.

Sleeper: I like Davidson. Sophomore guard Stephen Curry (son of former NBA player Dell Curry) is a bonafide star who can score at will. If he’s hot there’s no reason he can’t put up 50. Plus, they’ve won 22 straight games. That’s not easy.

South Regional

Zot’s Favorites: Memphis lost one game in the regular season to a very good Tennessee team that played very well. Joey Dorsey was in foul trouble early. Dozier had his head up his ass till late in the second half. Douglas-Roberts had an off game. Now everyone’s talking about Memphis like they’re a weak one seed. Bullspit. I’ll take the Memphis starting 5 over any other starting 5 in the game. Dorsey is a strong, mean and dominant enforcer on the inside, one capable of locking down any big man in the game (I’m looking at you, Kevin Love). Rose is an explosive and powerful PG that will either out-run or out-muscle the opposition. Douglas-Roberts is a pure scorer and underrated defender. Look at what this team did in the regular season. They didn’t just win a lot of games. They destroyed and embarrassed the competition. I’d be hard pressed to pick any other team to win the whole thing.

Other Goodies: I’ll never understand why Memphis and North Carolina, easily the top two teams during the season, have to deal with Texas and Tennessee as their number twos while Kansas gets an over-hyped, offensively incompetent Georgetown and UCLA (who must be in bed with the bracketologists) gets to face the prep school masquerading as Duke (more on them to come). Texas is a giant killer, having beaten both Kansas and UCLA, and Tennessee got screwed out of a one seed. Texas’ DJ Augustin is one of the top guards in the country and if they do face Memphis it will be in Houston. On the other hand, I believe Rose will absolutely lock Augustin down, and Texas loves the 3. We all know how I feel about that.

Houston, We Have a Problem: This is a great region for teams that have found their way into my doghouse. Oregon refuses to play defense and shouldn’t be in the tourney at all, let alone have a nine seed. I always bet against Pittsburgh, though I can’t explain why. I just don’t like them. Same rule applies for Michigan State, and this year’s squad is particularly schizophrenic. I watched a game where they scored 36 points. That’s bad.

Sleeper: I like both 13 seed Oral Roberts and 12 seed Temple. It helps that they’re matched up against my problem teams in the in the first round and could realistically pull off an upset, depending on which Pitt and Michigan St. teams show up to play. Temple has won seven straight, and Oral Roberts is an athletic bunch.

West Regional

Zot’s Favorites: As I’ve mentioned, UCLA must have the selection committee in its front pocket, because on paper their road to the Final Four couldn’t get much easier. Could it be that three out of four number one seeds make it to San Antonio?

Other Goodies: Xavier is an extremely well balanced team that loves shootouts. They match up favorably with most of the opposition, and their first real test won’t come until they face UCLA in the Elite Eight.

Houston, We Have a Problem: I hate hate hate this Duke team. They have no inside presence whatsoever, relying solely on the 3. I hope it’s clear by now how I feel about that. These are the types of people who would pull up outside the arc when they have a 3 on 1 fast break, a la Troy Hudson. Yes, they did beat North Carolina, but Lawson was out at the time and his replacement, Thomas, was still new to the job. They followed it up with a series of uninspiring losses to unranked teams. The fact that Duke is perpetually over ranked is the most blatant representation of committee bias.

Sleeper: Watch out for BYU and Purdue. BYU is athletic and can shoot. If they’re hot they’re dangerous. Purdue is young and inexperienced, but has beaten some big time schools (swept Wisconsin, beat Louiseville).


Several of the people reading this blog are participating in a pool on Yahoo sports. If you look closely, you’ll notice that my picks here don’t always line up with the picks I actually made in my bracket.

Explanation: This is a guessing game. Some knowledge of college basketball may be helpful, but more often than not the winner of a pool will be a computer programmer who spends his free time playing World of Warcraft. I’m in a couple of different pools, and in case I’m completely off base, I’ve gone to great lengths to make my brackets as varied as possible.

Let the games begin.

Thanks for reading.

Patience, Young Padawans

My apologies, but you’ll have to wait until tomorrow for this week’s post. I’ve done a breakdown of March Madness, and realized after finishing that if I were to post what I’d written, I’d be giving you noobs the answer key to this year’s bracket. Not gonna happen. Brackets are due tomorrow morning, and that’s when I’ll reveal the winners.

