1% MORE CONSCIOUS

Wherefore Art Thou, Ugly Betty?

2009-01-15T17:50:00.000-08:00

WHEREFORE ART THOU, UGLY BETTY?

How ironic: as a plane sinks into the Hudson, a misfortune clearly visible to many Manhattanites, we are once again held captive, for at least one more time, by George Bush’s 9/11 meta-narrative addiction in more ways than one.

For it came as no surprise, then, that approximately 5 minutes into his farewell to arms speech, broadcast on all major networks this evening—as would be the wish of a narcissist in chief, George couldn’t help invoke 9/11. His presidency began on 9/12/01, after all. And from that point on, second nature had George exploit, spin, and interweave 9/11 narratives to his advantage. Hell, he got us into two wars because of what a 9/11 tapestry of stories could offer.

That the White House recently published an on-line list of all the terrorist attacks Mr. Bush supposedly prevented proves just how much our 9/12 president developed a dope show addiction to the 9/11 narrative, and for all the wrong reasons.

But as George graces the television screen for a 2009 version of mission accomplished, NO ONE really cares. Rather, as my wife has duly noted, we are more concerned about next week’s inauguration—Thank God—and, quite frankly, our regularly scheduled television programming.

Which brings me to the question: wherefore art though, Ugly Betty, when we need you most?

Unreal

2008-10-20T13:11:00.001-07:00

Unreal

Thanks to the John McCain/Sarah Palin supporters who condemned the extremist FREAKS at a McCain/Palin rally recently. This is unreal.

These FREAKS were not only anti-Muslim, they were also anti-reality. See for yourself; follow this link and scroll down for the video.

TO FAKE OR NOT TO FAKE?—That is the question.

2008-10-01T16:31:00.000-07:00

TO FAKE OR NOT TO FAKE?—That is the question.

No, this is not a Carrie Bradshaw inspired entry—if only. Rather, it’s a 1% more conscious consideration of what Governor Sarah Palin didn’t do in her latest go-round with Katie Couric: FAKE IT.

When pressed by Couric about which “newspapers and magazines” the governor reads, the ever troubled Palin couldn’t even resort to what most 8^th graders have now since perfected: providing a fake answer. This is a HUGE problem—don’t you think? Instead of rescuing herself once again from the precipice of mass embarrassment, dumb-dumb Sarah belly-flopped off the high-dive because she couldn’t name one source—who cares if she were to tell the truth? I mean, make up something—The Juneau Jump; lie your rimmed glass as@ off—The National Review; go porno—“The Penthouse Letters;” say something—The Wall Street Journal; Sarah, for heaven’s sake—F A K E IT: Newsweek.

In her dizzying gibberish, the best Sarah could offer was that she reads a “vast variety” of news sources. That silly Sarah couldn’t offer one title—just one—from this “vast variety” says a great deal; that she couldn’t or wouldn’t FAKE IT sadly says so much more.

Daddy Fight & '08

2008-09-29T07:10:00.000-07:00

Daddy Fight & ‘08

Like the angry father who can’t or won’t admit that a younger man will eventually replace him, John McOedipus exhibited nothing but disdain and disregard toward Barack Obama during Friday’s debate. It was stunning and pathetically obvious from the initial handshake that McCain thought: “how dare HE be on this stage with ME!” Furthermore, it was horrifically reminiscent of the early debates between Judas Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont in the summer ’06, as grumpy Joe, then Oedipus Lieberman, adopted the hubris that afflicts so many tragic figures. Perhaps McCain should spend less time with narcissistic Joe and more time with dignified Republicans like Richard Lugar to treat his current psychological disorder. In the cults of personality and orbits of psycho-dynamics, there is a personality factor here that’s quite legible even to the most naïve of eyes. And no one likes a b@stard of a father.

But this Freudian family subtext extends way beyond McCain. Just look at the pundit class, who can’t or won’t admit that Obama won because he had the right temperament and gravitas that Americans unequivocally desire in our leaders. Hell, it’s obvious that Obama was the winner in poll after poll. But despite that, the pundit class, like a group of obnoxious sons and daughters in one, f*cked-up, dysfunctional family, SO want a daddy fight in a major way.

It was laughable to read mean-girl Maureen Dowd—who STILL has Catholic gossip-girl cafeteria disorder—on Sunday again miss the mark in her dreadful analogy to a A Few Good Men. Mika Brzezinski, whom I normally like, followed this morning on Morning Smoe claiming that Obama should’ve and could’ve been meaner. Et tu, Mika?

We DEFINITELY need therapy for this Freudian family disorder, and maybe when Chimpy, who has HUGE daddy-issues that will be on full display in Oliver Stone’s W., leaves office we will alas be free from this mass political psychosis.

The Madwoman in Alaska

2008-09-14T16:31:00.000-07:00

John McCain and the RNC have been very careful in the veiling and unveiling of Sarah Palin. She was carefully concealed after her coming out party at the RNC, offering the media and the public just a few staged appearances with some lipstick and talking points.

Her interview with CHARLIE Gibson may, in fact, be her only "real" media interview for now. The American public may, in fact, have to rely on Tina Fey to satiate their Sarah fix. The RNC wants to keep her quiet; the interview with Gibson certainly offers testimony to this fact--every time she speaks, her true character slips out.

Similar to Charlotte Bronte's Bertha "Antoniette" Mason, the RNC's madwoman must be revealed slowly... incompletely... craftily. Hiding behind the veil of sexism, claiming she has to study up on her foreign policy, stating that she needs to be in control of this new found media frenzy (character double, anyone?), simply proves that John McCain's operatives fear that we might actually get to know her true political and personal self.

Unfortunately, even Rochester, a man of some education and worldliness was fooled by the shadowy, seductive figure.

Here's hoping that John McCain's Bertha never gets enough power to burn down our houses.

Luckily for McCain, he'd still have six more to choose from.

’08 & The Classroom Motif

2008-09-14T05:43:00.000-07:00

’08 & The Classroom Motif

As columnist Bob Herbert noted yesterday, Sarah Palin resembles that unprepared student who clearly doesn’t know much about anything. When Charlie Gibson asked Mrs. Palin about the Bush doctrine, it all became abundantly clear: Mrs. Palin indeed looked like…a moose caught in headlights. Put simply, in educator’s jargon, Mrs. Palin came off as a student BADLY misplaced in a class where she simply does not belong and where she will most likely fail. This could all change, of course, if she cheats; if her symbolic parents—her Rovian surrogates—at the RNC make her jump a grade level, or two, or, hell, ten, on policy; and/or if she shows she can glide by with a low pass in the D range because her “parents” did most of her homework to counterbalance a pathetically low performance on the job.

But what’s most interesting in all of this is the classroom motif that has manifested in the 08’ meta narrative, especially with Mrs. Palin’s meteoric emergence. We hear reports about Mrs. Palin in terms of whether she passed or failed. We hear stories of how Mrs. Palin is “cramming” on foreign policy matters because she knows so little. Yet disturbingly enough, much of the American public digs her “studious” appearance because of her dress and the eyeglasses even though she is perhaps one of the most unqualified republican female politicians Mr. McCain could’ve selected: Imagine had he considered Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Governor Jodi Rell, or Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison? Clearly, these women would be appropriately placed in the narrative of national classroom politics, and, better yet, each of them would be a suitable VP choice for Mr. McCain’s presidential ticket. Perhaps the mainstream media should consider why Mr. McCain LEFT THESE WOMEN BEHIND for a woman whose skills and experience indicate she should stay on the elementary school playground.

Palin's Perverse Past

2008-09-09T16:37:00.000-07:00

You know there is so much that lies in the adage "Truth is stranger than fiction". Why? Because I could possibly make this stuff up.

Now that the media has picked up their chins off the floor in regards to McCain's pick for a running mate right before the RNC, they are unearthing more and more about Sarah Palin's actual political career. (Before anyone says it, they are not out to get her; they are doing there job in informing the public about a relatively unknown figure that will be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

The Frontiersmen, an Alaskan newspaper, reported that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the city charged victims of sexual assault between $300 and $1200 for their own rape kits. If you don't know, a rape kit is a sexual assault forensic evidence kit, used to collect DNA that can be used in criminal proceedings. The kit is performed as soon as possible after a sexual assault or attack has been committed.

So let me get this straight - a woman (or man) is assaulted, thus going through one horrific experience. The victim gets the guts up to report the crime and then has a rape kit done - thus another horrific experience because the victim has to relive the experience and it is uncomfortable physically (a yearly female exam magnified 10x). Then, the victim get s bill in the mail for $1200? Definitely a third horrific experience.

One point so Alaska itself doesn't get a bad rap - Gov. Tony Knowles, a Democrat, recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.

The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

People, please wake up and smell the coffee. I am all for smart women in powerful places, but if Sarah Palin is the smartest and the best female, I need to wake up from this nightmare...

And you thought no one was dumber than Chimpy...

2008-09-08T16:03:00.000-07:00

Just when you thought that your eyes and ears only had to worry about what literally stupid remark Chimpy made, now you have to worry about Sarah Palin.

Now before you say : is this another tabloid story?", it isn't. This is a legitimate, caught-on-tape gaffe on a rally in Colorado Spring, CO today. In the clip, Palin claims that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.". Freddy and Fannie "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization." Economists, analysts, and intelligent people gobbled up her HUGE faux pas like college students at an all-you-can-eat happy hour buffet.

"You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country's mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn't speak well for her, I'd say."

The best part of the clip (the audio quality stinks; it is VERY low) is it could be in one of those MasterCard commercials because the look on John McCain's face is like 'oh f%@k' and absolutely PRICELESS when she makes this INCREDIBLY STUPID remark.

A Sign of The Armageddon?

2008-09-01T07:10:00.000-07:00

The Republican National Convention is underway and the only thing I can say positively about it is that McCain is rightfully downplaying it because Hurricane Gustav is bearing down on the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi as I am typing.

So, late last week, the media cycle should have belonged to Barack and his wonderfully moving speech on Thursday night. Instead, the weekend media cycle belonged to Sarah Palin and John McCain's campaign. Now, to be fair, McCain's choice was always going to be named on Friday. The reason for the buzz, the hype, and the attention is that NO ONE saw this coming. The press is all a twitter because no one outside of Alaska really knows who she is. News people across the country are working 24/7, vetting McCain's choice as his Veep running mate.

I was getting ready to sit down to do some homework on this when an email from a former student (the VERY intelligent EB) sent me the following email that details Ms. Palin and her background:

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Huh?

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1
Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2
She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3
Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5
She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7
This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.

Sources:

1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-5037574-O_1i0Zx&t=1

3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-5037574-O_1i0Zx&t=2
4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-5037574-O_1i0Zx&t=3

5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-5037574-O_1i0Zx&t=4

6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-5037574-O_1i0Zx&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-5037574-O_1i0Zx&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-5037574-O_1i0Zx&t=7

7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008

I kept the sources in there in case anyone wanted to check them out for themselves and all great writers cite sources. (BTW, The author of the letter is a member of the MoveOn Organization.)

Anyway, I keep wondering (not that I am a McCain supporter) why McCain picked Palin if he was looking for a strong female running mate, and looking for Hilary supporters that feel the Obama-Biden ticket is not for them. There are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine - both feminists with solid political backgrounds and experience. (And they are both wonderfully warm people - I have met them both.) If he was looking for governor material, why not pick Jodi Rell, who brought CT government back from the embarrassment that was Rowland.

In short, there is only three reasons to pick Palin. She is for big oil, she has pull in the one state that has untapped oil and thus, has contacts there, and she brings the religious right in from the cold into the Republican Party fold.

I implore everyone - if you did not think this elections was important to the path of our country before, it surely is now. Please get your facts, register, and make sure you get to the polls in November. The future of the country depends on it...

Image & The Joe Biden Pick

2008-08-23T06:19:00.000-07:00

IMAGE & THE JOE BIDEN PICK

Sure, Joe Biden brings a great deal to an Obama-Biden ticket. Biden brings all those years of working in D.C., extensive knowledge about foreign affairs, and a long record of working with respected colleagues and dreaded trolls from the dark side of the moon. But let’s face it, folks: Uncle Joe also brings his big mouth, which, at times, suffers from chronic, verbal diarrhea. Also Uncle Joe, as much as I like the guy and agree with the choice, brings some mess-ups from yore that will probably resurface for a cycle or two in the media smear machine.

The most important element, though, that Biden brings to the ticket involves image dynamics. The elder, grey-haired Biden helps to neutralize those skeptics (and thought-disordered folks) that think Senator Obama is too young or too inexperienced for the job. Moreover, the rather lively, you-talk-too-much-and-sometimes-you-never-shut-up Joe serves as an effective contrast to Senator McCain who frequently comes off as tired, as slow-moving, as tripping over his tele-prompted words, and, quite frankly, as old. And by no means do I mean disrespect to Senator McCain who has heroically served our country with distinction. This is why I suspect that the ever dapper, the ever sexy locks, porn-star-named Mitt Romney will do image justice to a McCain ticket.

The fact of the matter is that far too many Americans are NOT willing to educate themselves. They avoid learning policy differences, how to vote in their best interests, and what matters most to their futures and the future of their country. The medium is the massage, after all. Image dictates a lot more than meets the eye, and in this presidential race image might even matter more.

And The Winner of the Dem. Veepstakes Is...

2008-08-23T03:02:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama has chosen Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. They are set to appear today (Saturday Aug. 23) at 3 PM EDT at a rally in Springfield, Ill. where Obama began his campaign 19 months ago.

Discuss...

American Prayer

2008-08-22T11:26:00.001-07:00

As those of us who have been glued to presidential primary news, especially blogs such as this one, Obama has had several music videos made endorsing his campaign.

Released this week is the latest and, in my opinion, the most moving one. It is a song featuring lyrics by Brit Dave Stewart (of Eurythmics fame). It features many other singers and actors, and also has clips of MLK, Jr's powerful and moving speeches.

The video is approximately five minutes long and is in black and white (there is no need to adjust your set). Click here to get to the link and watch the music video which also includes Stewart's reasoning behind the song and other tidbits.

P.S.: Before the McCain supporters start in again about how Obama is a celebrity, yada yada, etc. and so on, I do want to point out that at least Barack did not whore himself out like McCain did in this clip from the blockbuster Wedding Crashers. Either McCain doesn't know the meaning of the word celebrity or Alzheimer's has already set in on the ol' fella.

Back in the USSR?

2008-08-21T03:28:00.000-07:00

Growing up, I received advice from my father. You know, the usual what to do if I ever had mechanical problems on the long drive between my college town of Orono and home, how to throw pitches other than the the typical three thrown by most softball pitchers and how to read opposing batters, be respectful of elders, be polite, and other things.

One thing that I remember him talking about has come to the forefront in light of Russia's recent invasion of its neighbor Georgia. When I was in elementary school, the Cold War was still ablaze and my father, while not working directly for the government or a branch of the military, worked for General Dynamics/Electric Boat Division in Groton. Because of his job and his age (my dad is part of the "bomb shelter" generation), he was interested in and kept abreast of the political situations between our country and allies and the Soviets and their allies. During this time, our school routinely had "evacuation drills" in case of nuclear attack. (If you are not familiar with SE Connecticut, please note that within a 20-mile radius, there are two nuclear power plants, the largest submarine builder in the world (Electric Boat), Dow Chemical, Pfizer Pharmaceutical, a Coast Guard Academy, a US Navy submarine school, Sonalysts (they make state-of-the-art sonar equipment and many other things, and a Hess gas/oil storage facility to name a few important things.)

After one of these drills, I asked my dad about these drills. He rattled off the list above, we talked about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and, weirdly, he quoted Nostradamus. This last item perplexed me as my dad, while educated, is a "man's man" and did not talk about things like predictions and "what may be", like horoscopes and fortune telling. He told me that Nostradamus basically predicted that our country's biggest enemy and problem would be "the bear from the north". Naturally, I am paraphrasing for brevity, but you get the picture.

This "prediction" has come up many times over the years and, most recently, came up this week as Russia invade and fired upon the country of Georgia and its people. My father and I watched a news update as we saw Georgia's capital taken hostage and its people and journalists fired upon by the Russian army. The "conflict" is over "finger-pointing" between the countries over who is responsible for the "ethnic cleansing" in South Ossetia. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are taking a hard line with Georgia as Chimpy and Condi try to cater to them and get them to gently back down, without hurting the Russian government's feelings. Despite a cease-fire brokered by the European Union, Russia is still taking a hard line in Georgia at this writing.

Some people are shocked; my dad and I are not. Did everyone, including the White House, miss when Putin's presidential term was over that he basically picked his successor and then named himself prime minister? Ummm.... it has been a while since I have taken a Political Science class, but isn't that what people in a dictatorship do?

Russia still has a great deal of military fire power and, if need be, they could roll over its smaller neighbors and take control of more. Did everyone miss how the Russians are gobbling up rights to certain land areas in the north that are considered to hold untapped oil reserves? Did everyone miss when Medvedev publicly announced that "Georgia won't go unpunished" and called the Georgian government "morons"? I am not saying that I know the whole story, but the way the Russian are going about things smacks of "something ain't right here".

The signs of this Georgian takeover (or something like it) have been there for some time, and Bush has elected to, as usual, go on some "road trip" (in this case the Olympics) instead of doing his job. We need to ask Obama and McCain what they are going to do if elected. The problem in the former Soviet Union is not going away anytime soon and I feel safe saying that Bust won't take care of it either. In any case, Americans should arm themselves with the knowledge that is out there regarding this crisis and keep an eye on it.

Dem's VP's: The Elimination Game

2008-08-20T07:00:00.000-07:00

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 8/20/08

On Monday, over at Presidential Politics for America, I used the Democratic Convention speaker schedule to eliminate all but three scheduled speakers (Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson) from VP contention. I then added one unscheduled speaker (Wesley Clark) to the list to come up with the final four VP candidates for the Democratic ticket.

A finalist that the media seems hell-bent on pushing is Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, so I should quickly address why he's not on this list. First, next Wednesday, when the Vice-Presidential nominee will formally accept the nomination, the convention will make foreign policy its theme. Tim Kaine has no experience in that area. It would be an awkward fit, and the DNC could easily have avoided this by making Tuesday about foreign policy and Wednesday about the economy or the environment, instead of vice versa. Another strike against Kaine's chances is Mark Warner, a fellow Virginian, being named as the Convention keynote speaker. It would be highly unorthodox for two Virginians to give the major speech on successive nights (which also eliminated Jim Webb, if he wasn't already eliminated in your mind for other reasons). Finally, Tim Kaine himself has said that he thinks he's been awarded the silver medal of the veepstakes. So there you have it.

This solidified my final four: Bayh, Biden, Clark, and Richardson.

So which of the Final Four will it be? As the speculation continues with the convention a week away, here's a quick look at the pros and cons of each:

Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Pros: Centrist enough for moderate Republicans; Is popular among remaining disenfranchised Clinton supporters; Is a Democrat in a largely Republican state; Serves on Armed Services Committee;
Cons: Too centrist for Democrats?; The least gravitas of the Final Four; Would be spun as a great pick by the pundits, but otherwise won't cause a buzz among the average voter like the others.

Senator Joe Biden (Delaware)
Pros: The expert of the party on foreign policy and international; One of the biggest critics of an unpopular President; Compliments Obama's inexperience; Would perform very well in the VP debate; Has proven presidential aspirations.
Cons: Is vocal enough to turn off a lot of voters; Useless geographically; His selection could be perceived as Obama being too inexperienced, making Biden look like the chaperone of the ticket.

Former General Wesley Clark
Pros: Supreme Commander NATO Allied Forces from 1997-2000; Gravitas like Biden, but much more respected amongst Republicans; Highly decorated officer; Perfect attack dog on McCain for all things military; Assuages fears that Obama is too green.
Cons: No political experience; A beginning Democrat; Like Biden, his VP nomination might imply that Obama is inexperienced.

Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
Pros: Wins over Latino's, crucial in New Mexico and Florida; Executive experience as governor; Helpful knowledge as former Secretary of Energy; Foreign policy experience as U.S. ambassador to the U.N; Congressional experience as former House member.
Cons: Had a stagnant presidential campaign; Lacks a presence in public forums; Unexpected support of Obama over former ally Clinton would look fishy if Richardson is appointed #2; Two minorities on the ticket is playing with fire.

However, shortly after I narrowed it down to four, there has been yet another development. Yesterday, Joe Biden plainly told a group of reporters that he wasn't "the guy." So the Final Four has become the Final Three: Bayh, Clark, and Richardson.

Who next to eliminate?

Well, as unfair and politically incorrect as it may be, it's highly unlikely that the Democrats, when the consensus is that this election is theirs for the taking, will nominate two minorities on the same ticket. A half-black and Latino running together would be an enormous roll of the dice. That eliminates Richardson.

