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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Clinton Refocuses Attack Ads on America

In an unprecedented and arguably risky late-game alteration in campaign strategy, New York Junior Senator and presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton has indicated that she will shift the focus of her largely negative campaign from her surging and overwhelmingly popular opponent, Barack Obama, to the American people who have failed to lift her to the presidential nomination to which she feels she is entitled.

The tactical shift was announced Late Tuesday by Clinton’s grossly overpaid chief strategist Mark Penn after yet another shellacking by the formidable Obama, who has proven beyond a doubt that American citizens would rather entrust the future of the country to a charming and inspirational newcomer than subject themselves to four (or heaven forbid eight) years of nagging by a heartless dominatrix who “reminds them of their mother-in-law.”

The Clinton camp’s planned advertising blitz will include a series of TV spots juxtaposing images of uneducated, unemployed, snaggle-toothed hillbillies, sweaty, overweight cube monkeys, celebrities gone wild, and death row inmates. The unifying theme will become apparent in the final screen shot, which reveals the new Clinton campaign slogan: America ’08: Hopeless.

“With this new campaign strategy, we’re trying to beat the optimism out of the American people,” Penn explained. “By showing them that they are degenerate, powerless and ultimately hopeless individuals drowning in seas of their own misery, we hope to instill in them a fear akin to that of a meek husband terrified of losing his overbearing wife. These people need to understand that they are embarrassingly pathetic, and without a strong female figure telling them to clean out the garage on Sunday during the biggest game of the season, nothing will ever get accomplished.”

Clinton disgustedly added “these dolts have failed to vote for me time and again despite empty promises, shameless pandering, and misguided attempts at sincerity. I’ve pretended to think the elderly don’t smell funny, I’ve pretended to like poor people, I’ve even cried like a sissy for you, America. I’ve been down in Texas eating nothing but taquitos for two weeks. I’ve got a case of the runs that won’t quit and my asshole is rawer than steak tartare. Well now you’re gonna hear about it. Screw you all! Screw you all! Come on, everybody say it with me. Screw you all! Screw you all!”

The ads are slated to begin early next week, at which point America will reportedly need a stiff drink.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. The Oscars were on Sunday night and I, for one, watched them from beginning to end. Then again I’m a nerd and get a kick out of that sort of thing.

Overall, the entertainment value was a little lacking (maybe a symptom of the recently settled writers’ strike), and noticeably absent were any pre-produced sketches, spoofs, etc. This was either a blessing or a curse, as these attempts at comedy can either border on brilliance or bomb in spectacular fashion. It’s odd that even without these, the ceremony was inexplicably long.

Highlight of the evening: Anything involving Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova (winners for best song with “Falling Slowly” from Once). These two were genuinely excited to be there, their performance of the song was transcendent, and John Stewart inviting Ms. Irglova back onto the stage to finish her acceptance speech was one of the night’s few endearing moments. Speaking of John Stewart, I’ll forever be a fan and he was once again a solid host (though at times his cynical wit must have been borderline offensive to industry insiders).

The other bright spots were the Coen brothers’ acceptance speeches (particularly the second). The brevity of their thank-yous highlighted their general disdain for the Hollywood machine, which is the very reason I’m a huge fan of the Coens.

Letdowns of the evening: Seriously, enough with the montages. Every single award came with a montage of past winners. And the PricewaterhouseCoopers “how we vote” segment…who honestly gives a shit?

The parade of montages, however, didn’t hold a candle to my aggravation during the pre-ceremony red carpet coverage (serves me right for watching that garbage). I could point out a number of minor irritants in this self-congratulatory vanity-fest, but I’ll focus on just one: Juno was an endearing little film created by a very unique, very talented, very entertaining group of individuals. Think of the interview possibilities: the eccentric Diablo Cody, the irreverent Ellen Page, the awkward Michael Cera, the sarcastic Jason Bateman, the up-and-coming director Jason Reitman. I would love to see any one of these people field a few softball questions from Ryan Seacrest. So why did I see 3 or 4 interviews with Jennifer Garner, hands down the most uninteresting person involved with the film (and arguably one of the most boring people in all of Hollywood)? Gross.

On a loosely affiliated side note, I rented Gone Baby Gone the other night and, though it pains me to say it (it was directed by one of my Hollywood nemeses and uber-acting hack Ben Affleck), I give this film the stamp of approval. Casey Affleck is a hell of an actor with a bright future, an incomprehensible fact when coupled with the magnificent suckitude of his big dumb brother. Who knows, maybe Ben has found his niche on the other side of the camera and will prove to be one of the industry’s great directors, meaning I’ll need to rethink my entire worldview.

Sigh…

Political Perspective

The recent fervor of the political marketplace has me thinking about this particular time and place in the whole of human history. As this candidate or that pleads his/her case, reads laundry lists of all that ails us and tells us who to blame, scares us into believing that anyone else in power will lead America to certain ruin, I find myself weighted by pessimism and a bleak vision of the future. Perhaps worse, I find myself believing them.

Allow me now to take a step back, regain perspective, and offer you all one of the more reassuring (or terrifying) political theories I have proposed to date: it’s a show, a façade, a vaudevillian farce by the powers that (wish to) be for the benefit of the masses (us).

In reality, it matters very little who is elected to the presidency in 2008. In the American political system no one individual can expect to redefine the landscape on the grand scale promised during campaign season. Hillary won’t get universal health care (she already tried once when Bill was in office and failed miserably). Barack won’t either. McCain won’t pass sweeping immigration legislation. Huckabee won’t forever abolish homosexual marriage (like Bush, he may only succeed in delaying the inevitable).

So why the election season circus? Why is the issue treated as a matter of life or death?