On a couple of side notes:

If you’ve been watching economic news, it looks like the Federal Reserve might self destruct, saving me a lot of time and effort. If their bailout for financial institutions backfires (ie fails to restore investor confidence) and markets continue to crumble, they will find themselves increasingly owned by foreign interests and their international reputation will erode to the point of no return. Since our financial systems are largely based on speculation (which is based on some inexplicable concoction of arrogance, inevitability and blind faith), a loss of trust means the downfall of the Federal Reserve.

I’m not an economist, nothing in the world is less interesting to me than money (well… maybe technical writing) and numbers give me a headache, so if the Fed were to go up in a cash fed blaze of its own making, sparked by the ember of imagined invincibility, I would be the first to rejoice.

K-Han, I caught Obama’s speech this morning. Brilliant. This is what he does best, and he once again demonstrated his understanding of complex issues with intelligence and empathy.

You’ll hear from me again tomorrow. Good luck on those brackets!

Thanks for reading.

New York City Mayor Announces Plan to Control Rat Population: Will Introduce Larger Species of Rat

Following a series of embarrassing PR fiascos, most notably a video released on YouTube showing an urban Taco Bell crawling with the diseased rodents, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg admitted at a press conference Tuesday afternoon that the unfettered growth of the city’s already teeming rat population has become a source of concern amongst government health officials, food service employees, and average citizens who just hate rats. Mayor Bloomberg also announced that a task force has been at work for nearly 9 months to devise an action plan aimed at radically decreasing the infestation.

“We’re very excited about the plan our task force has presented,” declared the typically smug Bloomberg. “We’ve assembled an extremely capable team of biologists, ecologists, environmental experts, sociologists, exterminators, and several stray alley cats. The very best New York City has to offer. What they’ve given us is an efficient, effective and economical guide to forever rid New York City of its rats.”

The plan? City officials will reportedly import a larger, much more aggressive species of rat to deplete the food supply. A typical New York City rat is from the rattus norvegicus family (commonly know as the “brown rat” or “Norwegian rat”). The task force aims to introduce the rattus cavus magnificus (also known as the “great cave rat”), a rare subspecies traditionally isolated to the Indonesian Islands and parts of China.

If all goes as foreseen, these new inhabitant will first consume all accessible food at restaurants, city parks and garbage dumps. At this point they will turn on New York’s native brown rats, devouring the entire population in a violent, bloody massacre.

Reportedly, this species has been known to consume household pets and even small children as development has crept upon its natural habitat, but Mayor Bloomberg is undaunted by such prospects. Reassuring citizens, Bloomberg stated “Yes, cave rats are known to be extremely volatile and aggressive, and there are rumors that they have eaten a baby or two in Indonesia (government records indicate that 11 babies were eaten by cave rats in 2007), and yes, the people of China refer to them as ‘demon rats’ and are instructed to kill them on sight by whatever means necessary, but I assure you folks, there’s nothing to worry about. A cave rat infestation large enough to result in the consumption of children or household pets is five, even ten years off.”

The team of experts then presented a cage containing both a great cave rat and a typical New York rat to demonstrate the brown rat killing prowess of the cave rat species. As expected, the cave rat immediately pounced upon and devoured the smaller brown rat in a whirlwind of blood and innards, at which point it pried open the bars of its cage and mauled its handler, two reporters and an armed security guard before escaping into the busy Manhattan streets.


Thanks for reading.

PS. I haven’t forgotten about the Federal Reserve, but first I’m going to do my research. Expect a post in the future. We will bring them down.

Victor Bout Arrested

To keep you all updated on former Zizzle-Zot People of Note, Russian arms dealer Victor Bout (http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2007/09/people-of-note-victor-bout.html) has been arrested in Thailand as a result of an American led sting operation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/world/europe/07dealer.html?th&emc=th

Scary Movie 5: Can I Panic Yet?

P Corcs, thanks for bringing that delightful video and all its paranoia inspiring, New World Order preaching, speculatively reasonable conspiracy theories to our attention. Conversation was inevitable, and that’s exactly what we here at Zizzle-Zot, etc. thrive on.

I’ve seen some of these theories in the past (the North American Union, implanted ID chips) and some are new to me (the involvement of the Rockefellers).

Some I agree with, particularly the opening segment concerning the educational system. Government regulated education, most notably questionable legislation such as No Child Left Behind, has served the sole purpose of making us stupid. By forcing educators to neglect the passage of actual knowledge because the emphasis is placed on preparation for standardized tests aimed at the lowest denominator, the government has repressed the maturation of bright young minds and subverted the ability of teachers to do what they do; that is, teach.