And then there were two...

Senator Evan Bayh and former General Wesley Clark remain. However, the media doesn't even consider Clark a finalist. I don't consider myself media until I get a check in the mail for my work. However, believe it or not, the media has better sources than I do. If nothing is leaking about Clark being vetted, than it's probably not him.

That leaves one. The Democratic vice-presidential nominee will be Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Still, I can't help but wonder "Why not Clark?" Indeed, if I were kaing decisions for the Democrats, Wesley Clark would be my pick to round out the ticket. To see my reasoning, check out Presidential Politics for America tomorrow.

Until next week...

Seriously Flip' Floppin' on VP

2008-08-16T05:46:00.000-07:00

Now I'm back to Wesley Clark. Honestly. For an explanation, check Presidential Politics for America on Monday, and don't forget to start checking Wednesdays on 1% More Conscious for Weekly Presidential Politics.

Lord, I'm a Flip-Floppin' Man

2008-08-15T12:53:00.000-07:00

The Democratic nominee for Vice-President will be Joe Biden. Or Evan Bayh. Or Wesley Clark. No, Joe Biden. Explanation to come on Monday, when Presidential Politics for America returns.

Also returning: for the first time since June 11, Weekly Presidential Politics on 1% More Conscious!

Olympic Gold?

2008-08-14T03:36:00.000-07:00

Ever since I can remember, the Olympics have enthralled me. I cheered for Dorothy Hamil, Eric Heiden, Mark Spitz, the 1980 hockey team, Mary Lou Retton, Kerri Strug, and various others. I wept for Tai and Randy, Mary Decker, and all of the 1980 Olympians when the government boycotted the Moscow Olympics. Perhaps it was the competitive athlete in me or I was moved by the athletes’ emotions; the Olympics have never failed to move me.

This year is no different. Obviously, Michael Phleps is putting on a show at the pool as well as the men’s gymnastics team earning bronze without the powerhouse Hamm brothers. The Williams sisters are burning up the tennis court while our basketball and softball teams do the same in their venues. Even sports I never knew were sports thrill me (who knew that watching synchronized diving and kayaking were so exciting?).

However, the Olympics are filling me with other emotions this year. Since the announcement of the Beijing Games in 2001, I have been puzzled and perplexed the International Olympic Committee, which stands for camaraderie and, by its own credo, the promotion of ethics, would hold the Olympics here. The announcement came a mere three years after Tiananmen Square and when China was still the only threatening Communist country in the world. Then, I also realized that part of the Olympic spirit was to have faith. I thought that perhaps China would move toward a better treatment of its people in the way it was progressing into the 21st century in other areas. I tried to have faith.

However, this faith has given way to dread and anger. This spring, one of my students was excited to go back to her homeland of Tibet this summer with a visit to China and the Olympics, bringing one of her friends along. (She was lucky enough to have fled the Chinese-oppressed Tibet when she was younger.) However, her trip was not to be as she explained to me the difficulties of her getting into China, and the possibilities of what may happen.

The Chinese government made promises to the IOC that journalists from other countries would be able to work freely and they would be provided the tools to do so during the Games. These promised evaporated once the games were eminent. Limited internet access is the least of journalists’ problems as many of them, according to Voice of America, are being harassed and detained. Journalists that are trying to cover the “terrorist attacks” in the Xinjiang province against police have been beaten, detained, and had their work erased.

What about the opening ceremony "snafus"? The little girl that sang so beautifully was not the real singer. She lip-synced for the real singer whom the "powers that be" deemed too ugly to represent the country. The amazing "footprint fireworks" over the city were also found to be computer generated.

On the second day of the Olympics, U.S. men's volleyball coach Hugh McCutcheon’s father-in-law and mother-in-law were stabbed. He father-in-law died from the attack while his mother-in-law’s condition is now stable and improving. Little coverage has come out about the attack and less has been said about what the Chinese police are doing to catch the murderer.

Protest parks, built for “approved” demonstrations, remain empty. Reports state that police detain anyone who has filed a petition for protest. Police put three Americans on a plane home after they peaceably demonstrated for a free Tibet.

Obviously, I could go on and on with this (and include a tirade how "Chimpy" is being an idiot for ogling the bikini-clad women’s volleyball players and moronically holding the American flag the wrong way) as the games are not over yet. My point is if the “civilized’ world is so “gung-ho” on correcting human rights violations, what the heck are we doing? What more proof do we need that China not only does not care about the common person, but they are using the Games to flex its muscle and influence? Our government once before boycotted the games held in a country that at the time was doing similar things. Did it hurt athletes? Yes, but people understood that human life and liberty are more important than a medal.

I do not condone war and violence. However, when are the “civilized” countries of the world going to stop being bullied and stand up for those who cannot do it for themselves? Or are the all-mighty buck and television ratings more important in the world today? Olympic spirit indeed.

"Not That There's Anything Wrong With That"

2008-08-08T12:41:00.001-07:00

“Not That’s There’s Anything Wrong With That”

In trying to set the record…straight about his personal life, in an episode of Seinfeld Jerry insists to the interviewer that he’s not gay, “not that’s there anything wrong with that.”

I’ve found myself using “NTTAWWT” or a permutation of “NTTAWWT” many times recently when hearing reports from friends and co-workers about people they know and the…interesting sexual practices people have—“NTTAWWT.”

Honestly, I’m not a prude or trying to be a prude—“NTTAWWT.” Nor am I trying to be the morality police— we all know there is something “WWT.” So for my straight readers, my gay readers, and my gray readers, this entry isn’t so much about sexual orientation or identity as it is about why I’ve being saying “NTTAWWT” or something similar lately.

M., an IT guru, tells me that the company he works for requires him not so much to spy on workers and their computer use, but, more practically, to protect the system from viruses, harmful downloads, and potential problems from Internet traffic. M. reports that he has been witness to numerous extra-marital correspondence, sometimes hetero, sometimes homo—“NTTAWWT”; group sex solicitation and participation—there DEFINITELY IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS; and pay per view porn use on company computers, during company time—there IS TRULY SOMETHING SOOOOOOOOOOOOO WRONG [AND STUPID] WITH THAT.

CR, an educator I know, informs me that a police officer who works in the local schools is pretty open with the staff about how he and his wife “swing” with other people—of the same and opposite sex—there is something incredibly “WWT.” Another education friend of mine tells me one of her teacher colleagues was arrested for pleasuring himself in public and it’s pretty public about what he did…to himself—there’s MOST DEFINTIELY something “WWT.”

Now these are just a few among a ½ dozen "WWT" tales I’ve heard over the past couple of months. Look, what people want to do (and whom they do it with) in their private lives is their business, providing that things are consensual and harmless, of course. In my mind, there is totally nothing “WWT.” However, when people start Larry Craig—ing publicly all over the place there does seems to be something wrong with this low-level (or high level) pattern of exhibitionist behavior. Is it me, or there is something very, very “WWT?” Conscious minds want to know.

ADJUSTMENTS

2008-08-06T17:33:00.000-07:00

ADJUSTMENTS

I haven’t been able to blog as much, play guitar, or pleasure read. Slowly but surely, my better half & I strive to interweave strands of our former selves into our newly adjusted routines that revolve around raising three beautiful and healthy children.

ATM is getting back into swimming, and I just learned a Concrete Blonde song. We hope to read more than just news snippets here and there—the less about the MSM’s summer ’08 stars, Brett Favre and Paris Hilton, the better. And once the three month old gets into a steady sleeping pattern, maybe we can escape for an adult night out—even if it’s to drive around the block a few times.

This adjustment period has indeed offered us learning opportunities, aside from getting adept at changing diapers in the sand at the beach—talk about a summer Olympic sport—or managing three at the grocery store amidst the hostile on-lookers who scowl as if to say: “the kiddy-tracked crowd is only allowed here very early in the morning or very late night—so f*ck off.”

The one major realization I’ve had is that it’s not easy to adjust. I would go so far as to say that in many cases our natural inclination is NOT TO adjust. Sadly, for many individuals it’s far easier to stay the same, to think the same way, to behave the same, or, in this political climate: to stay the course. That’s why I’m not at all surprised there isn’t more of a spread in the general election tracking polls between John McCain and Barack Obama.

It’s tragic that American society still grapples with all the same, recurring issues that require enormous adjustments to change things ever so slightly: the Iraq War, socio-economic inequality, poverty, racism, sexism, and homophobia. Certainly, it’s not so tragic, I’ve come to realize, to believe that some small adjustment can create some kind of change. The question is: how do those of us who can adjust help those who cannot...adjust to the idea of change? After all, changing a diaper in the sand at the beach isn’t so hard as it seems.

"Fun,” “Cool” & No Where Fast

2008-07-06T18:47:00.000-07:00

"Fun,” “Cool” & No Where Fast

The Day’s Ann Baldelli deserves commendation for her columns—including today’s— on teenage drinking, and parents, teens, educators, and municipal officials need to get beyond the “fun” and “cool” of it all to address this problem and the many more that plague this feel good generation.

As Baldelli beautifully notes, today’s teens merely rationalize underage drinking because they deem it “fun” and “cool.” Baldelli also reports that in many cases, these teens’ parents are spectators of their sport, well aware of their children’s “fun” and “cool” drinking activities. The least said about the headlines involving underage drinking in Southeastern Connecticut over the past two years, the better.

Underage drinking is not new. With this generation, though, it is an extension of their “fun” & “cool” outlook, for lack of a better term, on life. “Fun” and “cool” are code words referring to an incessant need for satisfaction and gratification, all the time, everyday, for everything. With an Ipod bud in each ear, a cell phone in one hand, and an espresso-shot coffee drink in another, this generation has been conditioned to seek out “fun” and “cool” in everything they do. And no-consequence parenting and I-centered education haven’t helped matters much.

Let’s be clear: the “fun” and “cool” adolescent pleasure wave hasn’t consumed all. Appropriately guided by adults who know better, there are many teens out there resisting that powerful undertow to make the most of their lives. Such individuals tend to rise above things by learning to live in moderation, by adjusting accordingly to things that can either be pleasing or not, by problem-solving rather than by problem-creating, and by carving out a future for themselves to avoid a no-where fast existence courtesy of all that is “fun” and “cool.”

Life

2008-06-30T04:31:00.000-07:00

As our host here has apologized for being lax in his posting, I also must apologize for not picking up the slack – life has interfered in many ways over the last few months; too many to count. However, the passing of a high school friend from complications due to her lung cancer has made me reflective and pensive with a need to share.

After surfing the internet aimlessly and reading more about the passing of comedic great George Carlin, I came across the following which speaks to my feelings today and what I feel is wrong with much of the world.

Rest in peace Grace; your family and friends will sorely miss you. R.I.P. George Carlin – your intelligent humor and wit will be missed.

From George Carlin:
“The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, yet more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.

We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life, not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things.

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom…”

If you do not like Carlin’s straightforwardness, I recommend reading Tuesdays with Morrie. Same message, but easier for some people to swallow. Plus, you’ll be reading.

The Massage

2008-06-23T17:36:00.001-07:00

The Massage

When I wake up in the morning—or lately, when I first ooze from one state of new-baby zombie-ness to another, I usually get my daily dose of MSM (mainstream media) therapy. What can I say: it’s addicting.

After being awake for about a half hour—I usually crawl out of my coffin at 5:30 am, at 6 am I check out Morning Smoe to get my morning dose. Yeah, it’s a sick, twisted co-dependency that I’ve yet to shake. 12-step, you say? Nah. But what I’ve noticed during my Morning Smoe fix is that I get the first few lines—pun intended—of the MSM daily script and I’m sure to hear these talking points reverberate throughout the day.

Take this morning, for example. On the Smoe, Mika had on Silly Willy, Pat Buchanan and Mike “probate court” Barnicle. One of the main topics: the latest match-up polls from Newsweek and other news agencies of McShame vs. Obama. When it came time to discuss the Newsweek poll, a poll showing Obama at 51% and McLame at 36%, one of Mika’s boys made some comment to the effect that Newsweek must’ve conducted its poll at Starbucks on the upper west side of Manhattan. I wonder which goon came up with that one. Sure, it might be true noting that these Newsweek polling numbers are a bit off when compared to the other polls. But really, does THAT matter?

Let’s get back to the script. As can be expected, I heard the same line uttered by Mike Barnicle this evening during his guest-hosting gig on PhlegmBall when he discussed the Newsweek poll. Sticking to the script, Barnicle reiterated that Newsweek must’ve conducted the poll at a Starbucks on the upper west side of Manhattan. Coincidence? Yeah—and I’m a Republican.

The bottom line is: mainstream media talking points exist and thus they constitute a script on a daily basis—just dabble in some MSM addiction yourself, and you shall see. The talking heads generally follow this script to rev up the echo chamber din, to shape perceptions, and to reinforce the notion that for many the media is the…massage.

FUMBLING OUT OF DORMANCY

2008-06-14T22:45:00.000-07:00

FUMBLING OUT OF DORMANCY

After being b-slapped (that’s blog slapped) by the ever-astute IC, I feel compelled to apologize for my absence from 1 % more consciousness.

ATM (my wife) & I welcomed #3 over a month ago. We had a lot of preparing and adjusting to do because we are never quite sure we know what we are doing with this parenting thing. Rest assured, though: I was not kidnapped by renegade wingtards for some sort of sick tribute to Rush Limfart, bka Jaba, the tart.

For sure, Mary Margaret, our latest arrival, has kept us and her brother and sister quite busy. Indeed, we are a party of 5 getting our grooves on.

But I’m returning this week with regular postings.

Forgive me, IC et al, for I haven’t sinned. We (my multiple personalities & I) have had to do more laps on the kiddy-track than I had anticipated.

Onward…

It's Over

2008-06-11T05:53:00.000-07:00

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 6/11/07

(IC note: This blog has been dormant far too long. Indeed, I haven't even posted here since February, with my "Explaining Limbaugh" column. Therefore, I've decided to run one of my recent blog posts from Presidential Politics for America. Enjoy.)

It's over. History has been made. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

Yet, with all of the stories that slowly trickled in last week - the seventeen senate superdelegates, Clyburn, Carter, Clinton ready to concede, Clinton letting go staff, Clinton not conceding, Clinton wanting to meet face to face with Obama, Clinton interested in VP, Obama only interested in offering the VP if Clinton declines - it was easy to forget the big picture.

This was an historic event on several levels.

First, the magnitude of this upset is unparalleled in modern primary politics. Hillary Clinton, a lion in the Senate, with a 25-point lead in 2007 for the Democratic nomination, and with her spouse as the most popular member of the party and perhaps the most popular politician in the country, was beaten by a dark-skinned, mixed-race, first-term U.S. Senator with a Muslim sounding name who was just over two years removed from state politics when he declared for the United States presidency. Read that sentence again.

Second, the story everyone is talking about. For the first time in this country's history, a non-white has been nominated for President by a major political party. As an extension, if Obama wins on November 4th, he will be the first person with at least 50% African heritage to be the President of any country in Western Civilization (Europe, North America, South America).

Third, finally, and most important to me, I have to turn to a Hillary Clinton quote from last night. Who would have thought that it would be Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, who could put forth the quote of the contest? I have been following this primary for 18 months and in her speech last night, Clinton had my favorite line of the primary. Nothing sums up the ground breaking experience of the 2008 Democratic Primary better than a snippet of her simple prose. I know it's not Shakespeare, Jefferson, Glenn Cheney, or Dylan. I know it's clichéd. I know it seems obvious looking back on it. But she said it, and she's absolutely right.

"...we saw millions of Americans registering to vote for the first time, raising money for the first time, knocking on doors, making calls, talking to their friends and neighbors, mothers and fathers lifting their little girls and their little boys on to their shoulders and whispering,

"'See, you can be anything you want to be.'"

The crowd erupted, as it should have. Young minorities and young girls who saw the Democratic Primary come down to a woman and a black man must have been inspired. Our society isn't perfect. We haven't torn down all the barriers. We haven't convinced all the racists and misogynists of their archaic and misguided thoughts, and through aesthetic affirmative action, we've even gone too far in the opposite direction at times...

But those young girls and minorities haven't experienced any of that yet. They're new and innocent and untouched by the evils of prejudice and thoughtless malevolence. The most publicized and talked about news event of their young lives had a black man and white woman vying for the nomination of the Democratic Party. I don't think we can yet accurately predict the far-reaching effect this one political event will have on the next generation, but we can hope that the very best was taken from it.

And as we wave good-bye to the last few pre-19th Amendment seniors, as the generation that grew up in pre-Civil Rights slowly fades away, as the memory of the George Wallace south diminishes, and as my generation of Rodney King, OJ Simpson, and affirmative action begins its exit in a few decades, the generation of watching Clinton-Obama with wide eyes and big dreams will take our place. It was Dr. King's dream and it's becoming a reality.

So yes, the Democratic Primary is over, but it might not be the only thing that is. Over is the time where we walk into an election cycle with full confidence that we will see a white man vying against a white man to lead a country that is half female and steadily growing less white. Over is the time where we discount a candidate's viability because of the way they look. Over is the time where a girl or a black child gives up on their dream to hold the highest office in the land because of what they see when they look in the mirror.

It's over.

So I apologize if you checked into Presidential Politics for America this morning and wanted to see me break down numbers (unnecessary) or finish off my Barack Obama Veepstakes (Friday) or preview Obama-McCain (all summer). I just had to take a minute with a wide-angle lens and appreciate what we've experienced. I urge you to do the same.

Bowling for Balance

2008-04-27T05:51:00.000-07:00

Bowling for Balance

If you haven’t already, you must check out “Bowling 1, Health Care 0,” the op-ed piece by Elizabeth Edwards in today’s The New York Times.

In this essay, Mrs. Edwards beautifully examines “the candidates [she] saw; the campaign [we] see.” In other words, folks, the mainstream media frames, selects, emphasizes, de-emphasizes the “news” fit to print about the ’08 election to suit their agendas—they are controlling everything.

This is MSM therapy and it’s scary. But what’s even scarier is how in the MSM meta-narrative soap operas, we have the same cast of actors/cheerleaders/analysts/and of course, the likes of Jabba, the Fart—Rush Limbaugh, media-created “authorities” who are more about imposing their views rather than simply conveying the news. It’s an ugly, incestuous crew and they pretty much say the same things. Why, oh why, does Smucker Carlson get booted from a news network, get fired from a job, get a show canceled, only to land on his feet yet again as some sort of analyst? Let’s face it: bow-tie loser boy sucks. And we don’t need Jon Stewart to tell us this again.

Check out “Bowling 1, Health Care O” to cure yourselves from the mega doses of MSM therapy; after all, the first step of recovery involves an admission of powerlessness—and this is precisely the case when it comes to what the MSM feeds us.

Deal or No Deal

2008-04-20T05:57:00.000-07:00

Deal or No Deal

“Mission Accomplished” George W. Bush will appear on an episode of NBC’s game show Deal or No Deal tomorrow night. Apparently, he’s honoring a veteran from Iraq, W.’s “no deal” of a fiasco. Hey, at least the costs of the war—deliberately kept out of the media spotlight—are alas receiving mass prime time coverage if only in a cameo moment. Too bad, though, that W. didn’t honor all of our Iraq Veterans—fallen and alive—more often, more seriously, rather than be so obvious to select the best Nielsen ratings publicity op available.

Boy blunder and his party stay true to form, though, making deals, re-shaping reality, and bilking the American public to suit their needs. And truth be told, they are pretty good at what they do: with Gas prices soaring, home mortgages foreclosing, spending power diminishing, the market yo-yoing, jobs terminating, Iraq burning, local municipal budgets shrinking, in a year when it would seem that the planets are aligned for the Democrats to take the White House, the Republicans are well positioned for Bush Term 3, with sold-his-soul McCain, a deal most Americans can’t afford.

But let’s face it: Part of this deal involves the internecine warfare in the Democratic Party. On one side there’s Clinton—amorphous lady hate who NOW casts her self as shot drinking, Crown Royale-ing, gun-slinging Scranton girl. On the other side there’s Obama—an elitist, non-patriot, 60s radical, non-wearing flag pin snob. The least said about these false characterizations, the better.

Divided and framed by the MSM, they and the party still stand…for now. But the question remains: can either one of them stand against McCain in the general, now that McCain has pricked his finger in blood rites with Grover Norquist, almost every agent of intolerance on the right whom McCain once disdained, the MSM goons—just take a look at Frank Rich’s column today, and a shadowy, quickly organizing attack-group resembling a Swiftboat junta for ‘08? A year to six months ago, the answer to this question would be yes. But as the Republicans do what they do best, as Clinton and Obama duke it out, as the MSM echo chamber continues emphasizing the unimportant while de-emphasizing the all-too-important, as the talking heads, led by Tweety Matthews et al, continue their “bromance” with McCain, chances are that what would be a “no deal” Bush Term 3 unfortunately might be the consolation “deal” we will have to accept.