Because we need symbolic figures to take the reins, to assure us that under their watch we’ll be ok, that their respective policies will mend our wounds. We need them like a child needs a blanket (thanks to Fergie for ruining that metaphor) even though it’s become too threadbare to actually keep him warm (does extending the metaphor make it better?). They are our security, our comfort. Without our politicians we have no one to tell us what to fear and no one to protect us from these promised threats. Politicians are our anchors. Without them we are nothing more than individuals loosely affiliated by imagined borders indiscriminately blown by the whims of fate and chance.

But the truth is that America, like all great historical empires, is a product of the masses. We appoint leaders to act as representatives, but whatever control they maintain is an illusion, and whatever power they’re given can be stripped away as soon as the masses realize it’s theirs to take (think The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the fall of the Soviet Union, etc.).

For another perspective, think of the monumentally positive movements that long outlived their respective representatives: slavery was not reinstituted when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The Civil Rights Movement went on after Martin Luther King Jr.’s death.

The point is this: history and the masses elevate otherwise unexceptional men to “greatness,” but what we need to understand is that the masses (us) are the force that affects change, not the individuals we have appointed to represent us. What they do in DC is a stage show for the benefit of the news media. Change starts in communities, in neighborhoods, in schools and on the streets. The catalysts for change are disenfranchised yet inexplicably hopeful men and women who seek to alleviate suffering around them; men and women who posses a vague sense of having been cast aside by the very leaders they elected to be their voice, but still desire to positively impact humanity.

America’s economy will rise and fall. International opinion will change with the seasons. Wars will end and new wars will replace them. And America, like all empires, will one day fall. This is the cyclical nature of history, of time.

So what does this mean for the democratic process? Should we ignore it? Boycott it? Remain indifferent?

Not this year.

Throughout the nominating process I’ve been an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, but I wasn’t always able to explain my enthusiasm. I now can. Barack Obama is the one candidate who recognizes that a nation is a community on a large scale, existing only because of its citizens (all of them). America can be no more and can be no less. While the other candidates are splitting demographics, specifying their appeal to specific race, age or gender groups, Barack is staking his campaign on the wild theory that he can unite all to move towards a common good.

As I’ve said, none of the candidates are capable of fulfilling their campaign promises. But Barack Obama is capable of mobilizing the masses.

Thanks for reading.

A Week of News (Abridged):

Finding myself unable to settle on just one topic for the weekly entry, I’ve elected instead to offer up a smattering of news. While this week has presented an active cycle, I’m uncertain as to whether this idea demonstrates due diligence or a lack of decisiveness. Oh well.

The two stories dominating the spotlight are the primaries and their respective dramas (a recurring theme which I’ll get to) and the looming recession. downturn. slowdown. Opportunity for innovation.

I can’t say that I’m particularly worried about the economy. I have few (did I say few? I meant zero) investments that will be affected by the instability and my job is unlikely to be threatened. It looks like I won’t be riding the rails to greener pastures (a la The Great Depression) anytime soon (mixed emotions).

For those in different circumstances who find themselves feeling the pain: my condolences. I’ll offer two silver linings. One, President Bush and the House have agreed (Whaaat!?!) to a $150 billion fiscal stimulus package. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/washington/25fiscal.html?th&emc=th.


The plan, apparently, is to put anywhere from $300 to $1200 back in taxpayers pockets. Most readers of this blog are looking to get $600 apiece. While this is a very nice little gesture, I have sincere doubts about its expected goal. $600 is a great shopping spree, but if the government sends me a check my first instinct won’t be to cash it and head to the nearest mall. In the real world of bills, mortgages (rent in my case), insurance, etc., $600 simply doesn’t go all that far. I wouldn’t have much left over after a month of school loan payments. If the money doesn’t significantly increase each consumers overall spending (which it won’t in my case), thereby going directly back into the economy, what’s the point? I may be alone on this, and I’ll grant that my knowledge of economics is limited, but it seems that the government (and presumably the greatest economic minds) could come up with something better.

On the other hand, maybe I’ll get all $600 in quarters, rent a hot air balloon, take it to an elevation of 1,000 feet and subject the world below me to a $600 reign (note the pun) of monetary terror.

The other bright side of the economic stormcloud is a matter of relativity. At least you’re in better shape than Jerome Kerviel. This 31-year-old midlevel employee of Societe Generale (one of France’s largest banks) managed to lose $7 billion making bad bets on stocks. Ouch. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/business/worldbusiness/25bank.html?th&emc=th

Moving on.

I’ve discovered yet another reason to head to your respective district’s Democratic Caucuses and voice your support for Barack Obama: he advocates class-based affirmative action: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401233.html or http://www.slate.com/id/2165717/&#obamaaffaction

Looks like Obama’s taking a page out of the old Zizzle-Zot playbook (he’s wise beyond his years) and growing ever closer to getting the official Zot endorsement (which would win him exactly one vote in the upcoming Minnesota Caucuses).

Speaking of the Caucuses, here are the details: They’ll be held on Tuesday, February 5. Registration starts at 6:30, the main event starts at 7. Find your location here: http://caucusfinder.sos.state.mn.us/. I realize I’ve admonished the caucus system in the past (http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2008/01/season-is-upon-us.html), but unlike the Iowa Caucuses, ours actually holds weight in the party nominations. Needless to say, we should all go; no excuses. More than a civic duty, it’s a tremendous opportunity to have a voice in the democratic process.

Late Night, don’t think I forgot about you. California has a primary, which is also on February 5. Find your voting location here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_ppl.htm

While we’re on politics, let’s talk about the filth being slung in the Democratic race. With all the posturing, blatant lies and below the belt call-outs, these people are making professional wrestlers look downright genteel. Check out some of the down and dirty here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html.