Some of the theories are absurd. A North American Union will never happen. We’re much too proud, much too nationalistic, and quite frankly, much too powerful to ever align ourselves with Canada and Mexico. The European Union was formed because it was mutually beneficial for the countries involved. It took a number of small, relatively insignificant countries and bound them into an economic powerhouse. What would the US have to gain by partnering with Canada and Mexico (aside from access to a few natural resources)? Mexico would quickly become a financial burden, Canada, I imagine, would continue to operate as it does now (autonomously, but by following our lead). There’s simply no incentive.

And some of the theories exist in shades of grey. These are the theories that hold the most interest.

Late Night, you seem awfully convinced that we are too “smart” to hand the government our liberties. But are we really?

One of the primary DFL issues in the upcoming election is universal health care. I’ll admit that I’m an advocate. But what does this legislation really do but strip us of small freedoms: the freedom to choose what doctor we see, what hospital we visit?

After 9/11 there was overwhelming public support for the Patriot Act (you were anti-American if you opposed it – but don’t look at me, I screamed foul all along: http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2007/08/shhhtheyre-listening.html). This legislation gave the government the right to spy on Americans without a warrant, amongst other things. Again, we willingly gave up our freedoms.

Every year the government takes a large chunk of the money that we earn, and ultimately we have no say about where that money goes. I don’t want my tax money supporting war, but the powers that be don’t care. They take that money out of my paycheck, depriving me of the liberty to choose where I spend the money I worked for.

We willingly give up our liberties on a daily basis.

The government controls fiscal policy, ranging from interest rates to (I suspect) the price of gasoline. We’re prisoners of fear, and on a practical level our greatest fears are economic.

Think about this: we are prisoners of debt.

What are the real necessities of life? Food, water, shelter. Let’s focus on that last one: shelter. How do we provide shelter for ourselves, or more importantly, for our families? There are two options: we can rent, but if we don’t own our shelter we don’t own our lives, or ourselves. We are at the whim of landlords, developers, and the government. We could be thrown on the street at a moment’s notice and have nothing to show for it. It’s essential that we own our shelter, so we buy, and by doing so we go into debt.

How will we pay off that debt? We need a job, but in order to get that job we need education. More debt. Now we have the job, how will we get there? We need transportation. More debt. It goes on in this manner to infinity.

Living this way, constantly struggling to catch up to our debts, constrains our world view. We can’t see beyond “I need to work to pay off my debt or I won’t be able to buy the next thing I need.” We sacrifice our connection to reality and life at the entirely theoretical altar of money.

And who controls the money that we have sacrificed our liberty to? That’s right, the government.

Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that we have ownership of our lives. As long as we’re buried beneath debt we are simply on loan. We’re owned by the banks, which are ultimately owned by the government. We already have chips, but instead of being implanted they come in the form of credit cards, bank statements and bills. Don’t be overly confident that the government can’t already turn your “chips” off as they see fit. They have the authority to freeze your assets. Are the two not synonymous? By giving our consent to taxation (over which we have no control) and our participation in the American economic system, we have willingly and readily given up our liberty.

Now think about this: we are blind participants in perpetual warfare. Following WWII we established Israel; superficially to allow the Jews to return to their homeland and to right the injustices that had been inflicted upon them, but secretly to place a proxy army in the heart of an extremely important economic zone. Surely we must have known that displacing millions of Arabs and allowing Jews to move in would inevitably lead to bloody conflict and was, lawfully speaking, dubious at best. But we also knew that by creating and funding a powerful army in this region we could propagate division and chaos, allowing us to maintain an iron grip through our own wealth and military might.

I’ve written at length on this topic in my “A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East” series, but to revisit: what was our reasoning when we invaded Iraq? The country was not a terrorist hotbed until we got there. Compared to some Middle Eastern nations they were relatively stable (see Afghanistan, Pakistan). Yes, Saddam Hussein had committed crimes against humanity, but so have Kim Jong Il, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and countless other leaders throughout history that the US hasn’t hastened to remove.

I won’t take it so far as some and suggest outright that 9/11 was a conspiracy. But I will suggest that our motivations in the Middle East are more insidious than we would like to imagine. And who is it that funds these conflicts? That’s right, we do. MLK once said “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” By helping to fund war, I am consenting to war, and am being made an unwilling participant in war.