COMING TO A CLASSROOM NEAR YOU: The Castle Called the Classroom

2008-04-01T17:54:00.000-07:00

COMING TO A CLASSROOM NEAR YOU: The Castle Called the Classroom

In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, the European Kurtz establishes himself as a demigod among the African natives. Among these natives, Kurtz assumes absolute power. He reigns supreme. He lavishes in the worship until he recognizes that something has gone horribly wrong—“the horror…the horror.”

In classrooms all across America, teachers establish themselves as figures of authority among the students they teach. To many students, the teacher sometimes assumes a sense of power unparalleled to other authority figures in students’ lives—guardians, coaches, doctors or other professionals perhaps far more credentialed than the teacher in question. In short, there is an enormous amount of a power a teacher wields in his or her classroom and depending upon how the teacher manages that power, the learning experience for the student can be a benefit or a situation that has gone…horribly wrong.

Of course, the responsible, 1% more conscious teacher wields power with respect. S/he realizes on multiple levels how a teacher’s instruction, personality, and professionalism impact the degree to which students perform. When the door closes to the classroom, this kind of teacher takes the job seriously by adhering to the curriculum, by doing what is expected, and by making sure students learn. Unfortunately when the door to many classrooms close, these things don’t happen and this is primarily because of WHO the teacher is in that classroom.

The Kurtz teacher, a description I like to use, simply does what s/he wants. This type of teacher doesn’t wield power with respect and thus envisions the classroom—on some level—as a castle for a master of his/her domain—Seinfeld pun intended. Teachers fall into this category by either completely or partially ignoring the curriculum; by either giving the appearance of doing what is expected or simply disregarding what is expected; and/or by either barely caring about whether or not students learn—or the worst, not caring at all whether or not students learn—“the horror…the horror.”

Few people know that in education there is little accountability; once that classroom door closes, anything can happen. Teachers, even the new, untenured ones, are directly observed maybe 3-5 times during a 180-day school year. The tenured ones—another entry for another day—are observed less than that. And the sad truth of the matter is that in a school organization there’s no efficient, effective way to monitor teachers on a consistent, regular basis.

Without question, there are many excellent teachers out there who make student learning—rather than themselves, their egos and/or their agenda—come alive. However, it’s also important to note—and to make you aware—that there are far too many Kurtzs in classrooms either consciously or unconsciously abusing the power bestowed upon them in their domain.

Exits & No Exits

2008-03-30T06:41:00.000-07:00

Exits & No Exits

The media narrative this week has been “exits,” especially on exiting the race for ’08. But the one exit that matters most—from Iraq—has been yet again pushed to the narrative background along with the fraud surrounding the Afghanistan arms contract, which once again smacks of the Bush administration’s inept management of the wars they wage—you know, the ones that bomb, bomb McCainy supports.

Instead of the Iraq War, which just hit its 5 year mark, or Bush being the main character in the media exit novella, Hillary has been cast in that role and what a prima donna she’s become. The sad part about this opera is that it seems like it’s going to end like all operas end, in tragedy. I can almost hear the sounds of Puccini’s Madame Butterfly.

There’s no question at this point: Hillary should go, not just for the party’s sake but also for her political future. The math is not on her side; the momentum is not on her side; the media is certainly not on her side—the least said about the latest lecture from the Dolores Umbridge of the right wing, Smeggy Noonan, the better; and the primary electorate is not on her side.

More importantly, in a strange way, Hillary’s campaign has NOT been on her side: Fumble after fumble, mistake after mistake, misstatement after “misspoke,” even with the few but well-publicized fumbles in the Obama campaign that perhaps could’ve worked to their advantage, the Clinton campaign has been disastrous with media-emergency management. They sadly resemble “heckuva job” Brownie—sorry. It’s been a dismaying collage of a whole lot of money, a whole lot of bravado for a whole lot of incompetence.

It’s interesting that a subtext to the media exit narrative has been Hillary’s contingency plans, if and when she decides to exit the race. Governor of New York? Senate Majority leader? On Friday evening’s Countdown and in the blogosphere, this story took hold. And what’s even more interesting, as Johnathan Alter mentioned on Countdown, there’s even been chatter about Obama’s contingency plan, should he become the nominee and lose to bomb, bomb McCainy, a media lover-boy whose many misstatements and frightening fumbles, along with the Iraq war, lurk in the media background as Hillary and Barack are on center stage.

Geeze. If only the media shifted its attention from whether or not Hillary would exit, who is urging her to exit—granted, she should go, what she will and could do when she exits, what Barack might do should he lose the general and exit the senate...to an exit from Iraq—given that now over 4,000 American lives have been sacrificed, maybe we could seriously think about what needs to be done once George W. Bush thankfully exits from a job he should have never had in the first place.

Coming to a Classroom Near You: The Cheating Narrative

2008-03-25T17:58:00.000-07:00

Coming to a Classroom Near You: The Cheating Narrative

Cheating is epidemic in American society. Just take look at our public figures, for heaven’s sake: Cheating seems to be a prerequisite for the governorship of New York whether you're coming or going; cheating helped curious Georgey win the presidency in 2000; bad dog Bill cheated on Hillary; and just recently Hillary attempted to cheat the media with her Bosnia “fairy tale,” got caught, and subsequently received yet another zero for this latest pathetic attempt at creative campaigning.

So it should come as no surprise that while American students might not excel in certain academic subjects, they more oftentimes than not exceed standards when it comes to cheating. And every teacher, instructor, and professor, I’m sure, has a treasure trove of stories about cheating, about those who cheat, and about how they struggled to maintain their sanity when confronting those who cheat but who also pretend NOT TO know that they cheated. Mind boggling, I know.

On the high school level, cheating is a constant in the cult of adolescent personality. And generally speaking, the “cheating” narrative ascribes to the following plot points:

1. The cheater knowingly cheats regardless of being warned a 1.000 times.
2. The cheater usually can’t help make it obvious that s/he has cheated; in short, s/he is seldom “good” at it.
3. When caught, the cheater immediately PRETENDS NOT TO KNOW THAT s/he cheated.
4. Denial sets in.
5. The cheater then finds some lame-a## way to blame the teacher, instructor, or professor.
6. The crying game happens—and I’m not referring to the film of the same name.
7. At this point, the narrative goes one or two ways:

a. The cheater recognizes the obvious: s/he has been INCREDIBLY stupid, got caught, and SHOULD NOT do this again, although chances are s/he will.

b. The cheater CAN’T abandon a win at this point and thus resorts to the ultimate act of desperation: S/he brings in a parent as a "special operations" cheerleader, as an enabler of sorts, as the ultimate “character” witness.

I regret to inform you that choice “b” is the preferred choice of cheaters and their cheating parents, which brings me to my major point: How can we educators ever expect to stop cheating when parents blindly pass on their cheating behaviors to their children whom they are cheating out of some sort of moral growth and development?

JJ a.k.a. Judas Joe

2008-03-23T17:36:00.000-07:00

JJ
a.k.a.
Judas Joe

Cheers to The Day paper for smacking down Judas Joe whose recent cameos with Bomb, Bomb McCainy are getting increasingly nauseating—sorry, but there’s something admittedly gross when one old man whispers ever closely in another old man’s ear. And huge cheers to The Huffington Post for covering this smack down coming from little ol’ southeastern Connecticut.

But Judas Joe’s relationship with let’s-spend another-100-years-in-Iraq McCainy is NOT NEW information, nor should it come as a surprise that JJ –that’s Judas Joe for short, will support McCain for president as if he were the second coming. In fact, Judas Joe and McCainy are regulars at the American Enterprise Institute, the neocon death star of policy making.

JJ, formerly Captain Lieberman, formerly Oedipus Lieberman, formerly Senator Joe Lieberman, Democrat from CT, is, alas, who he is. Many of us in Connecticut already know this; such a pity it’s taking so many others to catch on.

American Dream Disorder

2008-03-02T17:51:00.000-08:00

American Dream Disorder

Like Gatsby fixating on the green light and the girl he once lost, like Hester Prynne fantasizing about an escape from puritan New England with her paramour pastor Dimmesdale, like phony Holden wishing to live a “mute” life with a “mute” wife out west, many of us Democrats, I fear, get caught in our dreams just like our more famous figures in American literature.

Yes, it appears Barack will win the nomination and Hillary will most likely lose. With an opposition to the war from the beginning, with what seems to be an unblemished public record, with an uncanny, superficial resemblance to JFK, further enhanced by Kennedy family endorsements, and most of all, with a message that resonates and a life partner who is as equally if not more convincing than the candidate himself, Senator Obama has built an insurmountable momentum among Democratic party voters. Aided and abetted by a mainstream media dying for a “new” narrative and an indirect means by which to drive the nails into Hillary’s coffin, Barack has justly carpe diem(ed) the moment.

But the mainstream media narratives are shifting. And electoral reality with many Americans, whether or not the pundit class recognizes it, conveys another story.

In the past couple of weeks, we’ve already previewed the summer & fall Republican attack narratives that the mainstream media will no doubt intensify: “The Patriot Question, The Barack Edition.” They’ve already gone after Michelle, and they will stop at nothing equating Barack’s name to some of our more renowned “radical” Islamist enemies. Have we conveniently forgotten about our swift-boating, presidential campaign past?

But lady of mass instigation, Maureen Dowd, in today’s column, suggests that attacks against Obama’s patriotism “may not have the same traction.” Silly Maureen, these attacks already have gained some traction. It seems that Dowd also likes to dream and fantasize. And while I would NEVER suggest that the ever-astute Frank Rich has a touch of the American Dream Disorder, I’m admittedly concerned. In today’s column, “McCain Channels His Inner Hillary,” Rich highlights what many Democrats are either overlooking or completely disregarding in their dream states: Senator Obama will not have an easy campaign against Senator McCain, who has adopted the Hillary “experience” offensive, despite what some early polling and match-ups forecast.

As Rich duly notes, Senator McCain is far more appealing to Democrats and liberals than what one might initially think. That Bomb, Bomb McCainy invokes the wrath of Flush Limfart and Mann Coulter only increases the appeal, especially among those Reagan Democrats who’ve been a part of the Clinton coalition—a coalition of the dwindling. Perhaps this is why in must-win Florida polls, as Rich emphasizes, McCain decisively beats Obama. But even Rich suggests that for McCain and his supporters, “The Patriot Question, The Barack Edition” will NOT have much force in the wake of the RNC’s overtly racist “macaca” days. I think not.

“The Patriot Question, The Barack Edition” has already taken foot; just take a look at Steve Croft’s segment on tonight’s 60 Minutes Sunday. Croft interviewed a group of Ohio blue collar men who said they didn’t like Obama because he wasn’t patriotic and he was a Muslim. Lies, I know. But what we are witnessing here is a tectonic narrative shift; the campaign against Obama is all over the web—whether you are looking for it or not; and quite frankly, Senator McCain is a perfect character foil to set this story into hyper-drive: Veteran, former prisoner of war, hawk, older statesman.

Like it or not, many people respect McCain’s “story” and his commitment to our country. Many people do see him as paradigm of…patriotism, the very thing the echo chamber clamors Barack is not. While I will certainly support Senator Obama’s candidacy—I do believe he is unequivocally the better choice, I do fear that many Democrats and pundits are only dreaming if they think that the RNC smearing and fearing won’t work because it already has.

Explaining Limbaugh

2008-02-20T05:01:00.000-08:00

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 2/20/07

One has to wonder, when Rush Limbaugh previewed and framed a potential John McCain nomination as a precursor to a "fracture" in the Republican Party, did he intend for it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I will not use this space to analyze Limbaugh's animus towards McCain, nor will I appraise his intent. I will, however, examine the possibility that if the Republican Party does indeed split upon McCain's official ascension to Republican nominee, would McCain have any shot of winning the White House? And if not, can we not assume that Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and co., whom despite being inarguably self-promotive and agenda-driven are brilliant and talented pundits, knew they were hurting the Republicans' November chances when they made their audacious attacks against Arizona's Senior Senator? If so, is the conservative base planning to punt the 2008 general election, hoping to hand off a sliding economy, an acrimonious international relationship, an increasingly hostile Muslim world, and a perilously prodigious debt to the Democrats, in hopes of licking their wounds and coming back strong with, say, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich in 2012? And if that's the case, do the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the world really think it is crucial to keep a Republican in the Oval Office after all?

Let us start at the beginning. Thanks to weeks of consistent and calculated comments from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter, an unusually incohesive Republican Party was experiencing a prelude to a civil war. It would pit the social conservative base, flanked by the conservative media, against everyone else who called themselves a Republican, which meant social conservatives, moderates, war hawks, and red-staters caught in blue states - blue states which very much play a role in the nomination process of the Republican Party. There are shades of the English Civil War, when Anglicans and Catholics teamed up to take on all comers.

The aim of the social conservatives was to rally enough Republican support around Mitt Romney before McCain opened up too large of a lead in pledged delegates. To this end, they failed. Miserably. Romney won less than a third of McCain's delegates and pulled out of the race soon thereafter. At that point, the two Republican candidates that Rush Limbaugh continually denounced, McCain and Mike Huckabee, were the only two viable candidates that remained.

Now, all of a sudden, Huckabee isn't looking too bad, despite his fiscally and executively liberal (for a Republican) tendencies. When compared to McCain, conservatives drool over Mike Huckabee. It probably explains why Huckabee forges on in a race he cannot win. He is the last hope of Republicans who cannot bear to see McCain represent their party. Despite his success in the states below the Mason-Dixon line, however, Huckabee has no realistic avenue to victory.

Here's what political pundits cannot escape, though: We knew Huckabee could only compete in the southern states. We knew Mitt Romney could not compete with McCain in the big ones. Surely, if amateur bloggers are predicting the Republican race since New Hampshire and South Carolina, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity must have seen it coming, too.

Why, then, did they move forward with the assault on McCain? Surely they realized that verbal attacks on McCain's conservatism would hurt McCain's chances in November, and, by extension, hurt the chances of the Republican Party. Only one conclusion can be drawn.

They do not want a member of the Republican Party to be sworn in upon President Bush's exit on January 20th. The Republican Bush Administration, and for 3/4 of their stay in Washington, a Republican Congress, saw a steady downfall in approval both from the American people and foreign countries from all continents. The reasons were loud and clear.

A rash and incautious war with poor results has produced more tentacles of terror on a headless foe. Irresponsible spending from the self-proclaimed fiscally faithful party has produced an outrageous debt never before seen in history, perhaps irrevocably damaging the United States economy. These policies have concussed the working class to the point where even our ever-optimistic President must admit we are in uncertain economic times. The median salary falls while the number of millionaires and billionaires grow. The United States is still tending to fractured relationships with foreign allies who stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. as 2001 came to a close, only to steadily put distance between themselves and the unrelentingly bellicose world superpower.

The next President faces these challenges and more. Is it at all possible that the Republican base wants no part of a battle that is, at best, uphill, and, at worst, a brick wall? In fact, from a Republican perspective, either a Democrat inherits this mess and fails, or McCain inherits this mess and fails. Either way, in four years, while the U.S. and the world are still shattered in partisan and precarious pieces, Republicans put up a strong social conservative who claims to be the broom.

If this is truly their intent - to sacrifice 2008 in order to regain power in 2012 - one can only wonder how much they really do want an established presence in Iraq. One can only wonder how much they really do want President Bush's tax cuts to stay in place. One can only wonder if they really worry about the impending Supreme Court retirements and appointments that could overturn Roe. One can only wonder how sincerely they believe that the growing Islamo-fascist threat must be dealt with through concentrated and unilateral force.

Because if these issues were truly as imperative and paramount as they claim, how can they possibly live with themselves if they split their party and allow a Democrat in the west wing of the White House? It is as monstrously mindless as it is myopic, though Democrats might argue that such a characterization of the Republican Party is neither surprising nor new. Even more would argue that partisan games are being played with the future of this country.

The attitude of the Republican base is ultimately as defeatist as they accuse their ideological adversaries of being in foreign policy. To them, the November 2008 elections will produce no winners, just someone who gets more votes.

(IC is a bi-weekly contributor to 1% More Conscious. He blogs almost daily at his website Presidential Politics for America.)

Target Michelle

2008-02-19T03:15:00.000-08:00

Target Michelle

Here we go again: Apparently, all Republican & Mainstream Media Talking Heads received their Marching Points Memo yesterday on the ever elegant Michelle Obama. Yeah, I sort of figured this out when on Larry King last night right winger David Scum (Frum) made a BIG deal about Mrs. Obama's comment in which she asserted that this was the first time she was proud of her country.

This morning, on Morning Smoe, Joe Scarborough almost foamed at the mouth over the comment. Even when Mika Brzezinski tried to tame the Smoe and explain that there was much ado about nothing, Smoe practically went into apoplexy. Perhaps Smoe was auditioning for Best Actor-R in a morning show drama. Puhleeze!

What do we do with this information? Take it in--and get ready. It's quite obvious that an emerging "smear" strategy against Barack is gaining traction: Question patriotism, point out his and her disrespect to our country, call them...leftists, if not fun-loving Muslim sympathizers. This strategy will be all the more in play once he--and I suspect he will--secures the nomination and crazy--national security--Bomb, Bomb McCainy is the extreme patriot whom Obama will run against.

In an election when we Democrats invest in change, when we try to look forward to the future, post Bush, which this country so desperately needs, the Republicans, I'm afraid, won't change a thing, including how they target and smear their opposition.

Coming to a Classroom Near You: The Homework Debate Redux

2008-02-14T17:39:00.000-08:00

Coming to a Classroom Near You: The Homework Debate Redux

Oh, no—not again! Just when I was ready to crawl under a rock to protect myself from the stupidity of public education—I’m an educator by the way, the ever-hideous homework debate, courtesy of stupid-dome, crash lands yet again on the shores of reality. My protective rock is gone—and so is a bit of my sanity.

Those who make the case against homework claim that it doesn’t help. Rather, they allege that it detracts students from their families, from their extra-curricular activities, from their jobs, and, oh lord, from their social lives. Theorists posit that there’s no solid connection between homework and academic achievement, especially in grade school. Sure, the theorists may have a point with excessive homework at the elementary level; the little ones can only develop so fast after all. But they certainly could benefit from age-appropriate practice at home, so let’s not go crazy.

What is CRAZY is how some theorists extend their arguments to middle and high school students, who desperately need as much practice with skill development and content acquisition as possible. Certainly, any excessive and irrelevant homework assignments may turn students off, as the theorists suggest. But manageable amounts and relevant homework could certainly benefit students as they prepare for more complex learning that awaits them in college, in the work force, and in our ever-changing, advanced technological world.

Has anyone looked into how BADLY American high school students under-perform compared to students from other industrialized nations? Has anyone wondered why so many colleges and universities nowadays must offer prerequisite, developmental courses because so many “college age” students cannot test into the standard, beginning 101 courses? Has anyone considered the relationship involving the high failure rates of college freshmen, student preparedness and readiness, and the serious homework demands of an undergraduate education?

Approximately six months ago I decided to play guitar. I have weekly lessons with my guitar Sansei, who’s a great teacher and very patient soul. In order to get better, I obviously have to practice at home. It’s real simple: the more I practice at home, the better I get at guitar, and the better my lessons go. My point: my work at home matters and helps my learning.

So as I aspire to improve at guitar by doing my homework and by rocking out with my bad self, I just might be able to recover my metaphoric rock under which I must return to survive the insanity of the homework debate redux.

A Super Mess

2008-02-12T18:06:00.000-08:00

A Super Mess

While superdelegates to some may seem strange, they are, in fact, elected officials and party “insiders” who can vote independently in a primary season when it appears that the voters can’t make up their minds.

As talk show host Randi Rhodes discussed on her show today, the superdelegates are becoming--in many ways--a super mess for the Democratic party that has the planets aligned--as of this moment--to reclaim the White House in November. The question is, as Rhodes has so beautifully said: For the Democrats, will this mess create the “snatching of a defeat” from what seems to be the “jaws of victory?” In other words, are we Democrats doomed yet again?

What exactly is “messy,” though, remains in the details.

Take the state of Massachusetts, for example, a primary state where Senator Clinton decisively won. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a superdelegate, recently endorsed and campaigned for Senator Obama. But Senator Kerry’s state on super Tuesday did NOT give a win to Senator Obama. Should he be called to his superdelegate excellency, Senator Kerry will go against the will of his voters and pledge for Senator Obama, which does seem admittedly problematic. Obviously, what applies to Senator Kerry also applies to Senator Kennedy, who will most likely exert his super delegate power for Obama, the candidate he has quite publicly endorsed.