My synopsis is that Edwards looks like the mature adult trying to focus on serious issues while the others bicker (which is exactly how he is positioning himself). Obama, as long as he can keep his cool (which he came dangerously close to losing in the South Carolina debate) will come out looking like the intelligent, composed and thoughtful individual that I hope he truly is. The Republicans, by comparison, look awfully civil.

Really, the only loser here is Hillary. Has this fracas given us a taste of her true character? Has the warm, personable Hillary of New Hampshire given way to the conniving, malicious and spiteful women we’ve feared from the onset? Is this what a President Hillary Clinton will look like? The prospect is even more frightening as she starts to look more and more like the front runner.

The one consolation is that I’ve been greatly amused by Bill Clinton consistently coming to the rescue of Hillary “ready on day one” Clinton: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080123235622.htsftt80&show_article=1. It’s terribly kind of him, but since when is the definition of “ready on day one” equivalent to “I let my hubbie fight my battles?”

To drive the point home, read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2182065.

Or if you just want more reasons to dislike the Clintons, check it out: http://www.slate.com/id/2182938/

Who caught the State of the Union address on Monday night? I found myself agreeing with much of what Bush said, which really only means he was vague enough to avoid offense. He was his usual charming, down-home self, and got me laughing with his discourse on tax relief: “Some people say they would want to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. The IRS takes checks or money orders.” This had the Republicans roaring and the Democrats squirming. There is an element of truth to the statement though. If we want to pay higher taxes to support social services, there’s nothing stopping us.

Really, most of Bush’s address was inconsequential. He’s become an impotent figure head. Bipartisan legislation with the democratically controlled Congress is virtually impossible due to the animosity. With only a year left, I imagine most of his peers have already written him off, and he’s officially irrelevant. The only thing I took from the speech was that most politicians shouldn’t be seen in HD.

In sporting news, I’m guessing many of us watched the New York Giants back there way into the Super Bowl by blowing two go-ahead field goals in the fourth quarter, losing the coin toss in overtime, and relying on Favre to throw a boneheaded interception (vintage 2006-2007 Favre) to give them the ball back. I was looking forward to a Packers-Patriots match-up. I’m by no means a cheesehead, but I had grown fond of the Pack over the course of the season and I have a level of respect for the aging Favre. Plus, the Patriots already beat the Giants. They never played the Packers during the regular season, and Green Bay was clearly amongst the top 5 teams in the league (a list which doesn’t include the Giants).

But the real reason I rooted for Green Bay is that I harbor a completely irrational hatred for Eli Manning. Is it his propensity to crumble at unpredictable and inopportune intervals? His sniveling, buck-passing demeanor after bad losses? Maybe his “I play the most high profile position for a team with a huge market, but I can’t handle the spotlight” whining?

Say what you will about his playoff performance, sooner or later the real Eli Manning will show up. The Eli Manning that throws four interceptions (three returned for TD’s) against a questionable Vikings secondary that most QB’s have their way with. The Eli Manning that yells at his teammates and pouts on the sideline. The Eli Manning that sucks at football and life. He is the embodiment of mediocrity. Born in any other era, to any other family and he would be spending his days working in a lumber yard. But he was born a Manning, and rode a wave of entitlement to the Super Bowl.

In the world of entertainment, Heath Ledger’s sudden death brought with it an onslaught of speculation: what went wrong? What could have been? Who is safe from the icy grip of mortality?

It’s a tragedy because he has a young daughter, and I’ll admit that I was caught off guard. He had the persona of a celebrity with a good head on his shoulders (they are few and far between), though it has since become apparent that he was a deeply troubled young man.

I won’t say I’ll miss him. I didn’t even know him. But to paraphrase film critic Dana Stevens: the movies will miss him dearly. He was a promising talent that had yet to explore his potential, and the few roles in which I saw him (most notably in the Todd Haynes directed Bob Dylan biopic I’m Not There) demonstrated a tremendous gift to embody a character.

As I’ve watched and read the various commentaries on Ledger’s life and the tributes to his excellent (if abbreviated) body of work, I’ve started to think about the oddity of American priorities. I’m not one to trample on a young man’s not-yet-covered grave, nor do I like to sound preachy or sanctimonious (I hate to be “that guy”), but why do we have such a penchant for dwelling on the deaths of our celebrities (however untimely, tragic or avoidable)?

Over the past week, hundreds of men, women and children have died in Kenya’s tribal conflicts. Many more in the Middle East, Congo, Darfur, etc. Are these people less important than Mr. Ledger? Less worthy? Do we truly know our celebrities any more than these people suffering overseas? More need not be written on the idol-worshipping tendencies of Americans or the media (it’s a point that has been trampled into the ground).

It’s just interesting is all.

Thanks for reading.

The Season is Upon Us

I realize the deluge of media coverage on the 2008 presidential election has left many of us weary, skeptical, and largely indifferent to the process. Honestly, the whirlwind of candidate coverage, psychological profiling, nauseating politico buzz words such as “electability” and “likeability,” meaningless polls, mudslinging, and millions of seemingly wasted dollars have left me somewhat disheartened. I am constantly reminded that we are controlled by the media, who show us what they want us to see and tell us what they want us to think. We are no democracy. We are some strange mutation of a plutocracy (a mediacracy, if you will).

And if one more person tells me they are an “agent of change” I will punch a toddler.

That said, election season has finally, officially begun (which means, if nothing else, that the end is in sight). I would be remiss not to talk about it.

On the democratic side, the audaciously hopeful Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus, defeating runners-up John Edwards and Hillary Clinton (respectively) by a healthy margin. For the Republicans, Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee rode the evangelical vote to victory, defeating a pitiful group of challengers including condescendingly wealthy Mitt Romney and the ever arrogant Rudy Giuliani (still hoping to run for president of 9/11).