Liberty my ass.

Well my friends, we’ve been many places together, and for today at least we’re firmly entrenched in the fringes of society. If later tonight you’re on the phone and you hear an extra click, be very careful. They’re listening.

Thanks for reading.

PS I didn’t get a chance to watch the extended videos you linked to, PCorcs, but have every intention of doing so today. I’m sure they will spark more discussion.

Repewwwwblicans

This started as a comment, but got a little long. So surprise…Bonus post!

I’m F$#%ing Ben Affleck is my favorite Ben Affleck role of all time. And a Josh Groban cameo?…genius.

To briefly respond to P Corc’s comments (starting with your first post): the “experience” issue is something that has bewildered me since the outset of the primaries. Why is Hillary trying to make this election about experience, when all this does is undermine her campaign should she actually get the democratic nomination? She’s a first term senator that has been elected to office a grand total of once. What is this experience she speaks of? Where does she get off saying she would hold up better against the Republican attack machine in a general election? Barack has at least gone through multiple elections.

Not to mention (and I’ve said this before), McCain was a POW while she was attending her senior prom. He was a senator when we were still in diapers. Experience doesn’t bode well for either democratic contender.

Moving on to your second post (responding in numerical order):

1) It’s no secret that I’m an unabashed Obama man. That said, what I’m about to say puts some pretty serious holes in his campaign, and I only bring this issue up because we’re all serious thinkers who either A) know which way we’re going to vote and are unlikely to be swayed much either way or B) are open-minded and intelligent enough to consider all the facts and weigh multiple perspectives before making decisions. Also, this is something that Obama will inevitably run up against should he survive the primaries (which he will), so we may as well start discussing it now.

Barack appeals to independent voters with his talk of change, and these independents (who see him as a like-minded independent) provide a considerable amount of his support. But if you look at his voting record (or just take a look at his Maverick points in Fantasy Congress), you will find that he rarely strays from the party line. He votes with the democrats 97% of the time (a party unity track record surpassed by only 5 other dems). Where’s the independence? This is something that concerns me quite a bit (as I am one of those independents currently propping him up). It’s an issue that he will need answers for come general election time or he may find himself bleeding independent voters to McCain.

On the other hand, he has crossed party lines to work on legislation, including working with McCain on ethics reform.

To get back to your response, PCorcs, will Obama be another party puppet? (I know how DC really works) Why buy into what he says? Because at some point we have to believe in the possibilities of the American Spirit (it is, after all, the very thing that has made us the most powerful nation in the world). The success of Barack’s upstart campaign has shown without a doubt that Americans are hungry for a change: that we are ready to hold our politicians to higher standards and are looking to individuals willing to move past prejudice in order to accomplish goals for the greater good. Barack himself has elevated his campaign (and potential presidency) to this lofty standard, and if he gets to office and fails us, there will be a public outcry (maybe the very catalyst we need to push us into revolution – not to sound crazy or anything). Business as usual will no longer do, and at this point, if Obama gets elected and doesn’t push towards change, I think we’re ready to do it for him. This segues into comment 2.

2) Will McCain be George Bush III? Yes and no. He’s less worried about peer approval, less apt to be coerced by an overbearing VP, less inclined to lie to the American people (whether it be by arrogance or ignorance). I like that he speaks and votes his conscience, seems to despise party lines, and irritates Repubs and Dems alike.

On the other hand, he shares the Bush foreign policy of threatening, bullying, and blowing up countries with worldviews that don’t align with ours. I, for one, think diplomacy can go a long way, and by extending a little respect to foreign leaders that we don’t see eye to eye with (yes, I feel American leaders should meet with the likes of Raul Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and hell, even Kim Jon Il, without preconditions), showing a little sympathy to foreign cultures, and advocating peaceful resolutions, we can do wonders for our global image and start moving towards a nonviolent world. I realize these men and their regimes are guilty of human rights violations, treaty violations, nuclear violations, et al, but what is the aim of foreign policy? I personally think solutions are more important than retribution. What do sanctions and war accomplish other than punishing the very innocents that we are trying to liberate?

Let’s face it, the assumption that all countries will be best off with a democracy in the American mold is unrealistic. And the best way to urge a country towards civil liberty is not by killing everybody in it. Democracy by death will never work, and makes us little better than 21st century Crusaders.

To wrap up, George W. Bush has been a horrible president.

Thanks for reading.