In California, Congresswoman Lynn Woosley has endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton. However, the congresswoman’s Marin and Somona counties DECISIVELY voted for Senator Obama. Like the good senators from Massachusetts, Congresswoman Woosley may also very well vote against the will of her constituents should she have to activate her superdelegate power.

Things are messy. But as we slouch toward the nomination, as we endure the twists and turns of the mainstream media narratives, as we Democrats hope that we can bridge the divides in our party, will we look upon this mess a year from now as something we simply cleaned or will our super mess allow for more messes that another Republican White House can’t help making?

Dowdworld Drama

2008-02-03T08:57:00.000-08:00

Dowdworld Drama

Get your pencils ready.

Recall the time you took the SAT? And those heinous bubbles?

Well, get over your standardized test-taking anxieties: it’s time to play.

Breathe. Namaste.

Let the force flow…

Ready….GO:

The reasons for the love-fest drama at the democratic debate on Thursday night:

A. Mother Superior Pelosi had after-mass, Sunday detentions.
B. Rev. Reid ruler-knuckled the bad girl—her frat-husband Bill—and the seldom misbehavin’ Barack.
C. Free-wheelin’ Uncle Howie brought it to these insubordinate candidates
D. Hill and Barry wanted to flip-off Mean Girl, always-startin’ drama Dowd for her latest high school-cafeteria antics in her most recent columns.
E. All of the above.

Albeit D is a tempting choice because in Dowdworld, the more drama troll Dowd starts, the more she can write about, I’m selecting E: All of the Above.

WHY the love-fest drama happened is one thing; WHAT the love-fest produced is quite another: speculation over whether or not Hillary and Barack would consider running on the same ticket.

Here’s the real drama that Dowd in her solipsistic, latter mid-life crisis-induced Dowdworld overlooks: Hillary DEFINITELY needs Barack on her ticket; he, in contrast, probably won’t need her.

Yes, should Hillary get the nod, many have said that she might turn to Latino Richardson, she might turn to military man Clark, she might turn to the ever photogenic, sexy white guy Evan Bayh. But after a collage of recent ill-advised blunders, after the “routing” in South Carolina, after losing so much of the base to Barack in the primaries, after Kennedy, Oprah, et al, Hillary, should she squeak by—and should she really want to win in November, would commit a colossal crime for NOT picking Barack.

Of course, for this fairy tale ticket to happen Senator Obama would have to agree. Therein lies another potential colossal problem: in order to attempt to bring his “voters” to her and in order to attempt a win in November, Obama would have to bypass the recent history of Clintonian assault and really rise above for the sake of the team and the party.

Barack, though, doesn’t have the same “ticket” drama should he get the nomination. Truth be told, he could easily leave Billary in the dust and simply move on with another running mate who would strengthen his ticket in ways that Billary cannot. Thus, one can’t help wonder whether or not Billary goes gentle into that good night, pushing beyond a catastrophic loss and, well, repudiation, to campaign for the sake of the party and for the sake of a win despite NOT BEING on the ticket.

These are the real dramas unfolding in the political meta-narrative that continue to take shape day in and day out; these are the stories that beg consideration, analysis, and less high school soap opera treatment that Dowdworld Drama emphasizes.

It's Over for the Republicans

2008-01-30T05:08:00.000-08:00

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 1/30/07

Well, Presidential Politics for America predicted last year, re-predicted before Iowa, reaffirmed it after South Carolina, and explained it a week ago today. So it was already over. But now it's reeeeeally over.

John McCain's Florida victory and ensuing endorsement from Rudy Giuliani, has relegated the rest of the Republican Primary to window dressing. While it can be expected that Mitt Romney is nowhere close to bowing out, for reasons to be explained soon, there is nothing left in the party that can stop the Straight Talk Express.

Let's take a look at the top 10 reasons McCain will win Super Tuesday and the nomination.

1. He has the lead in the delegate count, so he has horse race coverage going for him, not to mention the remaining undecided voters who want to support the eventual winner.
McCain - 93
Romney - 59
Huckabee - 40

2. He and Romney have each won three states to Huckabee's one, but one of Romney's was Wyoming.

3. McCain has won the last two states, South Carolina and Florida, to obtain all momentum.

4. Before those two states, many conservatives pointed to the fact that McCain was only doing well because of crossover appeal to open primaries. Both South Carolina and Florida were states where only registered Republicans could vote in the Republican Primary.

5. McCain is commonly regarded as the Republican with the best chance to win the general election, especially against Hillary Clinton. This cannot be underestimated, as the Republican Party is much better than their counterparts at casting aside differences in order to win elections.

6. The Rudy Giuliani endorsement consolidates almost total power among hawkish foreign policy voters. They are the same type of candidate, minimizing social issues important to the party in favor of prioritizing, you know, being alive to bicker about these social issues. This brings over the 10-15% of the country still leaning towards Giuliani. This also eases the decision for voters' undecided between the two.

7. Knocking out Giuliani and earning his endorsement sews up California (174 delegates) and New York (101), each are winner-take-all Super Tuesday states. Those two states will widen the lead to what will seem insurmountable.

8. Unlike Romney, Huckabee has left his gloves on when it comes to challenging McCain's recent spike in support. He's refused to significantly attack McCain on any issue, either in debates or ads. Instead, Huckabee has actually washed McCain in praise. It is a real possibility Huckabee is campaigning for the Vice-Presidency.

9. There might even be a wink and a nod between the two campaigns. As long as Huckabee stays in, he's siphoning votes away from Romney's social conservative base. As much as Giuliani dropping out helps McCain, Huckabee staying hurts Romney. If it was just down to McCain vs. Romney, it'd be a spectacular battle between the foreign policy conservatives and social moderates vs. the base of the Republican Party.

10. While the conservative media (Fox News, Limbaugh and co.) will do all they can to rally conservatives around Romney, the mainstream and liberal media will cover every McCain triumph and like doing it, because they've always been find of McCain.

Still, if there's any hope that this still goes to a brokered convention, it's that some time between now and Super Tuesday, conservatives will do their very best to rally around Mitt Romney. If they had any pause about supporting him because he was a Mormon or because he had a history of saying liberal things or because he was spending too much money and still losing, those will all go by the way side. Any social conservative supporting Huckabee, who now realizes not only does Huckabee have no chance to win, but he might even be on McCain's side in this, will go to Romney.

It will turn into a zero-sum contest between McCain and Romney, with the other candidates doing very little the rest of the way. McCain's national numbers will go into the 40's, Romney's into the 30's. Rush Limbaugh and conservative radio will rail against McCain for a week, bringing up McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman and the rest of McCain's maverick tendencies to remind the Republican Party why they did not nominate him in 2000. Romney will see a lot of conservative money for the next week with promises of more to come. He'll combine that cash with his own wealth and blitzkrieg the airwaves across the country in order to subdue McCain's vote tally on February 5th.

But none of that will work. John McCain is going to win the nomination. The party will rally around him after this is evident. Then they will sit and wait for the Democrats to find someone to go up against him.

See you next week. (Remember that I blog every weekday over at Presidential Politics for America.)

State of the Union

2008-01-28T15:50:00.002-08:00

I had planned on writing about the Kennedy clan's support of Obama, especially since it has come to light that Camp Clinton has tried to see that the Kennedys remain neutral in Decision '08. Also, I was going to compare how this endorsement was a pretty big turn of events since Bubba's first run at the seat in the White House.

However, something intervened. I came home and was surfing the 'net and came upon this YouTube music video by Sally Anthony called "So Long". Since George the Dumb's State of the Union is scheduled tonight, I thought this video appropriate and perhaps the networks should carry this instead so Americans realize exactly how important the 2008 presidential election is.

I caution you - there are some parts of the video that are not pretty, but neither is life.

Dividing & Diverting

2008-01-24T18:18:00.000-08:00

Dividing & Diverting

On this week’s edition of the mainstream media narrative, we find one of their more tried and true numbers: dividing and diverting. Last week, we had everybody and their grandmother going to confession; this time around, we have everyone dividing…and the mainstream media diverting us from the real news that matters most.

It began late last week. Extra! Extra!—everyone get diverted by it: “Barack did this MLK event here, while Hill had to save face and do her MLK event there.” “Hillary’s losing the black vote.” “Barack’s alienating whites.” “It’s all about race and gender.” “It’s all about Bill (we like u, but would you PUHLEEZE shut up!)” “Dems. are divided here; they are divided there; they are divided everywhere.”

Tensions grew more heated in Monday’s debate. Hillary and Barack were trying to channel their inner “Hit Me with Your Best Shot:” Barack showed Hillary that he was a “real tough cookie” by mentioning her time with Walmart; Hill put another “notch in her lipstick case” by claiming that Barack once represented a slum lord. So as Hill and Barry went into death-match mode with John Edwards as the only real victor, the mainstream media had set its story no sooner than the debate ended: the Dems. are d-i-v-i-d-e-d. And what’s worse, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns blindly followed in sync with one scud attack after another. The latest word is that yet another truce has been reached.

MEANWHILE, on the other side of the moon—they clearly don’t know what to do or whom to choose. Adrift with Huck Finn, Slick Mick, Nosferatu Giuliani and Rising McCain, the Republicans are far more divided than the Dems. And yet had the media focused on what the republican candidates didn’t do to commemorate MLK’s memory and/or to court minority voters, maybe we could’ve had a fair and balanced discussion on race. Had the media put more emphasis on the 935 lies the Bush administration told about Iraq rather than the half-truths and untruths of Billary and Barack, maybe we could’ve focused more on the war. Had the media greatly publicized the 720 million dollar a day cost of the Iraq war, maybe we could focus less on Hillary’s and Barack’s positions and more on Bush’s bad decisions. Had the media not put the dividing democrat narrative in the foreground, maybe more people wouldn’t have been diverted from the troubling news about the Gaza strip that stays in the background. Should the Democratic Party and its candidates become more focused on taking the White House, they will hopefully shift the focus from these inflated divisions in the party to the many divisions George W. Bush and his party have caused for the last seven years.

Coming to a Classroom Near You: Teacher Freelancing

2008-01-22T17:59:00.000-08:00

Coming to a Classroom Near You: Teacher Freelancing

Have you heard the story of the high school student who couldn’t tell you what s/he learned in a certain teacher’s class? What about the narrative involving parents who… “teacher shop” for the teacher who actually…teaches? Why is it that students infinitely benefit more from teacher X who teaches the same course as teacher Z? And what about those students who avoid a certain teacher because…on,no!..that teacher gives too much work?

If you have answers to any of the questions above, you’ve either witnessed, experienced, and/or read about teacher freelancing. What is teacher freelancing, you ask? Teacher freelancing is rampant in public schools, and it happens more often than you can imagine and far more frequently at the secondary level.

Teacher freelancing occurs when classroom teachers basically…do what they want. The heck with following the curriculum. The heck with standards. Never mind teaching skills and content. “Do they really need to know this?” “Is this book or that book…really that important?” “Homework doesn’t r-e-a-l-l-y matter.” “Honestly, it’s far more important to be the students’ ‘friends.’” “Because it’s more important to help them realize who they are.” “The heck with all that dated ‘traditional stuff.’” Alas, the classroom as therapy philosophy rules; how kids “feel” supersedes concerns of how and whether or not they've learned.

Believe me: this approach to teaching—or any variation thereof—has sadly come to dominate the teaching profession as of late. Instead of teaching skills and content, the many teachers who adopt this approach “freelance” as therapists, as older and supposedly wiser friends, as self-help gurus, as self-proclaimed rebels without a cause, as “Kurtz” characters who fancy themselves as demigods or…-goddesses over underlings who worship them.

Look, I’m not advocating for teachers to be robots, to be void of feeling and character, or to avoid making personal connections with kids. Teachers are professionals; we are hired to do our job—to deliver an adopted and approved curriculum, to teach skills and content, to treat students respectfully as individuals, to stay abreast of research and theory, and, above all else, to make sure that students learn. Teachers need not freelance; they just need to do their jobs.

Dolores Umbridge '08

2008-01-20T17:24:00.000-08:00

Dolores Umbridge '08

The reappearance of the ever dreadful, ever affected Peggy Noonan joining NBC networks as an analyst does seem like a sign of the apocalypse. Hey: The New York Times went under the bus for Sith Kristol, so NBC had to roll over dead for Smeggy Noonan. Where ARE David Brooks and Kate O’Beirne when you need them?

With all her posturing and fake sweetness, Noonan strangely resembles a real-life version of Harry Potter archconservative wizard, Dolores Umbridge. Ms. “read my lips” Noonan was a guest analyst last night on MSNBC’s coverage of the Nevada caucus. She then magically appeared this morning on “Meet the Press.”

Noonan is so sickening and scripted that she seems like a resentful reject from a high school drama production. Last night and today, she went on in histrionic fashion to reminisce about the Reagan revolution, to claim that the Republican Party is in search of “its soul,” and to warn that albeit she worked for Reagan, Bush I and Bush junior, she so dislikes the idea of presidential dynasties in American politics???? Peggy: are you trying to convince me or are you trying to convince yourself? Let’s not forget, the woman who made the case against Hillary Clinton (because she didn't hate Hillary; she only had "contempt" for her) can’t stand the idea of a Clinton restoration.

Look, I understand that these media outlets must have a fair representation of both liberal and conservative commentators. And I’m rejoicing in the fact that thankfully liberal Rachel Maddow is becoming a regular for MSNBC and conservative Matthew Dowd is cameo-ing on ABC—two, normal, intelligent, level-headed commentators. But why The New York Times signed a pact with a neoconservative Sith and NBC went to the ministry of magic to get Dolores Umbridge is beyond me.

America's Next Top Confessor

2008-01-19T13:20:00.000-08:00

America’s Next Top Confessor

Did Mother Superior Pelosi humble those democratic candidates into good behavior for Tuesday night’s debate? Did Reverend Reid tell them to play nice? And what about Tweety Matthews’ mea culpa monologue? Was it as sincere as it could’ve or should’ve been? Or does he need to spend more time on his “hail Hillaries” because he’s been such a dirty little boy?

This week’s mainstream media narrative should’ve been entitled “America’s Next Top Confessor.” Because I have a Ph.D courtesy of my Catholic upbringing—I do love my mom and her guilt tripping—and my Jesuit education in the metaphysics of guilt, let me break this story down for you.

It started late Monday evening, when the 24/7 mainstream media reported that Hillary and Barack made nice-nice: they called a truce. Hillary and her surrogates made some heinously “ill-advised” comments about MLK and Barack’s drug confessions, and the mainstream media hyper-inflated Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” description of Barack’s stances on Iraq to suggest that everyone in the Clinton camp and their grandmothers were full-blown racists. The consequences of confession continued into the debate on Tuesday night when everyone was really well-behaved, including Brother Tim Russert, whom you know hates Hillary more than Satan himself and those bad-breath nuns who silenced all us Catholic boys in grade school.

While Hill’s and Barry’s truce didn’t last too long—on Wednesday, they were at it again with all kinds of insults both subtle and not-so-subtle, Hillary did score yet another model confession with none other than the one, the only, the most fabulous…can I get a drum beat, puhleeze!: Ms. Tyra Banks. Appearing on Tyra’s show, Hill told T. that yeah, Bill embarrassed the heck out of her with that skanky Monica episode. With some prayer and more prayer and continued prayer coupled with introspection, Hill told T. how she got down with her bad self to tai-chi her anger, her resentment, and her pain. And Hill went on to confess that that’s the advice she gives scorned women everywhere: just be your self. OKaaaaaaay. Like it or not, though, Hill is unequivocally the runner-up in becoming….America’s Next Top Confessor.

But the winner of America’s Next Top Confessor—thanks to David Brock’s awesome work at Media Matters, is Tweety Matthew’s confession (sort of) of being sexist in his coverage of Hillary Clinton and female politicians in general. For years now, Tweety has been utterly unfair and un-balanced in his treatment of Hillary Clinton. Thankfully, on Thursday he confessed to it—well, maybe he was told to do so or else. Call me a cynic: I don’t believe Tweety’s “I’m sorry” for a minute. We Catholic boyz know when one of our own—like him or not—is being sincere or just succumbing to Catholic guilt in its most torturous form. Everyone knows that when interrogation includes torture, the victim simply confesses to stop the pain. So it does seem that ol’ Chris may still want to go to real confession to think about how he sickly worships Father McCain and Dark Priest Giuliani.

Perhaps on the next season of the mainstream media’s America’s Next Top Confessor we will witness the episodic confessions of the Iraq War, and the American lives lost, for which NO ONE seems to take responsibility.

Presidential Power Rankings (Part 2)

2008-01-16T07:27:00.000-08:00

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 1/16/07

First, feel free to quench your thirst for presidential politics over at my blog, Presidential Politics for America. Over there today I'm breaking down last night's Michigan results and there will be many more things to talk about leading up to Nevada and South Carolina, including an impending Republican brokered convention, Clinton and Obama on the same ticket (specifically how it's not going to happen), Edwards potential to choose the Democratic nominee, and much more.

Now, on to the conclusion of the Presidential Power Rankings, which began last Friday. Remember, these are the rankings for most likely to be the next President.

3. Hillary Clinton - I really don't like her chances in a general election, but she's got a 50/50 shot at being a nominee, and only one other person of either party can say that. If she somehow lucks into a contest against Huckabee or Romney, she should win the election when VP nominee Richardson brings over New Mexico and Florida and the rest of the electoral map stays the same.

In the Democratic nomination process, the Obama-Clinton duel is the definition of a toss up. Clinton currently holds solid leads in national polls, but it'll be a close race in Nevada this Saturday, which gives Obama more credibility. Then Obama will win South Carolina to further dig into Clinton's national lead which Senator Obama has been softening since the end of December.

When it comes time for Super Tuesday, Obama will have a small lead in the delegate count. The national polls will then be about as reliable the infamous New Hampshire polls, meaning either one has a legit shot at coming out on top, and in the unlikely event that one of them dominates (note: this domination could only be from Clinton and her strength in NY, NJ, and California), the race is alive at least until March 4th.

2. John McCain - Last night's Michigan loss was disappointing, but by no means backbreaking. Simply, a Michigan win would have put McCain in position for a South Carolina win. Those two wins would have resulted in a runaway McCain nomination. All the second place finish means is that McCain's road to victory becomes a bit more difficult. South Carolina is a three-way race with Huckabee and Romney. The winner of that will be the leader heading into Super Tuesday, but as long as McCain doesn't finish at a distant third, he will remain the favorite.

Ultimately, McCain is the candidate that the Republican Party can rally around easiest. For eight years, he's been the third most visible face of the party, after President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. He's been at the front of a war that is still popular with Fox News and the party. He led a troop surge which has quelled violence. He has a record that is more conservative than many think, though isolated maverick forays like McCain-Feingold have always been a trademark considered undesirable in the Republican Party.

In a general election, John McCain is the favorite over Hillary Clinton. With Republicans coming out in full force to vote against Clinton, the Democratic ire of the last five years will be negated and they'll break even with voters registered with one of the two parties. Then it becomes a battle for the center, and Independents love McCain, while Clinton's unfavorables among non-Democrats are notorious. With John Edwards' non-viability, there's only one candidate from the Democratic Party that can compete against McCain in a general election.

1. Barack Obama - The 2008 general election will be won in the middle, in between the trenches. No candidate since Clinton appeals to the moderates of this country like Barack Obama does now. His continuing rhetoric about making America whole again appeals to every Independent and moderate who could not bring themselves to join the bitter partisanship that has developed in this country since the 1994 Republican revolution. Obama has untapped potential to attract moderate and young voters, meaning he could defeat almost any Republican that the GOP nominates.

Almost.

Only two things stand in the way of Senator Obama getting the chance to transform the nation from the Oval Office: the two people above him on this list. Enough has been written about the Clinton-Obama duel. What could shape up to be a very interesting general election is Obama vs. McCain. It's hope vs. reality. Rhetoric vs. straight talk. Liberal vs. conservative. Domestic agenda vs. foreign policy. It's the yin vs. yang of America, and you couldn't pick two better candidates to represent the balance and articulate their side. Moreover, they are the two candidates that most appeal to the center. The two candidates have the integrity to only speak to the issues and have a great debate about the direction this country needs to go.

There's a lot to look forward to and a lot still left to analyze, but no matter the results, we're in for a treat.

The Dark Memories They Carry

2008-01-14T02:58:00.000-08:00

The Dark Memories They Carry

Transfixed by the ’08 election news mainstream media frame (myself included), we need to keep in mind that there is other news to report.