What do these decisive victories mean for the appealing (if inexperienced) Obama and Huckabee? Absolutely nothing. The Iowa Caucus is purely symbolic, holding no bearing over the primaries (which opened yesterday in New Hampshire - more on that in a moment). I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the caucus process, but it’s actually a strange little system. Iowans meet at gathering places (school gymnasiums, town halls, etc.) and literally stand in the corner that represents their chosen candidate. No secret ballots here, folks. You must display your political affiliation in front of friends, family, or anyone else who might feel obliged to judge your sanity. The votes are counted (though this isn’t as straight forward as “one person, one vote” – there is a confusing delegate system that only the wisest of political sages fully understand), at which point there is an inexplicable game of musical chairs (any group representing below a certain percentage of the overall vote must disband and choose a new candidate.) The process is eerily reminiscent to choosing a kickball team in middle school and it turns out that Iowa, like Monty Python’s Camelot, is a silly place.

The Iowa Caucus is granted prominence by the all-powerful, diabolically insidious media, who will lavish extravagant amounts of attention and praise on the caucus winners, bullying them to front-runner status going into New Hampshire and attempting to make other candidates feel like distant memories in the minds of voters.

But New Hampshire-ians (responsible for the first vote that actually matters in the selection of candidates) are notoriously independent, stubborn people. These tendencies were on full display yesterday, as both Hillary and McCain rebounded from their embarrassing drubbings only days before to win the state.

McCain can credit his victory to a focus on the independent voters New Hampshire is famous for. Hillary, apparently, can credit her victory to the women of New Hampshire, who have shown themselves to be suckers to the nth degree. That many of them would actually admit to having been influenced by Clinton’s weepy-eyed display of battle fatigue proves they are not only foolish, but foolish enough to vocalize their own foolishness.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for candidates showing emotion and offering a taste of their personality, but Clinton’s charade fell flat. Ever since her initiation to the public forum she has force fed us an image of a ball-busting hard-ass that would be “ready to lead on day one.” Maybe it’s an unfortunate side effect of being a woman in politics. Maybe she felt she needed to overtly assert her forceful character. But for this chink in her armor to suddenly appear so close to a crucial vote where the main problem facing her was “likeability”…it seems too convenient, a little staged. She’s trying to have it both ways as an impossibly tough leader and a sensitive woman, and I call bullshit.

I know some of you are leery of a President Hillary Clinton, but it’s not yet time to panic. Neither Bush nor Bill won the New Hampshire primary. Barack has considerable support in upcoming Nevada and South Carolina. On the Democratic side only one thing is certain: this should be a hell of a fight.

As for the Republicans, I’m ecstatic about the McCain win. He’s the one dude in government who’s not afraid to take on absolutely anyone (both his greatest virtue and fatal flaw). More importantly, court jester Huckabee and sleazy Giuliani suffered decisive defeats, meaning (with any luck) that they may make their humbled retreats from the spotlight very soon.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to election season.

Thanks for reading.

As a side note, I’ve been fortunate to see some excellent films in the last couple of months, and have done my best to make recommendations. So here are two more:

I finally saw Children of Men (in retrospect it would have been better on the big screen, but the cinematography still looks outstanding on DVD). The story is engaging, if relentlessly bleak, and it will get you thinking about the prospects for our future.

The other was Juno, an endearing, charming story of an irreverent 16-year-old girl who finds herself pregnant and, rather than simply “getting rid of the problem,” decides to go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. The two young leads (Ellen Page as Juno MacGuff and Michael Cera as Paulie Bleaker) are magnetic in their awkward courtship and their slightly offbeat worldviews.

As a first attempt at screenwriting by Minnesotan Diablo Cody (a former stripper turned blogger turned City Pages editorialist turned memoirist), I must say I’m impressed. The script is funny and heartfelt, though at times the quirkiness feels heavy handed and forced.

Even so, I fell in love with Juno (is it creepy to be in love with a pregnant 16-year-old?)

The Debate on Affirmative Action Part 2: Where it Falls Short

Yesterday we took a look at the reason that Affirmative Action is necessary. Now let’s talk about why it doesn’t work.

The Civil Rights Movement ended legalized racism in the ‘60s, but racism as a paradigm persisted. Criminalizing prejudice did little to change anyone’s world view. Minority groups to this day are oppressed by cultural pressures. Following the Civil Rights Movement minorities were allowed to sit in the front of the bus or at the lunch counter, but this didn’t drastically change anyone’s life. These people had been outcast and marginalized since birth. Institutionalized poverty forced them to live in slums and work for nothing, and meant many of them lacked the education or skills necessary to lift themselves out of negative circumstances.

In 1962 Lyndon B. Johnson and James Farmer (founder of the Congress of Racial Equality) proposed a plan called Compensatory Preferential Treatment (renamed Affirmative Action in 1965) to promote equality. In a speech at Howard University, Johnson said “You do not take a person who, for many years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” So they came up with a program to offer a historically oppressed group of people a fighting chance by encouraging employers to hire minorities and providing them with the opportunities and means to seek an education. Johnson and Farmer hoped to provide minorities with the tools to succeed.

But they failed to realize that success is largely environmental. The people to whom they were now extending a helping hand had already become ensnared by a culture of prejudice and suspicion. A child raised in a household that places little value on education will never learn to value education. The opportunities were not being utilized, and the cycle continued.

Through the ’70s and ‘80s a drug and crime epidemic swept through urban areas. Gangs formed and established power, initially as a means of community protection. Eventually they switched to the business of drug distribution as the only available method of supporting themselves.

The urban communities being affected were largely populated by minorities, who for the aforementioned reasons were unable to escape the slums. Young men, lacking the means to support children, the education to rise out of poverty, and living dangerous lifestyles, started abandoning their families. As a result, children were being born to unwed mothers in a culture where gang life and drug dealing were necessary to survival. The arrival of gangster rap further served to glorify this life of crime, engraining in the minds of youngsters the idea of respect and success earned through violence.

Imagine such a childhood. You’ve never met your father. Your older brothers are gang-bangers, drug dealers. If you succeed in school your friends accuse you of “selling out” or acting too “white” (I worked with kids for years. My parents and sister are teachers. This is the reality). What is the motivation to seek an education?

This is where Affirmative Action fails. The government thinks the solution is to throw more money at the problem (what else is new?) when what is really needed is a cultural paradigm shift. Programs need to be put into place to educate parents about the values of education. Influential African Americans (think Jay-Z, Kanye West) need to speak out about the negativity of violence and gang life, and teach youngsters to aspire to greater things. Imagine the positive impact if Jay-Z were to go back to school and get his college degree.

Even more so, imagine the positive impact of a President Barack Obama.

Racism isn’t tangible. It exists in the minds of people. As long as this is true, equality will never be found. Part of the problem with Affirmative Action is that, while making an effort to lift historically oppressed people out of poverty, the system as it exists inevitably draws a line between black and white, creating resentment on both sides and actually promoting inequality.

If we are truly to be one people, one culture, one country (though I still advocate maintaining our diversity), we need to see ourselves as such. On issues of social welfare, there can’t be a line between black and white.

Late Night, your thoughts are appreciated, and largely I agree with you (particularly about the Christian responsibility to care for the poor). You stated, the “poor” and the “minority” in this country seem to go hand in hand. But this is an unfortunate truth, not an inherent fact. The poor and the minority go hand in hand because of circumstances. By making Affirmative Action an issue of “minority” and “non-minority,” the idea of “us” and “them” is further entrenched in people’s minds. It gives the racists ground to stand on when they can say “these people need our hand-outs,” and it creates resentment amongst minorities when they can say “these people assume we need their hand-outs.”

What do I propose? I believe that Affirmative Action should be based on poverty lines, not racial lines. It’s poverty that people can’t escape, not their ethnicity (and the assumption that race is the oppressor, not poverty, is a muted expression of racism). The question on applications and tests should not be “what is your ethnicity?” but rather “what is your parents’ income level?” “what is your parents’ education level?” “where did you grow up?”

I look forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts.

Thanks for reading.

Note: Prominent figures like Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby have already done a tremendous amount to shift the thinking of the culture (Cosby, along with Alvin F. Poussaint, recently came out with a book called Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. It’s on my reading list, but so are a lot of books. I have a feeling it would help a great deal in gaining an understanding of the issues).

A Foregone Conclusion: The Debate on Affirmative Action Part 1

I tried to run, avoid, hide, deny. I tried to pretend that I had no opinion, lacked the prerequisite familiarity with the topic (which in many ways I do), didn’t have the time to get into a lengthy debate. But it was inevitable. The discussion started by a seemingly innocuous statement: “If there were two candidates who had the same stances on the issues, and were of equal ability, yet one was a white male and the other was female or a minority race, I would vote for the woman or the minority,” has fermented beyond Zizzle-Zot, etc.’s ability to contain.

Now let me tell you why I think Affirmative Action is absolutely necessary in theory (Part 1), and a colossal failure in reality (Part 2).

Before we start, I’m hoping we can make a pact together. I think we’ll all acknowledge that racism is still very much alive in this country. It’s embedded in societal structure and the paradigms of older generations. Police are more likely to pull over minority drivers, aspiring business people need to work much harder to win the respect of employers if they aren’t white males, and young minorities still deal with suspicious glares wherever they go. Institutional racism is real.

That said, I realize this topic can be touchy. I plan on having the utmost respect for the issue, and I know you all will do the same. Let the debate begin.

Society is dying. Young people are being killed or imprisoned at alarming rates. The family structure is a distant memory. Homelessness is at an all-time high. And minorities are overwhelmingly the victims. 69% of African American babies are born out of wedlock. 45% of African American households lack a father figure. Homicide is the leading cause of death for African American men between the ages of 15 and 34. There are more African American men in jail than there are in college. Depending on the study, anywhere between 10-15% of the male African American population between the ages of 20 and 34 is incarcerated (this high rate is a confluence of two factors: a crime-glorifying culture and historically harsher prosecution for African American offenders).

This is the sad reality. African American children are overwhelmingly born into poverty, abandoned by their fathers, and ushered at a young age into a world of violence, crime, and survivalism. Because of broken homes they are forced to take on responsibilities a child should never need to. They face fear on a daily basis. Fear of violence and abandonment, yes. But also more basic fears of “when will I next eat?”

We’ll all acknowledge that a child born into such difficult circumstances has less opportunity to succeed. Through no fault of their own they have been relegated to a life of hardship, knocked down before they could stand, deemed a failure without ever having a chance.

Programs like Affirmative Action have the potential to turn this around. By enabling young men and women to seek an education, Affirmative Action allows people oppressed since birth to finally determine their own destiny. By escaping oppression and succeeding in life, these young men and women will go on to serve as inspiration for future generations, creating a cycle of aspiration and hope to replace the cycle of poverty and violence.

Affirmative Action can save America. But will it?

Thanks for reading.

Note: I realize this was brief. It would be impossible to cover the entire issue in one post, but I’m hoping this will serve as a springboard for further discussion. Also, I commented again on yesterday’s post. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts.