Yesterday, The New York Times published a feature, “Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles,” that should be required reading for every American. This stunning report details the horrors our brave service men and women must endure after tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. The feature focuses on the fact that “at least 121 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after returning home from war.” However, Deborah Sontag and Lizette Alvarez, who authored the piece, go into greater depth about “combat trauma,” “survivors guilt,” “PTSD,” and the history of veterans returning home who carry with them the horrors they have seen.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the report reveals that although we know more about PTSD and how it affects our veterans, there STILL seems to be a huge problem with diagnosing and evaluating this disorder BEFORE something horrible happens. In fact, sadly enough, diagnoses and evaluations often come after the fact: after a suicide, after a homicide, after another internal war that the brave veteran must experience and may possibly lose.

Addendum: Check this out at The Huffington Post.

Talking about the Divide

2008-01-13T05:17:00.000-08:00

Talking about the Divide

Cheers to The Day’s Chuck Potter, who, in his column yesterday, confronted a reader that questioned why Potter, an African-American, frequently—not always—addresses race.

I’m always dumbfounded why white folks think IT’S not o.k. for African-Americans to talk about race. I’m equally dumbfounded why some whites think IT’S not o.k. for African-Americans to examine race in a way that might perhaps implicate others who aren’t as 1% more conscious as they could be in terms of how racism may affect their very lives. White folks that transparently cloak their own racism by generally characterizing an African-American who talks about racial conflict as a racist him- or herself are only fooling themselves. Isn’t the role of the “overseer”—even of dialogue—a ghost of America’s past?

Hopefully, many of us have learned from the liberation movements, which gained more traction in the ‘60s, that silence = death. We will never move forward as a civilization if we don’t confront—in one way or another—the “isms” and “phobias” that plague us as a people and that plague our democracy. Talking about these “things” is very important. Talking about these “things” is one of many ways to reach across the divide.

Presidential Power Rankings

2008-01-11T07:05:00.000-08:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 1/11/07

It's been three weeks since my last post on here, but for good reason. Over at my site, Presidential Politics for America, I've made a weekday post everyday since December 3rd, which, coupled with my job, has kept me too busy to guest write on this fantastic blog.

Therefore, upon my return today, there's a lot of catching up to do. I will thus address every candidate in the most eye-pleasing way - list form! Here are the Power Rankings for the race to the White House, ranking each remaining candidate in likelihood of being our next President, beginning with the least likely.

T8 - Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter - One chance in a thousand... combined.

7. John Edwards - If he won Iowa, he'd be in this list's top 3, and if nominated, Edwards would actually have the greatest chance of any potential nominee of winning the general election. However, he neither won Iowa nor does he have a realistic shot at the nomination. Therefore, the reason less attractive general election candidates like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are ahead of him on this list is that at least they have a path to their party's nomination.

6. Mitt Romney - Although incredibly unlikely, it's easy to see how Romney can make a run at the Republican nomination, you just have to look really, really hard. Michigan votes this Tuesday and unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are still awarding the state delegates despite its controversial move into January. Born in Michigan and polling near the top in Michigan polls, it's not out of the question that Romney's last financial push will win the state, thus reviving his campaign and influx of contributors. If he does in fact win Michigan this Tuesday, he'll be up in the delegate count, and would be working off two firsts (Michigan, Wyoming) and two seconds (Iowa, New Hampshire). Then he's a South Carolina victory away from being the frontrunner. So what's the problem with this feasible scenario? He needs to win both.

5. Mike Huckabee - Huckabee has an easier path to the nomination than Romney. Michigan, like New Hampshire, is top three territory for Huckabee. He needed to Iowa, which he did, and he needs to win South Carolina. In between, "as-expecteds" will work just fine, and he's right on pace with his strategy. He can't be ranked as highly as Giuliani for a couple reasons. First, with a problem that Giuliani actually shares - there's a significant portion of the Republican Party that does not want Huckabee nominated. In fact, his potential nomination has driven many Reagan alum to support McCain before it's too late.

His second shortcoming for this Power Ranking is that, despite haveing as good of a chance as Giuliani to win the nomination, his chances in the general election are decidedly lower. His appeal to social conservatives is what is pushing him in this race, but his background as a Baptist minister will make Democrats nervous and give Independents enough unease that they'll opt for a new party in the White House.

4. Rudy Giuliani - Remember him? Remember he was leading all national polls by double digits? Now, while technically competitive within a few points nationally (of Huckabee and McCain) Giuliani is locked in slowly degrading polling numbers. The man is clinging to relevance and viability, but make no mistake, he is still relevant and viable. If he can hold national poll numbers around 20% by Super Tuesday, he will be thrust into the lead thanks to California, New York, and New Jersey, and then use that enormous bounce to push to the other primaries. However, if he continues to fall with each early primary, putting him in low double digits by February 5th, the leading Republican candidate at the time should catch him in those big states and end the Giuliani campaign.

If Giuliani were to win the nomination, he is a viable force in a general election. His moderation on social issues, which, to his credit, he never strayed too far from in his quest for the nomination, makes him palatable to anyone who doesn't want to support the Democratic nominee (a determining factor if the Democrats nominate Clinton). There's a large bloc of voters who want them kept safe and think Giuliani's the guy to do it. After that, social issues are secondary. This has always been Giuliani's greatest apparent strength as a candidate and it has the potential to get him to November.

Check back for my normal Wednesday post to see the top 3. They won't be impacted regardless of the results of Tuesday's Michigan Primary. And don't forget to keep up with the more frequent postings at Presidential Politics for America.

Coffee, Wine and Dems.

2008-01-10T18:54:00.000-08:00

Mainstream Media Patrol: Coffee, Wine, and Dems.

Oh no! Not again! One of the most annoying MSM narratives from the ’04 election was the myth that read something like this: the reason Democrats, including John Kerry, lose elections has to do with their choice of coffee—Starbucks—and their choice of wine: white—Chablis or Chardonnay. In other words, Dems. are educated snobs, elitists, Volvo-driving L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S—or at least that’s what the MSM would like to emphasize in its framing of things.

In a week when McCain and Clinton resurrect from the dead, in a week when Mean Girl Dowd unearthed her disdain for a first lady who kept her man, the Mainstream Media excavated what? Election 2004 narrative flashback: Coffee, Wine, and Dems. And I thought this was an election about ch-ch-ch-changes.

As the other ’08 MSM narrative threads seem to diminish, I’ve smelled something familiar this way come from the pundit class. They’ve rolled out a twice told tale, and here’s how they are re-packaging it: Obama has the college crowd, the elites, the Starbucks drinkers, the snobs; and conversely—yeah, whatever, Hillary has the uneducated, the poor, working class, the Maxwell House drinkers—I suppose, the common folks. Even dark angel Karl Rove described Hillary’s win in New Hampshire in terms of how she captured “beer drinkers.”

Sure, data from exit polling reveals how candidates perform in certain demographics. Campaigns use this information to strategize accordingly. Nonetheless, it’s fascinating how the MSM frames and labels Democratic blocks of voters in such drastic, polarizing terms: “Starbucks drinkers,” “White wine snobs,” “cafeteria Catholics,” “Volvo drivers,” “elitists,” etc. Whereas the MSM framing of Republican voters—“evangelicals,” “values voters,” “suburban, strip mall folks,” “church-going”—seems far less drastic.

We all know people who drink Starbucks and who prefer white wine—hopefully, not Chablis. Some people who fall into these categories may be Democrats; some may not. At a time when the themes of change and unity dominate the political stories in the mainstream media, it’s unfortunate to see an old, manufactured myth re-awaken from the dead.

It's Kristol Clear

2008-01-07T17:22:00.000-08:00

It’s Kristol Clear

Just when I was ready to build a bridge; just when I imagined that the days of partisan politics might be over—indulge me for a minute!; just when I wanted to pat myself on the back for not foaming at the mouth over a new columnist at The New York Times, Neocon Sith Lord Bill Kristol f*cking shatters all hope.

Lord Billy made his debut today. Beginning his column by thanking Senator Barack Obama for preventing the possibility of another Clinton presidency, Billy Boy then goes on to insult the good Senator from Illinois: Kristol criticizes Barack for being a “liberal” Democrat—as opposed, I suppose, to a Judas Joe Lieberman Democrat—whom the Neocons fancy; Sith Bill says that Obama will “increase the scope of Nanny state”; and then Bill Pistol implies that Obama will not appoint the likes of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court—Thank the Jedi Yoda, for the force’s sake.

Wait, it gets better: Sith Bill then invokes…Troll Michelle Malkin—who oddly resembles a glammed-up ewok from time to time—for expert testimony in Kristol’s overall argument: to make the case for conservative Mike Huckabee as the GOP candidate who could beat Barack Obama should there be an ’08 election of change.

It’s Kristol clear that The New York Times, with William Safire long retired from the column page and David Brooks as the lone conservative remaining, wanted more balance. It’s just unclear why out of all the conservative intellectuals out there—and there are many, many respectable ones, they would disturb the force by making Sith Kristol a regular.

Mainstream Media Patrol & '08

2008-01-05T14:09:00.000-08:00

This is a fascinating diary at MyDD. Check it out.

Hating Hill, Resurrecting McCain, and Jumping on the Change Engine

2008-01-03T17:10:00.000-08:00

Mainstream Media Patrol: Hating Hill, Resurrecting McCain, and Jumping on the Change Engine

OK—it’s caucus night and things are still “unpredictable,” according to the mainstream media polling whores. On the Republican side, it seems like porn-star named Mitt Romney will battle with “I’m Evangelical, vote-for-me” Huckabee—what a scab! On the Democratic side, it seems like Obama and Edwards are surging and Hill is sliding. What will the outcome be? Who REALLY knows?

WHAT WE do know is that the mainstream media has made the Iowa Caucus the foreground of its frame and thus luxuriates in spinning a meta-narrative that consists of “smaller” narratives taking shape.

Here are some to watch for:

*HATING HILL: It’s obvious that there is a growing, contagious deep-seated dislike of Hillary Clinton among the talking heads; just watch MSNBC’s Tweety Matthews' relentless male castration fear disorder for two minutes. But the contagion is not just limited to mainstream media boyz, as Mean Girl Mo Dowd recently admitted that the Clinton family drama “pulled her back in,” in a Michael Corleone, sort of way. Hey, MO: did you ever leave?

*RESURRECTING McCAIN: There’s yet ANOTHER “love song” for John McCain, whom, I kid YOU NOT, Howard Fineman and his boyz are conveniently grouping with Obama, Huckabee, and Edwards as “buzz” creators; surprise, surprise this week’s guest on Meet the Press: John McCain.

*JUMPING ON THE CHANGE ENGINE: After YEARS of indulging in Bush and Company—including beating war drums and producing fake news here and there and no WMD anywhere, now many of the MSNBCers and CNNers are jumping on the change engine: “we need to change,” “we want change,” and “we ARE change.” "Heartache to heartache, we stand": You can almost hear the catchy lyrics to Benatar’s “Love is a Battlefield.” PLEEZE. And thus, the mainstream media’s latest “change” crush is Barack Obama, whom I DO LIKE—don’t get me wrong. But I just get grossed out with all of Tweety's pining for Obama. Don't you?

What does this all mean? I really don’t know, but with the mainstream media and its meta-narrative spinning all over the place, politics is more than a battlefield, it’s a war.

W T F ! 2007: A Review

2007-12-31T16:53:00.000-08:00

As we bid adieu to 2007 tonight, let’s take a look back at the things we should not repeat. Here are the W T F’s of 2007, in no particular order:

1.The Publication of I Did It: This year, Ron Goldman’s family won the rights to the book called If I Did It that O.J. Simpson wrote about if he had “hypothetically” killed Ron and Simpson’s ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. The Goldman family, still owed money from the civil trial (the Brown family also is owed money from this trial), was awarded the manuscript by a Florida bankruptcy court. After changing the title, the Goldman family and Beaufort Books released the book this past September.

Whether you believe Simpson did it or not, The Goldmans should take a page out of the Browns playbook – let it go. Yes, you are in pain. Yes, the court awarded you monetary damages. But seriously, is publishing this book going to bring back your son? What about Nicole’s children that already have to live with the facts of the murder of their mother and all of the previous published and aired news pieces on the matter? Is the money you made from the book worth it?

Still the only class act in this debacle is the Brown family, putting the kids first and trying to heal their inconceivable loss. Let’s hope there will not be any more W T F’s in this matter.

2.The Natalee Holloway Debacle: In the summer of 2005, I sat horrified in a foreign country as the media reported how this young woman on a high school graduation trip with 124 of her classmates and at least 8 chaperones in Aruba.

Again this year, the three original suspects, Joran van der Sloot and Satish and Deepak Kalpoe, were re-arrested and then released. The prosecutor said that the case would be closed without charges being brought against anyone.

We have problems in our legal system, no doubt. But, how can people not find even one viable lead or witness on a 20-mile by 5-mile island? I know we have unsolved cases here but, Aruba is only slightly larger that the borough of Manhattan and has 1.4 million less people. Sigh… it is frustrating to me as a parent and a BIG W T F.

3. Reality Shows – don’t make me laugh: Before some of attack me here me out. I don’t mean things such a Dancing with the Stars, Top Chef, Project Runway, etc. These shows are interesting as people are competing doing some task that many of us wish we could do as well as those competing.

I am talking about things that highlight the idiocy of our species – WifeSwap, The Bachelor, Big Brother, and anything on MTV. Do we really need to see how people are worse off than ourselves to give us a self-esteem boost? If you need the boost, tune into any entertainment show and get the latest on the Britney slow boat to emotional meltdown. In this day and age, do we need to see women so desperate for love and marriage they get on a TV show to throw themselves at some guy to take care of them. What happened to “I Am Woman”? Can we start a petition or a movement to get these things off the air… please? W T F!

4. Media in general – When did MSNBC, CNN, etc. start carrying such in depth coverage of celeb-u-tards? Look, I freely admit that I keep up with those things (to keep up with my students), but I go to specific outlets for those tidbits. I watch CNN to get world news, weather, etc. The fact that some debu-tard got out of a limo without panties should never run before the news of an impending snow day. W T F - everything has its proper place.

5. Holiday shopping- Look, I feel for people that are single parents, de facto single parents, or just busy parents. I am one and have been for years. I can feel your pain of trying to spread the holiday cheer with your kids in tow. However, please remember, your kids are people too and have limits. Never bring a toddler on a 6+ hour shopping trip with less than 2 weeks to Christmas and expect that the child won’t utter a peep. All the commotion that now surrounds the holidays is enough to make a grown-up who understands what is going on cry. Help yourself and the economy (a 2 for 1 deal), hire a babysitter, bribe a friend, threaten a family member and leave your cherub(s) home. You may find that everyone will be more in the holiday spirit for doing so... and you won't be screaming W T F in front of your impressionable children.

Here is wishing that we learn from our mistakes and grown form it in the New Year. Wishing all a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2008!

Joe & Where We Live

2007-12-28T11:32:00.000-08:00

Joe & Where We Live

Did anyone in CT catch Judas Joe on NPR’s Where We Live this morning, doing his “Islamist Terrorism” thing?

Yeah, in commenting on Benazir Bhutto’s tragic death, tragic Joe couldn’t resist spewing his “Islamist terrorism,” I-told-you-so rhetoric. After all, the show's feature wasn’t about the unfortunate passing of a world leader; it was about “me and my world view,” sayeth Judas Joe.

Thankfully, there was a round-table guest who did point out the OBVIOUS problem with Joe’s rhetoric: focusing on terrorism in general rather than seemingly assigning it to one particular group or religion is more beneficial in the long run. But, alas, Judas Joe is soooooo independent minded.

The Men's Room

2007-12-27T15:30:00.000-08:00

The Men’s Room

Another blog about Larry Craig? You wish.

It seems, though, that most of the mainstream media got stuck in the men’s room during their coverage of Craig’s indecent behavior and haven’t gotten out. Considering the media’s treatment of Senator Clinton’s bid for the Whitehouse, being stuck in the men’s room certainly seems to be the case. And while public restrooms can be sites of relief and satisfaction—perhaps on both literal and figurative levels, could we PLEASE at least move out of the stalls, wash our hands, and take a look at ourselves in the mirrors?

To say that the coverage of Clinton doesn’t smack of sexism is to say that racism no longer exists in America. We all know that both racism and sexism are alive and well and, much unfortunately, as American as apple pie. And whether we are supporting Hillary Clinton or not—I’m still undecided; there’s unquestionably a sexist undercurrent to the coverage of her campaign, her cleavage, her laugh, her “shrillness,” and her dress. Sorry—perhaps if John’s hair got more attention; Mitt’s make-up and sexy smile got even more attention; and pundits speculated—ad infinitum—whether or not Obama without a tie had to do with a strategy to appeal to female voters, I wouldn’t feel the need to raid the men’s room.

Leading the brigade is none other than Chris Matthews, who, night after night after night, morning after morning after morning (when he cameos on Today or Morning Smoe), seethes with hatred of Hillary. He repeatedly calls her shrill; he has—I kid you not—made issue of her laugh…and her cleavage; and he seems to book anyone on his show that would indulge him in his male castration fear disorder.

In fact, Matthews’ recent push for Obama seems to originate more from his hatred of Hillary than from a genuine appreciation of Obama. The same can be said for none other than Andrew Sullivan, who wrote an entire treatise for The Atlantic Monthly on why Obama can Kum Ba Ya and bring the country together—yeah, right. Again, much like Matthews, Sullivan also seems to anchor his argument more in his distaste for Hillary rather than in his alleged appreciation for Obama.

Matthews and Sullivan are just a few examples; the least said about the rest of the boys and their current fixation on Hillary's wrinkles, the better.

There’s no question that Hillary has glaring flaws and an electability issue, which the ever astute IC at Presidential Politics has examined in great detail. If we all are on the same page with equal opportunity, though, Hillary should get the same media treatment as everyone else, which brings me to my point: let’s focus less on the cleavage, the wrinkles, the laugh, the tongue-and-cheek comments about evil men, the wardrobe, the shrill tone, etc. Hillary Clinton may or may not be the best choice as the Democratic nominee for ‘08 but let’s allow the caucus goers to decide, not the mainstream media—from the men’s room.

Yuletide Debris

2007-12-22T05:18:00.000-08:00

Yuletide Debris

There is a sort of unidentified gravitational pull that gains strength this time during the year. Energized by the spirit of Christmas past, this black-hole force almost resembles the Sedona Vortex, which seems to have oddly enough re-located itself in our collective consciousness.

An unexpected Christmas card here; a strange e-mail here, or there at work, or yikes, there on your blackberry; a gift perhaps; a message from a friend…of your mother’s or–strangely—of your aunt’s; the worst—a telephone call—or even worse—a surprise appearance at the party you always attend.

Yes, folks, I’m talking about the Yuletide Debris, the uncanny re-emergence of former beaus, lovers, friends, and, well, f-buddies of the past that paralyze us all in our attempts to make old acquaintances be forgotten—and f**king dead.

I thought it was just me; like the Christmas cards that come in the mail, somehow, with karmic timing, I inevitably get an update about an ex and/or I get unexpectedly slimed by a former friend who WON’T GO AWAY. The most recent example manifested itself in a holiday greeting in which the perpetrator in question suggested that one of my children was fat. I kid you not. Hence, this person IS not a friend and thus I must make sure my virtual electric fence is on HIGH to brace myself against the shock waves of Yuletide debris.

Even the great IC of Presidential Politics, I’m told, had to deal with some trash coming out of his bag; Femme Fatale reports that a former ex has attempted to do her interpretation of Dickens’ ghost of IC’s Christmas trash. Poor IC; whatever will we do should he get really slimed during this intense caucus season?

So the questions are: What do we do with Yuletide Debris? How do we avoid the awful practice of taking it in—which I have foolishly done before—to re-gift for another episode of more of the same? What are your strategies to deflect the shock waves, the cries from the past, the yearning to reach out across the great divides of time, space, and conflict? Do you fight back like a Jedi Knight who understands the flow of the force, or do you succumb like a cowardly muggle?

I say the heck with the mistletoe—get out the garlic, the holy water, the strange little lady from Poltergeist to keep YOUR Yuletide debris back on the curb where IT BELONGS.

One Sentence on Each Republican Candidate

2007-12-19T04:58:00.000-08:00

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 12/19/07

Here is one sentence on each Republican candidate that should get you up to speed if your temporary residence this month has been next door to a megadrile.

Rudy Giuliani - He's giving up on all of the early states to concentrate on Florida, which would set up Super Tuesday, reminding us of an adage regarding eggs and a solitary basket.

Mike Huckabee - Contrarily to Giuliani, Huckabee is putting nearly all his efforts into the early primaries, counting on the momentum to roll over into Florida and Super Tuesday, reminding us of an old adage about a hare.

Duncan Hunter - Hunter reminds us of a tortoise, the reason for which has nothing to do with an old adage.

John McCain - McCain has temporarily taken the headline wars from Huckabee, earning numerous newspaper significant endorsements as well as one from party-crossing Joe Lieberman, which should excite independents who can vote in the Republican primary.

Ron Paul - He picks up about a point every month, which means if this election is held in 2047... he has a shot.

Mitt Romney - Romney's starting to throw some jabs at Huckabee, but if Romney doesn't make up ground by the end of the week, expect to see some right hooks starting on December 26th, Boxer Day. (Even I was taken aback at my cleverness there.)

Tom Tancredo - Speaking of Romney, if he doesn't win Iowa, he can still win New Hampshire, which keeps him alive to fight until Super Tuesday.

Fred Thompson - Wouldn't making Die Hard 5 be more fun?

(Note: I'm writing a post every workday over at Presidential Politics for America.)

Off the Wagon

2007-12-17T17:20:00.000-08:00

Off the Wagon

My name is sptmck, a part-time blogger, and I AM “off the wagon.” After spending months of de-toxing and painfully abstaining from “going negative” on Judas Joe, formerly Captain Lieberman, formerly Oedipus Lieberman, formerly Joe Lieberman, Democrat from CT, I thought for sure that I twelve-stepped my way to a new found serenity. Unfortunately for me, and many CT Bloggers, God neither granted me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change nor the wisdom to know the difference.

It’s official: Judas Joe is back and more heinous than ever. Talk about a “double-birdie” to us Ned Lamont supporters, and, more surprisingly, to the Democratic Establishment that should’ve seen shameless Joe for what he was before they granted him those committee assignments. Media-blitzing on his endorsement of Senator John McCain, Captain LIEberman just did a spot earlier tonight on Furball in which he stated to Chris Matthews—brace yourselves—that in his heart he IS a TRUE Democrat and that because Senator McCain ASKED HIM for his support, he said…yes. “Vengeance is mine,” sayeth Judas Joe.

Things are getting interesting in Presidential Politics, aren’t they? One can’t help ponder how Judas Joe’s latest move affects Billaryworld. Remember, it was ol’ Billy who came to CT in the summer of’06 to stump for then-known Oedipus Lieberman. Remember, it was Hillary to whom Oedipus appealed to get Billy out there to do his thing. And remember it was Hillary who remained on the quiet side when it came to her support of Ned Lamont. Much more can’t be said about Barack who, in the summer/fall ’06, during his book tour, slided around CT to AVOID a public appearance with Lamont, Oedipus’s nemesis at the time.

Maybe we should revisit John Edwards’ analysis of Washington insiders and how their actions have consequences. Maybe Mr. Edwards, who proudly supported Ned Lamont and true change, can offer a viable, sobering alternative to establishment politicians and the betraying bedfellows they keep.

Dirt

2007-12-16T07:31:00.000-08:00

Dirt

As we sort the dirty items in the Democratic laundry bin this week, we suddenly learn that there’s far more to consider than meets the eye. Sure, there might be some mud here and grease marks there, but there’s a whole lot of other dirt that gets missed at first glance.

Let’s not forget, folks, that our last President, ol’ Billy Boy, went up (or down, if you prefer) in flames due to a “genetically-stained” dress. That episode alone, and not an illegally prosecuted war, almost cost him his presidency. An even scarier truth that many Democrats want to avoid: the Republicans know that Americans love dirt and are thus far better at sorting, managing, and dry-cleaning their “dirty laundry” than Democrats will ever be. Whether it’s Mudslinging, Willie Horton-i-n-g, or Swiftboating, team Red knows how to smear and scare voters into a false sense of pandemic Obssessive-Compulsive-Disorder that yields them votes and wins.

Take this week, for example. I’m stunned by the ineptitude of the Clinton campaign’s utter transparency in bulldozing dirt—and snow-plowing some “trim”—into the Obama laundry basket. Geeze, this campaign of “tested experience” makes a high-school rumor mill look like a well-oiled, sophisticated organization; hey, if Team Clinton is reading this blog, I could recommend a student or two to help you all out for a bargain price. That Mark Penn and folks didn’t or couldn’t anticipate that the idiots in the mainstream media wouldn’t sniff that one out spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E. Whatever will they do should they get to the general election with cross-dressing, flip-flopping, out-right lying and adulterating, DIRTY Rudey, who’s managed to make most of America BELIEVE he’s America’s clean, stain-tested mayor?

What’s even more troubling is how many people are NOW downplaying and dismissing dirty politics. This laundry list includes key Democrats and the many idiots in the Mainstream Media, who remained paralyzed during the Donna Ricing of Gary Hart, who allowed Bill Clinton to be “genetically” impeached, who permitted war hero Kerry to be swiftboated, and who resigned Dan Rather to reap the benefits of the AARP sooner than expected. You folks doth protest too much, methinks.

The fact is that ALL is FEAR in love, politics, and war, and, like it or not, there’s a kernel of truth in what the Clinton campaign hideously fumbled this week: the Republicans will NO DOUBT go after Barack or any Democratic candidate for past, present, and potentially future indiscretions. Unless the Democratic Party takes a crash course from a Republican strategist or two or from the industrial strength approach of Servicemaster to manage dirt, then we will once again have great difficulty achieving a clean win in November.

Iowa Updates

2007-12-12T08:00:00.000-08:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 12/12/07

(Note, over at Presidential Politics for America, I am doing daily updates regarding the upcoming Iowa Caucus)

Here are the two major Iowa polls released this past weekend. This clearly frames the upcoming week into two main stories.
1) Huckabee vs. Romney in an elimination caucus.
2) Clinton vs. Obama, with Iowa as a microcosm.

Republicans
From Mason-Dixon (December 3-6):
Huckabee - 32
Romney - 20
Thompson - 11
McCain - 7
Giuliani - 5 (!!!)*
Undecided - 19

From Newsweek (December 5-6):
Huckabee - 39
Romney - 17
Thompson - 10
Giuliani - 9
Paul - 8
McCain - 6
Undecided - 8

Analysis on Republican polls: Both Romney and Huckabee, as well as the rest of the Republican Party, surely know this - unless Rudy Giuliani completely falls apart in national polling, there is only room for one candidate to be strong enough heading into Super Tuesday to compete on a national scale. Romney and Huckabee also know that both of their hopes rest on Iowa. A second place finish for either one is unacceptable and is a prelude to a death knell in New Hampshire.

Romney needs a victory there because he has outspent the rest of the field combined in Iowa, and to still lose despite the money advantage would be a huge hit to his credibility in the subsequent primaries. Huckabee needs a victory because his recent appeal across the country has been directly related to his surge in Iowa. If he loses Iowa, it would presumably be because Iowa voters became disillusioned with him, and if a guy like Huckabee can't win a state like Iowa, then he is not going to win a country like the United States.

*An explanation of my exclamations. Giuliani is now consistently polling single digits in Iowa, placing fourth and fifth in most polls, and going in the wrong direction to boot. The cause of this, aside from him never having a good shot to win the state anyway, is that he has pulled money, staff, and other resources away from Iowa to deploy them in states (New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina) where they would be more useful. Be prepared to hear from the Giuliani campaign that they put very little effort into Iowa, which would serve as the explanation as to why the Giuliani message did not resonate with Iowan voters.

Democrats
From Mason-Dixon (Dec. 3-6):
Clinton - 27
Obama - 25
Edwards - 21
Richardson - 9
Biden - 5
Undecided - 11

From Newsweek (Dec. 5-6):
Obama - 35
Clinton - 29
Edwards - 18
Richardson - 9
Biden - 4
Undecided - 5

Analysis on Democrat polls: Examining the most recent results of the last seven major Iowa polls (Newsweek, Mason-Dixon, Strategic Vision, Zogby, American Research Group, Des Moines Register, Rasmussen) taken in the last two weeks, Obama leads four of them, and Clinton leads three of them. If you average the results of those seven polls, Obama leads by a miniscule 1.6 percentage points, practically meaningless in the world of polling data.

What makes this tightness all the more interesting is that these are becoming two decidedly different types of candidates. Not only do they clearly identify themselves as the candidate of change (Obama) and the candidate with experience (Clinton), but in the past few weeks, they have attacked the other for basically what their opponent is touting about themselves. Obama chides Clinton as partaking in politics as usual (experience), and months ago he famously referred to her as "Bush-Cheney light." Meanwhile, Clinton consistently blasts Obama as being drastically under-experienced (change) to be the President of the United States.

These two platforms are so strikingly different, yet in Iowa, the two candidates are fascinatingly tied in polling. Though Clinton still holds double digit leads nationally, losing to Obama in Iowa when they both are putting so much effort into the state would undoubtedly help Obama and hurt Clinton in votes, momentum, money, legitimacy, and undoubtedly other categories. Of course, it would not ruin her campaign, but in a primary that is shaping up to be the closest in a generation, even a slim Iowa loss would sting a lot more than Clinton would ever let on.

(And don't forget about John Edwards.)

The Iowa Caucus "Second Choice" Wrinkle

2007-12-05T04:23:00.000-08:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 12/5/07

The recent Des Moines poll still has political America in a tizzy. Obama's roaring, Hillary's vulnerable, and Edwards is fading. Thus spake the masses.

What if I were to tell you that an Obama-Hillary-Edwards finish is just as likely as an Edwards-Hillary-Obama finish? Or an Edwards-Obama-Hillary finish, or a Hillary-Edwards-Obama victory, or, well, you get the point.

See, what's consistently overlooked when it comes to the Democratic Iowa Caucus are the interesting rules attached to the contest. These rules are unlike any other primary of either party, including the Republican Iowa Caucus. The most important of these rules is: if a candidate doesn't reach a particular threshold (percentage of votes), the votes that were going to him go to the voter's "second choice."

Example: The threshold is placed at 15% (It's usually between 15 and 25). Only the three candidates end up exceeding that threshold. Richardson gets 8%, Biden get 6%, etc. The votes intended for Richardson, Biden, et. al get scattered into the top 3, depending on the voter's second choice. (Note: The reason for this is because Iowans want to make sure their votes go their top candidates and a viable candidate, if these two aren't the same person. Not that bad of an idea, especially when you think of the Nader dilemma in 2000.) In the 2004 Iowa Caucus, for example, only John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean earned national delegates to the convention.

Okay, so, what does this mean for 2008? Well, the Des Moines Register poll revealed:
Barack Obama - 28%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
John Edwards - 23%
No one else above 9%

Say that ends up being the numbers for the Iowa Caucus itself. Those first three numbers mean that 76% of voters have chosen one of the big three, and 24% have not. Therefore, 24% of the vote is still available to be divvied up among the top 3 candidates!

Therefore, second choice is hugely important in the Iowa Caucus. The question is: Who of the Big Three is the most popular second choice of those who are voting for someone not in the top tier? Who of the top 3 has the most support beyond those who are already planning on voting for them?

This will be examined throughout the month, but I think you at least know this: It's not Hillary Clinton.

(Note: You can read more on the Iowa Caucus all month at Presidential Politics for America.)

Republican YouTube Debate Live Blog!

2007-11-28T16:46:00.000-08:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 11/28/07

7:52 PM - We're coming to you live from the IC condo in Groton, CT, ready to bring live coverage of tonight's CNN/YouTube Republican debate. There's been a plethora of debates in 2007, but I don't think any have been this anticipated. Finally, the American people get a shot at a floundering Republican Party.

I have no idea how the live blog will go. I've done a couple in the past, but they are almost always too verbose. I'll have to limit either the length or number of posts. Feel free to leave comments throughout the debate! The record is 63 comments. The low is 0.

Stay tuned!

7:58 - Three things I expect tonight: 1) First-tier candidates taking a shot at Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas. 2) Five candidates claim they're like Ronald Reagan. 3) Tom Tancredo will find an immigrant in the audience and kill him with his bare hands.

8:03 - Governor Crist (R-Fl) just had the first audition for the VP slot on the Republican ticket!

8:05 - Anderson Cooper is the Ryan Seacrest of politics, am I right? Frankly, I don't know which one I just insulted.

8:12 - First question and Giuliani gets hit on immigration. Mayor Rudy and Presidential Candidate Rudy are verrrry far apart from each other on immigration. About as far apart as New York City and El Paso.

8:16 - Yes! Romney and Giuliani are going at it during the first question! These guys will be the last two standing in February folks. Pay attention. The best part is they're both spinning and perpetuating an issue that makes both of them look bad. Ladies and gentlemen... your Republican frontrunners!

8:18 - Fred Thompson just got an absolute softball on immigration to smack out of the park and he did so.

8:19 - Okay, I'm giddy here. Thompson just took a shot at Romney AND Giuliani in 20 seconds. Is this setting the tone for the debate? This could be phenomenal.

8:22 - John McCain has never looked better. Wait, did I say better? I meant older. Did I really think this guy was the favorite a year ago?

8:24 - Prediction: Tom Tancredo drops out in December, now that his pet issue - immigration - is front and center. He was never in it to win it.

8:26 - Did Hunter just compare the San Diego-Tijuana border with the Arizona/New Mexico/Texas-Mexico border???

8:29 - Okay, Romney has three enemies on stage (Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson) and those are the three guys directly below him in Iowa polls. Not a good spot for Mitt.

8:34 - I don't know if Ron Paul is right about the potentially budding North American Union, but he was right with his historical example of the EU. It started as murmurs and bloomed fifty years later.

8:40 - It's fun to hear a bunch of Republicans hoot and holler the destruction of the IRS like school kids hearing they might get rid of homework.

8:42 - McCain just took on Ron Paul! It's like Sylvester Stallone and Carl Weathers doing Rocky XVII!

8:45 - So the left side of the stage would sign a pledge and the right side wouldn't? Sounds to me that after Thompson got the cajones to say "No," everyone else did, too. Not that I expected any different response from McCain and Ron Paul.

8:54 - In responding to the Fred Thompson YouTube add, I honestly think Mitt just put the abortion issue in the rearview mirror. Huckabee's tribulations, however, have just begun.

8:55 - First commercial break. Ranking: 1) Fred Thompson; 2) Ron Paul; 3) Huckabee; 4) Romney; 5) Tancredo; 6) McCain; 7) Giuliani; 8) Hunter.

9:04 - Okay, I gotta do a quick diatribe on the second amendment. It's easily the most brutalized amendment in the U.S. Constitution. It does not simply say, "The right to bear arms." It does not. What's continually dismissed is the premise of the amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State anymore? That's the issue that needs to be debated first. And I'd love someone to make the case that a militia is not an archaic institution that has been unnecessary since Taft.

9:05 - Hey, this is fun! Let's hear about the amount of guns our Presidential candidates own!

9:10 - Ron Paul can always fall back on one answer - let the states decide! Man, let's just get a prime minister and forget the office of the President altogether! Hmmm... More on that to come in the future.

9:14 - The death penalty: What would Jesus do? Ladies and gentlemen, the question of the night. And we all know the answer, don't we?

9:16 - Bible questions! We should have an entire debate on that subject alone.

9:17 - Giuliani just called the Bible the greatest book ever written. Sorry, I gotta go with McCullough's John Adams. By the way, this question was in Huckabee's wheelhouse and there's not even a close second.

9:22 - It's becoming clear that they'll close with the economy and then Iraq. Talk about a grand finale!

9:26 - Has anyone ever explained why Giuliani will be stronger on terror or be tougher in foreign policy than McCain? The guy was a mayor of a city that got attacked! That's it!

9:30 - John McCain is absolutely right about the water boarding issue. Absolutely right. I don't think he's said anything dishonest tonight, joining only Tancredo and Paul. Meanwhile, Romney still can't get out of his own way tonight.

9:35 - I love Ron Paul and Iraq questions. They're my favorite part of every debate.

9:38 - Islam takes such a beating during the Republican debates. Of course, the Muslim countries don't have debates to bash Christians...

9:41 - Fred Thompson has this crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. He's still leading this debate, and tonight might be the night he starts to right the sinking ship.

9:45 - Third commercial break rankings: 1) Thompson [winning the crowd, winning his freedom]; 2) Paul [his niche loves him more than ever]; 3) McCain [clearly straight shootin' like the old days]; 4) Tancredo [nothing to lose with his honesty and wrongness]; 5) Romney [not as impressive as usual]; 6) Huckabee [Disappointing performance] ; 7) Giuliani [Only one good answer on the night] 8) Hunter [Completely underwhelming].

9:50 - Romney just got caught in his newest flipflop!

9:52 - Did anyone else hear some (dozens) Republican audience members booing the gay officer? Not a good job by that crowd.

9:58 - Um, "Hillary can be on the first rocket to Mars?!" Watch out for that one tomorrow. On the Mars issue: There will be an absolute outcry from this country if the first manned expedition to Mars does not have an American. International cooperation would be fine, but if there's no American involvement, it'd be the greatest ideological and technological disappointment in this country's history.

10:02 - Romney just called out John Edwards. I'LL KILL HIM! He also just lost South Carolina, but whatever.

10:05 - Giuliani and Huckabee are closing strong. I can't say the same for myself. I'm getting up in 7 and a half hours.

10:10 - Well, "huge" Red Sox fan Mitt Romney just added a year to the Red Sox former World Series drought (86, not 87). A perfect way to end a disappointing night for Romney... but still my favorite for the Republican nomination.

10:12 - Annnd scene. Sorry for the relatively week analysis tonight, but there's simply not enough time to get into all the issues and do a live blog. For analysis, check out my blog at Presidential Politics for America, as I'll be starting daily Iowa Caucus posts starting on Monday, December 3rd - one month until the Iowa Caucus in both parties.

Permanent Presence

2007-11-26T17:46:00.000-08:00

Permanent Presence

While we all adjust to the transition from Thanksgiving to the really big holidays; while those of us in the 35+ crowd realize that our fat cells are multiplying and dividing at incrementally rapid rates, with each passing year and every passing holiday food fest; while I resurrect from my minimally conscious state to blog myself into ’08—hold my feet— I’m back, Chimpy does what? Yeah, you got it: he formally announces that we will be in Iraq for f*cking ever. G-r-e-a-t.

I should’ve known this was coming: Yesterday, on This Week, George Pill and Smokie Roberts discussed “permanent presence” with such nonchalance, one would think they were discussing golf balls.

Perhaps “mission-accomplished” George had bad turkey. Maybe it was the stuffing. Perhaps WMD George was stunned by conveniently encountering Al Gore yet again, this time to honor the former vice president as a newly crowned Nobel Prize winner. You see, truly talented people will find ways to achieve on their own merit regardless of the cheaters in the class. Perhaps this “permanent presence” won’t be as bad as it seems once Georgey permanently leaves the White House; let's hope.

Huckabee Surging in Iowa

2007-11-21T08:47:00.000-08:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 11/21/07

As predicted by my blog after the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee is making a run at the Iowa Caucus. This just in from Real Clear Politics:

Republicans (ABCNews/Washington Post poll)
Romney 28 (+2 vs. last poll July 26-31)
Huckabee 24 (+16)
Thompson 15 (+2)
Giuliani 13 (-1)
McCain 6 (-2)
Paul 6 (+4)

Now, pundits across the country, in their classic insta-reactionary tradition, are taking Iowa away from Romney. If these prognosticators end up being right, even a second place Iowa finish effectively ends the Romney campaign.

Which is why it's not going to happen.

Romney will spend every last nickel of his billions of nickels to win the Iowa Caucus. If polls are still close by the end of December, Iowans can expect a blitzkrieg of ad-buys and "paid volunteers" unlike any in political history, and it'll be courtesy of Mitt Romney.

What's most interesting about the latest poll is not that Mitt Romney is losing control of Iowa polls, but rather that a Huckabee bump has meant national Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has slipped to fourth in the country's opening caucus. FOURTH. Fickle voters in New Hampshire and beyond will need to be very sure of their Giuliani vote to support a candidate that showed so poorly in a classic benchmark state, especially when the story on every cable news network will be sinking their claws into (remember - insta-reactionary) is about a reeling Giuliani campaign. Every social conservative who barely convinced themselves to support Giuliani will run to the closest conservative competitor.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will both be spinning the heck out of their top finishes and can ride the resulting free coverage, momentum, and huge added influx of money into the other primaries.

December will be a fascinating month, which is why I'm doing this.

2007-11-20T14:26:00.000-08:00

"The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back."

Things just keep getting better for the troops, don't they?

IF YOU'RE HAPPY AND YOU KNOW IT, CLAP YOUR HANDS

2007-11-08T17:24:00.000-08:00

IF YOU’RE HAPPY AND YOU KNOW IT, CLAP YOUR HANDS

Chris Matthews should re-name Hardball “Herball.” Night after night, Matthews’ Hillary fixation gets more and more ridiculous and blatantly psychotic. It’s Hillary’s laugh. It’s Hillary’s husband. It’s Hillary’s gender card. It’s Hillary’s dynamic with Barack…John…her parsing…her cleavage in the Senate…her treatment—boohoo—of Tim Russert. Geeze. Could Chris be more obvious about his castration fear disorder? Truth be told, many of us have fears about Hillary but let’s not go nuts—pun intended.