The Problem with Hillary: Though it’s Not Really about Her Anymore

I quit my job on Thursday. It was a phenomenal experience. Liberating, invigorating, man-damning. Originally I had a post planned relating to my departure (reasons for quitting, the meetings with the higher-ups, etc.) But quite frankly, the discussion that has naturally evolved out of the last few days of blog topics (blogics, if you will) is of much greater interest to me. I hope you all feel the same. I’ll eventually post on quitting my first real job, but for now let’s continue with some issues of greater importance.

I’m saving any affirmative action related thoughts, since this is the issue which seems most likely to spark controversy. I’ll address other comments, questions, concerns as I see fit.

But first, I’ll reveal the answer to my Bonus Question of the Day: Why SHOULD we be afraid of the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton? I suppose I’m not surprised that no one came up with the answer (it is just a crack-pot, paranoid theory of mine).

I think it’s safe to say that threat number one to American security is jihadism. The religious fanatics declaring jihad are Islamic fundamentalists that have a long and well documented history of disrespecting, oppressing, and abusing women (Google Islam+womens’ rights, genital mutilation, burqa, etc). These terrorists- in-training already hate the infidels of the west and what they see as a debaucherous culture. How will they respond if a woman, who they wouldn’t allow to drive a car let alone run a country, takes command of the most powerful nation in the world; the nation that also happens to be their sworn enemy? Will they take seriously her efforts at diplomacy? Her threats of sanctions? Will they think her capable of protecting her citizens?

Or will it be open season on American soil?

I realize there is no solid evidence that a woman in office would result in increased terrorist attacks. Germany is run by a woman (Chancellor Angela Merkel), and they seem to be hanging in there. I just don’t know that I’d like to put my theory to the test.

For getting the right answer I’ve awarded myself a fabulous prize. Congratulations, Zot.

On to some thoughts from Thursday and Friday’s discussion: (most will be addressed to Mr. A, since many of your thoughts focused on the minority issue).

I was just playing devil’s advocate with the objectification of women stuff. Of course Hillary unfairly has to put up with a lot of rubbish that her male counterparts don’t because she is the first woman seriously seeking the presidency. But I, too, am tired of being seen as just a piece of ass. So is Barack: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

You raise an interesting point about the problem with over-analyzing every word a politician says. Because the media pressure and public scrutiny are so intense, they’re forced to prepare every thought ahead of time, stripping them of any possible spontaneity (and we all know what happens when spontaneity gets the better of a candidate: www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc). We are left with hollowed out, one-dimensional caricatures of politicians and are deprived any hint of the very real, multi-faceted, talented and interesting people that they potentially are.

So what is it that we want? As a society, we demand blood. We thrive on the weakness of others. We want to be there when a candidate makes a fatal mistake. And when they do, we ask for their heads. We want our politicians to go for the jugulars of their opponents. And the media delivers. Truly, we are no better than the Roman masses.

This practice will be put to an end when I finally ascend to my rightful position of ruthless dictator and take full control of the media.

On the next topic, concerning how to vote (issues or character), I’m thinking that we’re further separated by terms than we are by practice. Each candidate has certain pet issues, things they are passionate about, and certainly we can agree that these personal projects are largely informed by their ideology. Edwards has social welfare, Clinton has universal healthcare, Barack has audacity (or is it hope?), Romney has polygamy, Giuliani has adultery, McCain has old man crotchery.

Joking aside, the issues a candidate is passionate about are the best barometer of that candidate’s ideological stances. This is the primary reason that I lean left. For me, social welfare is much more important, ideologically, than unreasonable efforts to prevent homosexual marriage.

In response to the blowup about Barack Obama not placing his hand on his heart during the National Anthem: it’s much ado about nothing. It was initially the result of a misleading caption (another example of either careless or deliberately manipulative journalism) that claimed Barack refused to put his hand on his heart during the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. The picture was later found to have been taken during the singing of the National Anthem, not the reciting of the Pledge. Barack went on to explain (clearly exasperated by repeated questioning) that he was raised to simply sing the National Anthem and to put his hand on his heart for the pledge. Interestingly, though, he was breaking a law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode36/usc_sec_36_00000301----000-.html
Even so, this is exactly the kind muckraking journalism that we all agree creates divisive, ineffective politics. In the end, I agree with Mr. A. Come on, people.

Now think about this: I have made a personal decision to no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It would be hypocritical. Think about what the Pledge of Allegiance forces you to say: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I don’t. I never will. I hope that if and when I decide to pledge my allegiance to anything it is a far greater good/power than the flag or what it stands for. I’ll speak for all of us when I say we each have strong and carefully considered belief systems. We all have things we stand for, would fight for, and ultimately would die for. Are we really going to tie this to a flag? To a country (which is defined merely by the geographical region in which we were born)? I admire America and what it has done. I respect America and what it stands for. But will I ever pledge my allegiance to America? Absolutely not.

Does that make me unpatriotic? I’ll let you decide.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. As expected, this post got long before I even touched on affirmative action. Maybe it’s all a ploy to keep putting the issue off…Or maybe it’s coming tomorrow.

The Problem with Hillary: A Response

There was some good conversation following yesterday’s post, and I’d like to chime in with some thoughts of my own.

Mr. Antagonist, I agree that we shouldn’t resort to derogatory comments about Hillary’s womanhood. After all, no one would dream of calling Giuliani a greasy Italian or Romney a polygamist or Obama (we all see where the slippery slope goes).

As far as Hillary’s hot or not status, I’m sure no one had any ill-intent. However, to play devil’s advocate, it’s an undisputed fact that a good part of the female population votes based at least partly on looks. Isn’t it a bit of a double standard to say the male population can’t objectively assess and comment upon a female front-runner’s appearance?

I believe all potential presidential candidates should be held to the same high standard and put through equally rigorous tests. These people are in line to become (arguably) the most powerful individual in the free world. Every word they say should be combed over, scrutinized. Every inconsistency, every display of weak character, every gaff should be questioned. It’s the reality they have placed themselves in, and if they’re going to be train wreck in the White House it’s much better to find out before they get there.

Unfortunately the system is broken (clearly Bush slipped through the cracks). The media focuses solely on the one or two front runners, giving the impression that the rest of the candidates shit roses. Then we end up with a situation like 2004, where Howard Dean has been crushed by the media and the Democrats end up with a shlub like John Kerry as their candidate. I would argue that Bush didn’t win that election. Kerry lost it.

Mr. A and Late Night, you guys are funny. Vote the issues…you must be living in some sort of fantasy land where politicians tell the truth and always follow through. You can vote party lines (thus the party’s issues). You can vote individuals (thus character). But a vote for a politician’s issues is a vote for empty promises. Call me a cynic, but in my short time following politics I’ve already come to realize that a presidential hopeful’s campaign issues are about as solid as a hay-house in a sandstorm (imagine that said with a southern twang. It’s more entertaining that way). It’s like the 8th grader runner for class president on the no more homework platform (on a much grander scale). Once they’re in office they’ll quickly realize that their issues were a pipe dream and there are too many roadblocks in place (bureaucracy, budget, special interests) to get a damn thing accomplished.

So how does Zizzle-Zot vote? I vote ideological beliefs. Where the candidate stands on philosophical issues such as ethics and morality informs the positions they’ll take on practical issues such as the use of force, fiscal policy, and a pet issue of mine, education.

In this way I am more inclined to side with P Corcs. We shouldn’t necessarily vote personality, but character is of the utmost importance.

The problem, of course, is that this creates a vast grey area. How do we know that a candidate’s persona in front of the camera truly reflects upon her/his character when no one is watching? What if we agree completely with a candidate’s ideological stance on one issue, but adamantly disagree on another?

As voters, it’s our responsibility to form a personal “map” (lame analogy I know – but fitting) to navigate this hazy zone lacking in absolutes. We must use our discernment and judgment (tools best kept out of the hands of those who refuse to educate themselves, which unfortunately includes most. Does that make me sound like an elitist? So be it.) to familiarize ourselves with a candidate and to determine which ideological issues are the highest priority.

Late Night, you brought up an interesting point when you stated that “If there were two candidates who had the same stances on the issues, and were of equal ability, yet one was a white male and the other was female or a minority race, I would vote for the woman or the minority.”

I recently had a long talk with one of my roommates concerning a similar issue. She had been working at an inner-city school as a substitute student aide for over two weeks. The teachers she was working with loved her, the students adored her, and it seemed like the intervention of fate when a full-time position opened up. She was extraordinarily qualified, hard working and passionate.

But she didn’t get the job. She didn’t even get an interview. Why not? The principal told her that the school was only going to hire minority candidates. At first, I was furious for her. She didn’t even get a fair shot.

My roommate, however, wasn’t even irritated. She felt that a minority could relate to these students in ways that she never could, could inspire these students to rise above their circumstances, and understood that no matter how passionate she was, these students would be better served by an influence who knew where they were coming from.

You’re right on the money, Late Night. Think of the positive impact on society as a whole should a minority or female figure rise to the presidency; an individual capable of inspiring historically oppressed people and serving a community outside of Yale graduates breast fed with a silver spoon (who else loves mixed metaphors?)

Mr. A, I agree that Sarkozy is the man. And by the way, no one has gotten the bonus question right…yet. I’ll reveal the answer on Monday.

Thanks for reading.

On a side note, the rest of today is going to get wild and I’ll be out for most of the day tomorrow, so there probably won’t be a new post. I apologize for the recent inconsistency; I’m working to get things back on track. New post on Monday (it should be interesting).

The Problem with Hillary

A story broke yesterday that revealed a little insight into the questionable tactics being used by the Clinton campaign. 19-year-old Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff claimed she had been planted at a question and answer session held by the democratic front-runner. Gallo-Chasanoff also claimed she wasn’t the only one.

On November 6, Clinton gave a speech on energy in Newton, Iowa, which Gallo-Chasanoff attended. While waiting for the speech to start, the college sophomore was approached by a Clinton staffer and asked if she would like to ask the senator a question. Gallo-Chasanoff had a question in mind, concerning how Clinton’s energy plans compare to the other candidates’, but the staffer didn’t think an impromptu question was a good idea. He then showed Gallo-Chasanoff a piece of paper with 8 questions on it. The first said “college student” next to it. This was the question Gallo-Chasanoff asked: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”

Gallo-Chasanoff said that after the event she overheard another questioner talking about the question he was assigned. Since the revelation a third individual, Geoffrey Mitchell, has come forward and claimed that at a previous event the Clinton campaign planted him with a question about the Iraq War, but that he didn’t feel comfortable asking it.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee issued this response: "This is not acceptable campaign process moving forward. We've taken steps to ensure that it never happens again."

Are accusations of planting questions monumental? No. I’m sure it’s happened before and will happen again. It’s very possible (and likely) that other candidates in this race are doing the same thing.

But the fact that Clinton got caught will reaffirm voter perception that she’s slimy. She already faces the same problem that Bill had to overcome: people don’t trust the Clintons. They’re too slick, too polished, too mischievous (though seem to be terrible at covering their tracks). Every dishonest act that Hillary gets caught up in will further embed this idea in the voters’ minds.

Most politicians are liars that let the public believe they are genuine, honest people. They give us warm fuzzies as we watch them hold babies in campaign ads and promise to restore the American Dream. Hillary Clinton is a liar that is either too prolific a liar or too bad a liar to let us believe that she’s not a liar. And I heard a rumor that she eats babies.