Tonight, for instance, Matthews, known in some corners of the blogosphere as Tweety, had yet another segment on Hillary—there’s a shocker—in which he prompted his “round table” to analyze why the dame doth clap so much at her rallies. I KID YOU NOT.

Meanwhile, there’s tons of other news, say, about:

A. Iraq
B. Iran
C. Pakistan
D. Afghanistan
E. Rudy’s Scary Resemblance to Nosferatu
F. All of the Above

I’m going with F—All of the Above.

Rest assured: if you do the MSNBC thing on weeknights, you will quickly learn that what once—in a mainstream galaxy far, far away—was known as “Hardball” has suddenly morphed into “Herball.” It seems that things, including serious news segments, aren’t as, well, hard as they should be.

And Giuliani Gets Robertson

2007-11-08T02:53:00.000-08:00

Adendum to yesterday's post...

After Pat Robertson came out in support of Giuliani, I immediately posted my reaction over ay my blog - Presidential Politics for America.

Romney About to Take Off

2007-11-07T07:00:00.000-08:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 11/07/07

I tried to tell you. I did. I tried to tell you in April, and I tried to tell you in August. Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Although the national polls will not reflect this certainty until the end of January, and although his nomination will not be sewn up until the month after, this is the week where Mitt Romney turned the corner.

Paul Weyrich, who with the passing of Jerry Falwell is perhaps the foremost figurehead of evangelical Christians and social conservatives, has endorsed Romney.

And why not? With Rudy Giuliani’s national lead in Republican polls not diminishing, the conservative bloc is in danger of their party nominating a social liberal who’s pro-choice, pro-gay, and compared to the rest of the Republican field, unfriendly to the second amendment.

So how do they slow the Giuliani train? Quite simply, they cannot. That is, unless they can unite behind another candidate. All year, the paramount problem of Republican voters was the lack of a clear cut conservative alternative who was not only in lockstep with the right, but also whose legitimacy was not limited to their home state. Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Tommy Thomson and Gilmore were conservative but had no chance (as stated by this blogger numerous times). Huckabee was intriguing and the most talented candidate of the second tier, but didn’t have the money (also stated numerous times by this blogger). Paul was talented and entertaining but the party could not let a dovish Republican get nominated (yup). Thompson had been out of politics and was clearly a paper tiger (hit on the head by this blogger numerous times). The Right’s problems with McCain are notorious. Romney’s a Mormon who pandered to Democrats in Massachusetts.

So the Republican Party was splintered. A clear plurality were satisfied supporting the foreign policy and quasi-fiscal conservative former mayor of New York City, while ten other candidates divvied the constituency who said they could get at least that type of conservatism from nearly any Republican candidate.

Soon, however, it will be time to unify. For the Republican base to find their perfect candidate, it only takes one leap of faith, and this leap of faith has nothing to do with religion. Has Romney truly changed his mind on abortion? Running for Senate and Governor of Massachusetts during the 90's, Romney came out as a pro-choice candidate. Since then, however, Romney has said he's seen and learned some things that have changed him into a staunch pro-life advocate. The question for Republican voters: Do you believe him? If so, that's your candidate.

That is Mr. Weyrich's conclusion, and that decision will go a long way in convincing conservatives to pledge their allegiance to Romney. After all, Romney is a Protestant, as 41 of the 42 men to hold the office of POTUS have been. Sure, he's a different kind of Protestant than Protestant Americans (52% of the country and 2/3 of American Christians) are used to, but he's stressed that Mormonism will not impact his decisions as chief executive. If you recall, Catholic John Kennedy made a similar plea in 1960, and Kennedy's mea culpa made his Catholicism all but a non-issue in his victory over Richard Nixon.

All of this, combined with his unparalleled Republican money, not to mention his enormous lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, will propel him to a very strong showing on the fifth of February (SuperDuper Tuesday). After taking the first two states, effectively eliminating every candidate but himself and Giuliani, everyone leaning Romney will run to Romney. By the middle of February, Giuliani concedes and Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee.

I tried to tell you.

Faux (News) Pas

2007-10-28T04:01:00.000-07:00

On Friday, FEMA admitted to holding a fake press conference in regards to the wildfires in Southern California. This act is despicable on so many levels it makes my head spin.

FEMA said that it announced the press conference last minute therefore, the media could not get there in time to cover it. They did set up phone lines for the press to listen to the conference, but these lines would not allow the press to ask questions. They did claim that the questions the FEMA employees that posed as “journalists” asked where actually questions real journalists had asked FEMA. Huh? Didn’t they state that journalists couldn’t ask questions via the press conference phone line? Did the reporters call earlier and leave questions on the answering machine for FEMA to plot their pat answer for at the later press conference?

Chimpy’s White House staff calls the FEMA move “ not a practice that we would employ here at the White House” (LOL! I’ll let our host handle that one!) and Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Chief whose agency oversees FEMA, said, "I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've seen since I've been in government." (Dumb? Yes. Most inappropriate? Where have you been for the last few years!?!?!)

Instead of faking a news conference when you plan it a whole 15 minutes in advance, you do what anyone would do trying to get information out in a timely matter to the public – you release a press STATEMENT and hold the news conference the following day. DUH! Self-promoting? Sure, but at least you aren’t lying.

It is bad enough that even respectable news organizations are carrying celebrity news (soft news) on their newscasts along with things that matter and effect people (hard news i.e. wars, famine, politics, elections, etc.). But, at least the celebrity news is real, even if most all of it is vapid and not earth-shattering. Faking a news conference goes against of principle of true journalism – it is pure, unadulterated lying. Any educated person knows that you cannot air or print something in media that you know to be false. It does not take a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist of Woodward or Bernstein caliber to understand this concept.

Chertoff says people will be punished for this bonehead move that has now blackened FEMA’s other eye, the first eye blackened two years ago by its screw-up during and after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. It is Sunday and nothing has been announced as of yet… so we’ll see I guess. Here’s hoping that FEMA doesn’t have to visit my area any time soon.

Brownback's Dropout Epitomizes Money Issue

2007-10-24T12:43:00.001-07:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 10/24/07

How important is money in politics? Important enough that the quintiessential conservative dropped out of the Republican Primary because he could never gain traction. So, Sam Brownback, the conservative alternative Republicans have been dreaming about, bows out of a crowded field and goes home to Kansas.

Look at the four Republican candidates who actually have a chance to garner the nomination. The poll leader, Rudi Giuliani, is a social liberal. The former leader, John McCain, supports an unpopular war and has crossed party lines on numerous issues, irritating many members of the GOP. The leader in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney, has a history of criticizing key Republican issues like abortion and gay rights, and, as a Mormon, is not exactly in step with the powerful Christian wing of the Republican Party. Finally, Fred Thompson, long thought of as the conservative savior, has shown a distinct inability to rally the base, and has lost points in nearly all national and early primary polls.

So why are they the leaders in the GOP polls? They are all huge names and fantastic fundraisers. I appreciate the argument that their palpability is the reason they can fundraise, but I'm disinclined to adhere to that in this case because of two reasons.

1. The money differential between the contenders and the non-contenders is too gross to conclude that anything but the money is chief reason why contenders contend and non-contenders do not. The contenders raise seven digits (often eight). The non-contenders are lucky to crack seven digits and spend nearly all of it just to break into polls.

Let's look at why they can fundraise. Rudy Giuliani was a huge name after 9/11 and was able to fundraise. John McCain has been a national name for decades. Mitt Romney has given tens of millions of dollars to his own campaign. Fred Thompson gets publicity every time his Law & Order series airs, not to mention Die Hard 2, Necessary Roughness, and Iron Eagle III. Does the fact that they're huge names or richer make the more qualified to be President then the lesser candidates, or, even, potential candidates? Of course not.

2. The Republicn constituency has been dying for a true conservative... and he was there the whole time. No one could every doubt Brownback's conservative record as Senator from Kansas. Every single debate he would remind them of this. He had been modeling it for years.

But without money... who cares?

Ask Dennis Kucinich how much voting your ideology helps in a national election without the funds to ram a platform down the throat of America.

Someone justify this.

A Different World

2007-10-17T07:55:00.000-07:00

So, it looks like we're re-thinking that whole Blackwater business. When you take into account the amount of innocent civilians they've killed and the fact that their services are costing us, annually, approximately $520 million dollars in Iraq ALONE, I'd say that's a pretty good idea.

Especially considering the 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard, who just returned from the longest deployment in the Iraq war (729 days to be exact), were denied the education benefits they should receive from the GI Bill. Why were they denied? Because those benefits don't kick in until day 730. One day. That's awfully convenient.

Are we really that pressed for money that we need to deny these soldiers the extra $500-$800 per month they're entitled to for school after they've put their lives on the line for the country? Isn't that what it says on the commercials - sign up for the war, and we'll pay for your education? Can we really afford to pay the Blackwater security detail approximately $1,400 a DAY and shut out our own soldiers?

Oh, and it's the liberals who don't support the troops? That's funny.

Money Doesn't Buy Class

2007-10-15T13:33:00.000-07:00

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the pop culture proverbial water now that Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears seem to be taking sobriety seriously for once, now come along a trainwreck-in-training, who is being trained by none other than her trashy sister.

Bear with me....

Kim Kardashian, former friend of Hilton, etc., is desperate for attention. She hangs out at all the right places, is rich, etc. but does not get the paparazzi's attention like the other. She has no talent (I know that doesn't stop Spears and Hilton)and basically she is mostly known for being a slut (sorry! truth hurts) and Bruce Jenner's step-daughter (yes Olympian decathlete Bruce Jenner).

Here is a clip from Kardashian's new reality series (isn't reality TV so yesterday?!?!), Keeping Up With The Kardashians on the E! Network. In this "morsel", we find out the following things:

1) Ms. Kardashian bought her mother and step-father a stripper pole for their anniversary, located in the master bedroom, which she promptly shows of to party guest Robin Antin, creator of the Pussycat Dolls.

2) Ms. Kardashian's 9 year old half-sister comes in when Kardashian and Antin are "working out on the pole and the little girl ..... sit down for this one... the little girl demonstrates moves on the pole that would make Gypsy Rose Lee blush.

Now, at least Jenner comes in at the end and calls this what it is: inappropriate behavior. But, tell me please, what chance do ANY little girls have in America, heck in the world, of growing up with self-worth, self-esteem, and good body image if older girls they admire (and in this case live with and are related to) are acting this way?

The shock and awe factor of everything aimed at the younger generation, such as this trashy display, is and has gotten way out of control. I mean, I can hear Nero fiddling away as I type. Believe me, I feel like I am a prude for saying things like this, but safe experimentation with a funky hair color or several ear piercings in the name of finding your identity as a female are a far cry from a prepubescent girl bumping and grinding against a stripper pole on world-wide TV in her parents' bedroom. Things like that are not innate in girls that age, nor should they be. Before your very eyes, you can view at the above link how a little girl can lose her innocence and others laugh about it as if it is no big deal. It is sadly depressing and scary.

I won't even talk about how Emily Post is rolling in her grave about how improper it is to take party guests to a room that is not yours, and is a PRIVATE room.

This proves that money doesn't buy class and that for those of us that have manners, dignity, et. al., we are shoveling against a torrent of ...well, crap.

Speaking of shovels, I am going to my shovel and my bat, and put them in my car ... just in case the tide gets too close to home.

[S]he's Back!

2007-10-14T17:45:00.000-07:00

[S]he’s Back!

In honor of the Halloween spirit, Mann Coulter has reared his ugly head yet again. Yeah, this time the a**hole—who has done wonders showing how personal psychoses can put an education from Cornell and the University of Michigan to shame—came out of her coffin-closet to cameo on The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch.

Stunned by a much deserved b*tch slap by Elizabeth Edwards during the last media whore tour, Mann clearly needs more attention this time around. Obviously, psychotherapy isn't going well so her temper tantrums are getting louder. She still knows it all. She still dresses more like a late night bar crawler than a serious pundit—for lack of a better term. And she still hasn’t resolved what seems to be an early childhood trauma of negative, attention-seeking behavior to validate whatever kind of crap comes out of her mouth.

So on The Big Idea, Mann tells Deutsch, get this, that generally speaking, bi-racial couples in New York City have a chip on their shoulders and Jews are imperfect. I kid you not; get to Crooks & Liars for the video. Perhaps [s]he thought she was being funny or something; Deutsch wasn't amused. Nor was I. And quite frankly, there are far more interesting, gender gray figures out there that many people from both sides of the aisle embrace at Halloween time. Oh, Tim Curry, wherefore art thou?

Republican Presidential Debate Diary

2007-10-10T08:03:00.000-07:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 10/10/07

Last night, newest official presidential candidate Fred Thompson joined the rest of the Republican field for the CNBC Debate, marking Thompson’s first appearance at a presidential debate. Here is my diary of the event.

4:00 – Co-hosting with Chris Matthews is Maria Bartiromo. (Yes, she was available.)

4:02 – Fred Thompson appropriately starts things off. Equally appropriate, he frequently stammers, pauses, and uses words like rosy.

4:04 – Romney does an excellent, organized job with his first response. As the most prominent governor in the race, a debate on managing an economy is right in his wheel house. Of course, that might not matter, as he’s also the most prominent Mormon in the race.

4:08 – Giuliani easily turns a question on hedge funds into a reason to nominate him because he has the best chance to beat a Democrat. I outlined this as his inevitable strategy early this year. His ticket to the nomination was never security. It was electability.

4:09 – And here comes Ron Paul bringing the sense. Yes, the country is richer… but that does not mean the average American is.

4:10 – Rudy Giuliani’s talking about the Yankees on a public platform, John McCain just said “straight talk,” and I was home from school by 3:30. Did I just hop in a time machine and go back to 2000?

4:15 – Duncan Hunter. I mean come on.

4:16 – For an actor, Fred Thompson does a horrendous job remembering his lines.

4:17 – Sam Brownback just criticized a random Kansas constituent for wanting, “A new hospital.” Those bastard Kansasites! Who do they think they are? Don’t we know we’re in a war??

4:21 – Hey, did you know Rudy Giuliani cut taxes in New York City 23 times? He should really mention that more often then every day of his life.

4:23 – Romney and Giuliani are going back and forth, and why not, considering they will be the only two candidates still going on February 6th.

4:31 – Romney points out that he is the candidate with the most business experience. It’s a calculated risk, deciding that this is a desirable trait, but anything that distinguishes you from this field is probably a good thing.

4:36 – John McCain, “It sounds like a lot of fun to bash the Chinese and others…” Line of the night.

4:37 –Fred Thompson’s doing a terrible job. What’s worse is that he knows it. This is not the man that’s going to rally the conservatives, which was his only ticket to the dance.

4:39 – Does anyone else think Sam Brownback looks a lot like Jimmy Kimmel? Does anyone else think they’d be more comfortable with Jimmy Kimmel as President?

And here' commercial break as I approach my word limit. Back at the end for more thoughts.

-----

All right, the debate just wrapped up. As usual, I was most impressed with McCain, Huckabee, and Paul, the lot of whom make up the second tier in the race. Maybe there's something to say about not being a contender that allows you to do a better job at these debates. Though I have a distinct disagreement with each of them (McCain - the war; Huckabee - the national sales tax; Paul - where do I begin?), I respect their consistency, intelligence, and the way their articulate their issues.

What most frustrated me this afternoon was that most of the candidates want to fix many things and address many issues (bridges, roads, borders, energy) but also want to cut spending and cut taxes (revenues). It's an odd platform, yet it's the GOP norm. They don't want to raise taxes and they'll spend a lot of money, even though they tell you they won't. When they do, many Americans just worry about the tax relief, and up go the unchecked deficits.

That's why Paul and Huckabee make so much more sense than the rest. Paul truly wants to reduce taxing and spending, and he offers a plethora of examples. While I fundamentally disagree with Paul on almost all issues and think that he would make a horrific President, I have respect coming out of my ears for him, because he's consistent in his ideology and it actually makes sense, if small government is the kind of thing you like.

Paul and Huckabee, while other candidates couldn't stop glowing about the strong and growing economy, articulate a fact that many Democrats are screaming at the television whenever a President Bush or Sean Hannity is bragging about a country that's getting richer. The money is going to the rich and most Americans are not feeling this economic "boom!" Yes, we have more money than ever, and stocks are booming, but the money is flowing to a minority of the people. The majority of the people's earning power has actually dropped in this "strong and growing economy."

For a simplified example that does not take into account interest rates, say Tom, Dick, and Harry make $50,000 in the year 2007. In the year 2008, Tom makes $100,000 while Dick and Harry drop to $40,000 each. As a group, they're making more money, right? As a group, they are objectively doing better ($180,000) than they were before ($150,000), right? Well, yeah, that's true. Objectively speaking, the group is doing better. But individually, more people are doing worse than better.

And that's America.

The race to the 2012 White House?

2007-10-03T08:58:00.000-07:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 10/3/07

It was only a matter of time. No, the subject to which I refer is not my tenuous return to blogging after a month and a half of being a teacher again. What I am referring to is the constant pushing up of the presidential cycle reaching a ludicrously laughable level.

Here’s what I mean: it seems after every Presidential election, the race to win the next election begins earlier and earlier. This was most evident the day after the 2004 election, when I watched Chris Matthews discuss who would run for the open oval office in the next cycle, and immediately names like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were suggested as leading candidates. Surely, the day after an election was the earliest possible date for the subsequent election to be realistically discussed, right?

Wrong.

This week, it became evident to me that one man is already running for 2012. And he already knows who he’s running against. And he’s already positioning himself to be the nominee and win the 2012 election. And you know what? I’d say it’s the leading scenario.

Let the count down begin. It’s only 61 months until:

President Hillary Clinton (D) vs. former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA).

See you next Wednesday for some elaboration on this topic and its relation to the state of the 2008 race.

Dark Clouds

2007-10-02T17:53:00.000-07:00

Dark Clouds

Yet another dark cloud looms over George Bush & the neoconservatives’ saga of disaster known as Iraq. This black cloud, appropriately known as Blackwater, has been in the news a lot lately. To get caught-up, you may want to check out this week’s The Nation or the latest entries at The Divided States Of bu$hmeriKa 2.

The involvement of Blackwater, a “private” security firm that has an official contract with the State Department, in Iraq paints a dismaying portrait of war profiteering, raises questions about the large presence of private contractors working side-by-side with U.S. military personnel, and hints yet again that something’s real rotten in corporate Bushworld.

But like all dark, foreboding clouds, Blackwater will most likely pass by most of us Americans with little to no fuss.

A Vegas Marriage

2007-10-01T17:18:00.000-07:00

A VEGAS MARRIAGE

Have you ever heard the same story again and again and again, and the only difference is the person telling you the story? That’s how I feel lately as educators are having the same conversation with one another: the honeymoon period is long over with our “new” students and we suddenly realize that, in some cases, we are in b-a-d relationships. Let’s face it: with certain students, if we had the power to divorce or annul, we would squash our Vegas marriages—these bad relationships we initially had high hopes for that suddenly we find ourselves wallowing in—quicker than Britney’s been ordered to give her kids back to K-Fed—the latest mainstream media rage.

Many of the educators I know—mostly secondary and post secondary—know what I’m talking about, the reality that the Columbus Day or Fall break couldn’t come soon enough. But the break we really want is not from the teaching profession itself; it’s from our students' lame-as* excuses, which seem to get worse each year and range from the conventional, “my dog sh*t on and then ate my homework”; to the rather stupid, “ professor so-so, would you give me directions to your office because I will be late in turning in yet another late paper?”; to the truly, f*cking absurd, “even though I’ve shown up to 1 of the 10 classes so far and submitted nothing, do I still stand a chance of passing?” I kid you not.

So as we educators fantasize about “ending” our Vegas relationships with these hideous trolls; as we find ourselves routinely saying, “you can’t make this sh*t up;” as we may—especially if you’re new to the profession and an idealist of sorts—consider a “marriage” counseling intervention, we can take comfort in the saying that “nothing lasts forever” and that a Vegas marriage can end as quickly as it began.

Foreground & Background

2007-09-30T12:36:00.000-07:00

Foreground & Background

Everyone—left, right, and center—are once again fixating on the Clintons. I can’t say I blame them entirely since Hillary blitz-krieged the Sunday morning shows last week and Billy did a lap dance or two today with George Stephanopoulos and Tim Russert. From last Sunday to this Sunday, it’s been a mainstream media, Clinton bookend bonanza. Extra, extra: Will Barack slam Hillary? Will Hillary slam Barack? Can Johnny be as tough as his wife on Hill? Will GQ remain emasculated or grow a pair to run that piece on Billary? NO WAY!: Rudy “call me” Giuliani will predicate his campaign on the ASSumption that he can beat Hillary? Wow, there’s a shocker.