Mr. A, you raised an interesting question in yesterday’s comments section: What are we so afraid of?

Is it that Hillary’s a woman? A Clinton? A liberal (heaven forbid)? Speaking for the Zot, I don’t fear Hillary Clinton. I just don’t like her. As a voter, that’s my prerogative.

Thanks for reading.

Bonus Question of the Day: Why SHOULD we be afraid of the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton? (I’m sure there are a number of possible answers, but I’m looking for one in particular.)

Pat Hearts Rudy…?

As many of you may have heard, late last week conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson announced his official endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, giving the former NY mayor a huge boost in the Religious Right stratosphere. Late Night suggested that this could make an interesting blog topic. I’m inclined to agree.

The Religious Right, as we have seen in past years, is a powerful voting bloc capable of swinging entire elections. Not to stereotype (but to generalize), the group tends to vote two issues: abortion and homosexual marriage. Typically, they will support the candidate that is unabashedly pro-life and anti-gay.

So why is Pat Robertson, one of the group’s iconic figures, throwing his considerable weight behind a pro-choice, civil-union supporting, mob-tied cross-dresser? Giuliani is twice divorced, has been accused of “open and notorious adultery,” and is reviled by his own children. On top of all this, he’s a Catholic. Gross.

I’ve come up with two different theories.

The first is that Pat Robertson has decided it’s time to hedge his bets. Consider the front-runners for the Republican nomination. McCain has successfully made himself obsolete through old-man stubbornness and the Straight Talk Express. It’s a cute little act, but can’t possible sustain through the electoral process. That leaves Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Robertson, I’m sure, sees the possible election of Romney as an assault on Christianity. A Christian, any Christian, even a baby-killing Christian, would surely be better than a Mormon. I expect that Robertson fears Mitt’s primary objective in the White House will be to convert the nation.

My second theory is that Robertson is a phony bologna and uses his religious affiliation as either a business or a means to further his own agenda. It doesn’t take much digging to unearth some of the televangelist’s darker secrets. In 2001 he approved of abortion as a form of population control in China. At the time he needed the Chinese government’s support of a business, Zhaodaola, which he founded and financed. The business was looking to set up internet facilities in China. Also in 2001, it was discovered that Robertson was a partner in a gold mining venture in Liberia. The business provided infamously brutal dictator Charles Taylor (who is now on trial for war crimes) with a cut of the profits.

It seems Pat Robertson’s moral authority crumbles under the weight of the almighty dollar.

What does the man himself have to say about his seemingly hypocritical support of Giuliani? While announcing his Giuliani endorsement, Robertson made the following statement: “to me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits.”

I’m not sure when governmental spending became a part of the Religious Right’s agenda, but I’ll put that issue aside.

If you’ll all join me on a trip down memory lane, I’d like to remind everyone of Robertson’s response following 9/11. At the time, he asserted that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was God’s punishment for abortion, homosexuality, and the “rampant secularism” that had overtaken America. He believed we had it coming. Now he claims we need protection from the wrath we brought upon ourselves? And he supports a man who seems to be rampant secularism incarnate (and is essentially running on the 9/11 platform: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/giuliani_to_run_for_president_of_9).

A little contradictory?

I’m not saying…I’m just saying…

Theory #3: Robertson is hoping that electing Giuliani to office will hasten the arrival of Armageddon.

Thanks for reading.

Don’t They Have Better Things to Do?

Late last week the US House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee voted to condemn the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during WWI as genocide. The vote was met with criticism by Turkish president Abdullah Gul, who ominously warned that the decision would cause tension between Turkey and the US.

This would be an inopportune time for the relationship to deteriorate. The US relies on Turkey to help transport equipment and personnel to Iraq. In addition, the Turkish military has been mobilizing along its Iraqi border in an effort to quell the insurgency by Kurdish separatists. Our government has been urging them to show restraint, as the outbreak of another war in Iraq is the last thing anybody needs.

I don’t know how many of you are familiar with this story. It’s not exactly headline news and it’s so minor that it could be very easily bypassed without a second thought.

But the fact that it is so insignificant is the reason I write about it.

Doesn’t the Foreign Relations Committee have anything better to do? They are currently facing a disastrous war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan that is on the verge of failing, the threat of Iran becoming nuclear, North Korea, which is already nuclear, providing technology to Syria, which aspires to be nuclear (and is being bombed by Israel for it), chaos on the Gaza strip, the list goes on. In addition, global support for America is at an all time low. Basically, the entire world thinks we’re a bunch of dimwitted barbarians.

What exactly does the Foreign Relations Committee do?

Oh yeah...they hold meaningless votes (they readily admit it’s “nonbinding and largely symbolic”) to condemn events that happened 90 years ago.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be sympathetic to the plight of the Armenians during WWI. What they went through was horrible and it should be remembered. But realistically, the atrocities were committed by the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed at the end of the war. Any complicit parties died long ago. Who exactly is being condemned? It would be like condemning German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the actions of Adolf Hitler. It simply doesn’t make sense.

Maybe on a rainy afternoon during a time of international peace, while the Foreign Relations Committee is sitting around twiddling their thumbs, maybe then this vote would be an effective time-waster.

But not while American troops are stretched across the Middle East and our international image is crumbling before our eyes.

I think the vote is a result of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends realizing just how inept and impotent they really are. When they became the majority following the 2006 elections they assured voters of sweeping reform, but their campaign promises were writing checks their legislation couldn’t cash. So now they’re resorting to “symbolic” measures to make it look like they’re not just playing Facebook Roshambull all day.

As a taxpayer, I wish they would stop wasting my money. And as a consumer of news, I wish they would stop wasting my damn time.

Thanks for reading.