Even in today’s New York Times, both Frank Rich, whose columns I savor, and mean girl Maureen Dowd, whose columns, as of late, tend to make me and several people I know sick, focus on none other than Hillary. It’s not that I mind the criticisms of the Clintons, or of Hillary, in particular. Quite frankly, many of them are fair and accurate—and not in a Fox fiction sort of way. It just amazes me how much the Clinton narrative, to borrow the rhetoric of Frank Rich, dominates the mainstream media foreground and all other narratives are assigned to the background, or better yet, to the media hinterland. Even Ahmadinejad’s crazy cameo—and even crazier claim of no gays in Iran—at Columbia had a short shelf life in the big, mainstream media scheme of things.

Meanwhile, in the media background more of our soldiers continue to die in Iraq and it seems that NO ONE—Democrat or Republican—has a lucid plan to get us the f**k out. Who knows what the deal is with the possibility of going to war with Iran? There continues to be “no-shows” of Republican candidates at minority-sponsored debates, although this IS the party of the BIG TENT—only if you’re white. Children in need might NOT get appropriate insurance because George W. Bush says that there’s a better way; remember: he’s the dude that insisted there WERE weapons of mass destruction. And who the heck knows what Condi’s up to; maybe she’s having more surgery finally to close that gap between her front teeth.

The bigger gap that concerns me is the enormous difference between the media foreground and background, between the OJ resurgence and the Iraq insurgence, between what’s over-emphasized and what barely registers as a blip, between the over-saturation of fake news and the drowning of real news…that should be “fit” to print.

A Different World

2007-09-22T09:40:00.001-07:00

Over the past few days, the news has been saturated with what has been taking place in Jena, LA. Umm, finally? I first read about the story in early July, and there have been kids sitting in jail since December 2006. People seem to be catching on, which is nice for the Jena 6. I guess.

But now we have the "I'm not racist, but..." crowd coming out of the wood work. I am of the opinion that, as a country, we need to discuss racism to ever have the hope of overcoming it, but I am already so exhausted by the ignorance and insensitivy currently on display just about, oh, I'd say... everywhere?

Adrianne Curry, whose claim to fame is winning America's Next Top Model, Season 1 and marrying one of the Brady Bunch brothers, Christopher Knight, recently composed a moving Myspace blog, calling for the boycott of BET and Black History Month. Her reasoning? Black history is American history! All Americans have suffered! What about the Native Americans? Where's their month?! (It's November, for those who were wondering.) And she's not racist, because she once dated a black man in high school. Slavery and segregation are over! She just wants us to all stop looking to the past and move forward. Unite as one. Etc.

It would be one thing if it were just some ex-reality star on their internet soapbox. But a lot of people in this country really feel that way. These attitudes are emerging from every crevice of our society in the current time of renewed racial tension. Moving forward with blinders on to the very OBVIOUS way the past is shaping the present is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. If racism was not running rampant in places like Jena, LA, the nooses never would have been hung, the white students never would have received such minimal punishment for the clearly hateful act, there never would have been a series of violent confrontations that culminated in that particular beating of the white student and the black students would have never ever ever ever ever been so let down by the justice system that is supposed to protect them. But, c'mon everyone, let's just plow forward blindly. We'll just ignore the evidence that minorities, even after all the progress we've supposedly made in race relations, still need safeguards in place to make sure they receive the most basic equal treatment. We're all Americans, one and all! Hooray!

Oh, ignorance. What a happy home you've made here.

NOT IT!

2007-09-16T17:38:00.000-07:00

NOT IT!

As I told the master of wit in the blogoshpere, the ever-sharp Jollyroger, George W. Bush decisively wins at playing “NOT IT!” this week. I was just waiting for W. to stick his forefinger on his nose and do a dance. But George wasn’t the only contestant on NOT IT! There were several, and considering that some of these folks are heavy-weights in American culture—poor Britney was just a tad heavier than anorexia America wanted, George DID, in fact, legitimately dominate at “NOT IT!” The least said about the 2000 election the better.

We all know that T.A.N.G (that’s Texas Air National Guard) George has a string of victories at NOT IT! Let's not forget that George got jiggy with NOT IT! in the ‘60s to dodge Vietnam. So avoiding responsibility comes natural to him. But I certainly didn’t expect George to announce NOT IT! on Thursday night when he basically declared that his replacement will have to deal with HIS mess in Iraq. Stunning, I know. But yet again, his biggest accomplice, the mainstream media, also reigned victorious at NOT IT! for NOT emphasizing this simple, obvious fact. They've sought solace in the latest O.J. episode.

We should’ve known that NOT IT! would be the latest 15 minute, American fad, for last Sunday Britney Scissorhands won at NOT IT! in her alleged comeback performance. This zeitgeist fever oozed into Monday and Tuesday when General Petraeus basically said NOT IT! to Senator John Warner—a Republican, no doubt—to Warner’s question about whether or not the General’s plans in Iraq would make America safer. Petraeus’s reply: “Sir, I don’t know actually!” Bingo: NOT IT!

However, the players to watch at NOT IT!, as Paul Krugman brilliantly pointed out in his Friday column, “A Surge, and Then A Stab,” are Bush’s business associates, namely his oil friends who seem to know that the surge is NOT working, that the Iraq war will NOT yield success, that things will NOT get better, and that the NOT IT! foreign policy of the Bush administration has NOT been good, to say the least.

A Different World

2007-09-14T10:17:00.000-07:00

My institution of higher learning made headlines in Boston recently, as 21 bathrooms on campus were changed to gender neutral facilities. My college is not the first to do so, but has jumped on the band wagon relatively early (a few dozen institutions in the country currently have similar restrooms), responding to the petitioning of transgendered students who felt uncomfortable having to identify with a specific gender whenever they needed to make use of a bathroom. From academic buildings to dormitories, the school has made it a priority to accommodate everyone.

The decision has come under fire, especially from the (albeit, few) conservative voices at the school and surrounding community. Critics have deemed it a pointless action on the part of the school, accusing the transgendered community of causing a fuss just for the sake of complaining. They're just bathrooms, after all. By the time you're in college, you should know what gender you are. It's a matter of anatomy, not psychology, they say.

Well, I say that's bullshit. Being born into a body and gender that is not compatible with your mindset, your feelings, your personality must be a trying ordeal in itself. America and the rest of the world is so rigid in their socialization of gender roles and norms - to exist outside that box cannot be a comfortable place, especially when it comes to making a very private choice about your gender in such a public way. If we can make these, as the critics call them, pointless changes that do not negatively effect any individual while making SUCH a difference in the lives of those who will benefit from them, why not? Why aren't other places scrambling to follow suit? Why is the world still a place where oppression and insensitivity is the accepted norm? I'm not trying to get all koombyah on this blog or anything, but really - it's not hurting you, conservative America! Gay marriage doesn't hurt you, either. If you don't like it or agree with it and it has no consequence in your life, why can't you just stay out of it? Use your damn gender specific bathrooms and shut up already.

I applaud my college, and all the other places in this country that are finally realizing the need for change. It's about damn time.

Femme Fatale: Call it a Day Already, Would You?

2007-09-13T17:29:00.000-07:00

Since earlier this week, the reality that is the screwed-up media circus of Britney Spears' life kicked into full gear, analyzing her VMA debacle on MTV (did she even try at all?) and all the moments pre- and post VMAs.

Some of the headlines:
Britney Spears's Comeback a Bust at VMAs
Timbaland Says Britney Spears Dissed Him And Justin Timberlake; Tells Her To Apologize
Theories Abound About Britney's VMA Flop
A Drunk and Fat Britney at the VMA's
Britney was bad, yes. But 'fat'?

I am with Chris Crocker's YouTube tirade "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE", but not for Crocker's reasons. (If Crocker wants to cry for the problems of a divorced mother of two, I'll email him and we can chat.)

To the American entertainment press and all other media outlet covering her: Enough is enough! This talentless hack has taken up too much of the public's time and it is reaching embarrassing proportions.

This week should have been devoted perhaps to quiet reflection on a whole host of issues: devastating natural occurrences (earthquakes, hurricanes), the continuing war in Iraq and other places in the world that do not get covered, the US mortgage market, and ummmm, oh yeah, perhaps the whole Bin Laden video thing and remembering those that sacrificed their lives on 9/11.

Did Britney get used on Sunday night by Viacom and MTV purely for ratings and money? You bet!

But, as Britney told all of her family and her former manager, she is an adult and can make her own decisions. And just like you can walk away from the local drunk who always makes an ass out of him or herself, we can and should walk away if they do not want our help/advice. we do not need to watch and get caught up in the drama of it; we can choose to move on to more productive issues. Like an addict, Britney needs to WANT to help herself out of this debacle called her life.

And like the addict relative that has overstayed his/her welcome or puked one too many times all over your bathroom, the train wreck that is Britney Spears has outlasted its welcome in the US media and Sunday night marked it. The media needs to take a hint and back away like they have done with the other train wrecks named Hilton and Lohan and show some tough love. We do not need younger generations of people thinking that this is an appropriate way to get attention.

Move on people, nothing new to see here...

And the Winner Is...

2007-09-09T07:55:00.000-07:00

And the Winner Is…

As America eagerly awaits Britney Scissorhands’ opening act on the Video Music Awards tonight, as much of America longs to see who’s wearing what on the red carpet, as those of us striving to be 1% more conscious marvel at how George W. Bush will sparknote the General David Petraeus report, Osama Bin Laden clearly wins best performance in a video this year. How timely a release, right before the VMA’s themselves—is MTV losing its touch?; right before the 9/11 anniversary; right before the latest chapter of the neocon’s long day’s journey into Iraq.

Long ago Marshal McLuhan said it best: The Medium is the Massage. Fictions become facts, facts become doublespoke and ignored, and what matters most is perception management—the new “opium of the masses.” Our media continues to let the spin rip with more than two “turn tables and a microphone,” to tiptoe around surge supporters, and to indulge in the American Dream of everything is a-O.K.—don’t worry, be happy ☺. Just ask Britney or Osama for goodness sake—simply get extensions or die your beard to get your groove back.

And that’s exactly what we will witness in politics this week, as Frank Rich noted in yet another brilliant column today, “As the Iraqis Stand Down, We’ll Stand Up.” According to Rich, brace yourself for the 2002 play-book, the build-up-to-the-war plan, when you hear the words: “Anbar,” “bottom up,” “decrease in violence,” and “success.” Lo and behold, Senator John McCain stuck to the script in his interview with George Stephanopoulos this morning on This Week. Now I think McCain's performance in “Bomb, bomb Iran” should get an honorable mention.

But fear not, folks: I STILL WANT my MTV! And so should you.

A Different World: Damn you, Apple!

2007-09-07T20:37:00.000-07:00

After the announcement that Apple would be lowering the price of the heavily desired iPhone by $200 two months after its original release for $599, many consumers were not happy. They took their complaints to the head honcho of the company, Steve Jobs. And he did what any other billionaire CEO who manufactures telephones with an audacious $600 price tag that people are willing to stand in line for days on end to obtain -- he gave them back their money.

Wait, what?

Is this not America? Are we not stupid enough to covet a material object to such an idiotic degree that we will sleep on dirty sidewalks only to then shell out 600 goddamn dollars for a cell phone? Will we not brawl shamelessly in Toys-R-Us each holiday season for Furbies and Tickle-Me-Elmo's for children who will not even appreciate them for more than a week? Do we not complain incessantly about the price of gas but continue to purchase Range Rovers and Hummers and Escalades and adorn them with stupid shiny hubcaps that spin, even when the tires have stopped turning?

These are the things that matter to us, and though some may think it's shameful, it's the USA, damnit. And if you were stupid (or is it American?) enough to give Steve Jobs and Apple $600 of your hard earned money for a cell phone, that is the bed you have made for yourself. I would have told you to make yourself comfortable in it. But alas, I guess Steve Jobs knows a little more about business than I do.

I feel that it can be only in America that it is possible to be so misguided, entitled, and impulsive yet still reap the rewards of the prudent. And by "the prudent," I mean the people who will now probably buy the iPhone at it's new price tag of $399.

Wait, what?

"View" Askew

2007-09-06T14:45:00.000-07:00

In the past, I have always admired and appreciated the quirkiness that is Whoopi Goldberg. She was "hanging" with the all-male Comic Relief and was just as funny as they were; she proved she could tackle drama as well in The Color Purple (she won a Golden Globe for the performance); she has never bowed to conventions for African-American nor women - she defies the trends with her ever-present dreadlocks and designer-free clothes; she also has freely admitted her dyslexia and former drugs habit, without all the "oh poor me" attention getting of the Lohans, Spears, and Hiltons.

Because of this, I was glad that Whoopi was joining The View after the debacle that is known as Rosie O'Donnell left. Even though I haven't watched the show since its first year, I thought I may Tivo an episode to see how good ol' Whoopi, who is a strong female role model, was doing.

OMG! She didn't even make it out of the gate when she imploded on camera giving her opinion about the Micheal Vick case.

What is this crap that Vick's action are justified because "This is part of his cultural upbringing"?!?!?!? Hey, Whoopi... I love your work, you have been a great role model on so many levels, but holy shit! Are you even listening to yourself?!?! Isn't you defense of Vick the same damn defense that the Southerners used when they were justifying the slavery of African-Americans? Isn't that the same defense the ancestors of those pre-Civil War Southerners used when the government said that the South needed to desegregate?

For you to say that people can use their past and culture to excuse their actions would give anyone the reason to get away with horrendous atrocities. Possible scenario: "Hey, I am like sorry Your Honor, I didn't mean to beat my kid until he was in a coma. My dad beat me all the time growing up. It is part of my culture. I thought it was OK because my dad never got punished for it." Woman, PLEASE! Wake up and smell the 21st century!

Whoopi - would you have said this if Vick was a white Southerner? That is the $64,000 question here. Don Imus rightfully got raked across the coals for his "nappy-headed hos" remarked aimed at the predominately African-American Rutgers women's basketball team. Can you even see how you are helping to perpetuate the negative stereotype of African-American males?

Do the "View"ers a favor - be your brilliant, funny self. We like when you push the envelope. However, by pushing, I mean pushing people to see past their fears, comfort zone, etc., not back into the 1800's. Daytime television does NOT need another Rosie O'Donnell. Be yourself.

Back to School Shock

2007-09-04T17:23:00.000-07:00

BACK TO SCHOOL SHOCK

We’ve all been traumatized in one way or another by the back to school season—or more appropriately, the back to school shock. For us educators and our students, the unstructured days of summer are gone for two semesters or approximately 180 days. Now it’s up early, out the door only to multi-task our way through today’s episode of “beat the clock.”

But we are not the only ones experiencing shock. George W. Bush has also shown some quasi back-to-school trauma. Because as all of his fellow cheerleaders continue to jump off his Titantic better known as Iraq, George continues to steer his ship down the abyss of no return. Stunned by the fact that they don’t sell Sparknotes for his…ah…David Petraeus’s anticipated report on Iraq due to Congress by September 15th, George still believes that photo-ops, empty words, and recycled spin can save him from his pending failing grades. Sorry—but dispatching Scary Mary Matalin to Meet the Press on Sunday to begin spinning his failures doesn’t help. Poor Mary—she does fit the bill for the dreaded “helicopter” Mom, hovering over her pathetic child, making any failure of his seem not that bad.

But the sad fact of the matter is that George never prepared for his Iraq project; “project-based” assignments are all the rage in public education nowadays. He never did study enough; he and his tutor—Mr. Cheney—never did make the right preparations before, during, and after their invasion; and instead of just ponying-up to the fact that he was in desperate need of remedial help in the Geopolitics of the Middle East, arrogant George simply took the attitude that many apathetic students take when they “imagine” they have finished their work. Like the student who says, "at least it's over," George simply said: "mission accomplished. "

The Men's Room

2007-08-28T02:36:00.000-07:00

The Men's Room

Without question, many of us at 1% More Conscious feel 1% more dead at the beginning of the new school year. There's simply too much to do to get ready for the arrival of those little cherubs and too much NCLB related paperwork to wade through before getting to the starting line. Nonetheless, it only takes a news cycle or two to resurrect us from our media comas.

So while the mainstream media in America was overdosing on the latest installments in the narrative of Michael Vick--they can't get enough of Mikey, Attorney General Gonzales finally goes by-by. Alas--talk about a bad case of "you're not welcomed here anymore." Iraq continues to spiral out of control albeit T.A.N.G. (Texas Air National Guard George) has recently decided to invoke the very thing he avoided his early adulthood life: Vietnam. And, viola, yet another "lewd" scandal emerges involving the ever heinously, hideously hypocritical GOP. Gotta love this "incident" in the men's room.

A Different World

2007-08-24T07:29:00.000-07:00

Youth and Politics (Again)

Young people have had a difficult time becoming interested or involved in politics for a long time. Mine is not the first generation to be apathetic by any means. But I feel that my peers, and those in the next batch of young people, are facing even more disadvantages in understanding, relating to and finding an interest in politics.

I have already discussed the lack of foundational education in schools. The other huge problem that I see with politics today is the way in which this particular regime runs their office. The Bush administration alienates, isolates and manipulates, and while I'm sure the adults in this country feel it as well, it is most detrimental to those being raised with this as their first exposure to political America.

When George Bush "borrowed" the 2000 election from Al Gore, I was in eighth grade. My biggest concern at the time was whether they would find a replacement for Ikaika, the rogue, departing member of O-Town on Making the Band. By the time I had really clued in that I should be paying attention, September 11th was long past and the war in Iraq had already began. It's like my generation woke up, and our life decisions were made for us. America is at war and hey, would we like to sign up to go to Iraq indefinitely? US/World relations have been shattered, the economy is shit and the President conducts his business either in secret or with a blatant disregard for any rule ever established in America.

This feeling of paralysis and helplessness is rampant in all demographics of America's society, but hits the hardest in the younger population. It takes a real effort to understand what's going on in the country, and once you've figured it all out, you wish you hadn't. Making the Band is still on the air (with Diddy at the helm, no less!) and my generation is still young enough to simply retreat to what is socially acceptable and intellectually easier - celebrities, television, movies. We might question the ethical implications of looking at pictures of Tara Reid's dress falling down, but it beats thinking about the part our country has played in the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians in a war that we cannot understand.

But all hope is not lost. Even if they are doing it in bizarre, misguided ways, politicians are reaching out to young people. From YouTube debates to Barack's ring tones to Dennis Kucinich's Myspace page, they are trying to capture the attention of an otherwise uninterested demographic. And while I might criticize and question the effectiveness, they are better than what the current administration is doing. I can only hope that whoever is elected in 2008 recognizes the delicate situation they are walking into in regards to the country's youth.

Vapid Vanity in America

2007-08-23T06:40:00.000-07:00

What is up with America’s obsession with perfection? Recently, I have found that cosmetic procedures have gotten WAY out of hand and it is a symptom of a bigger problem.

I don’t mean your basic procedures – if you do not like the bump on your nose, have rhinoplasty. Have the tummy tuck if it makes you feel better after having children. (I admit I wish I could afford it at times.) If you have lost a great deal of weight, good for you! Now, go have that excess skin removed to finish what you started on the way to a healthier you.

I am talking about the excess of surgeries and the new procedures that take vanity to a whole new low. Sharon Osbourne has racked up $700,000 in plastic surgery in recent years. Elvis’ Priscilla (see above pic) has had so much face work done that she is unrecognizable. Last year, after appearing in a popular woman’s magazine declaring that she loved her imperfections, Ashlee Simpson showed up in Hollywood… after her plastic surgeon fixed her to look almost identical to her sister Jessica.

Now, new, and in my opinion disturbing, procedures are becoming commonplace. Hey ladies, if you think your genital region is less than perky, have labiaplasty. Want to “feel touched for the very first time” again as Madonna sang in the 1980’s? Vaginaplasty is the answer for you. If you feel size matters, sign up for phalloplasty. Think your derrière could use a polish – try anal bleaching.

I could go on and on, especially about how the age of people seeking out plastic surgery in decreasing, and not just for breast augmentation. My problem with this latest tread is two-fold. With all the hunger, illiteracy, and problems in our country alone (mid-West is under water and The Big Easy still has not fully recovered from Katrina for example), couldn’t people with means find a more meaningful way to use their money?

My biggest fear is what effect this incessant vapid vanity is having on our youth. Everywhere they look, they are being bombarded with images of medical perfection, chiseled good looks, and seemingly ideal bodies. Life is neither fair nor perfect (if it was, life would be called guilt-free, endless chocolate cake instead). This latest trend is one more step our country is taking into the vast wasteland of sheer ineffectuality. As my good friend here at 1% More Conscious talks about Chimpy and Cheerleader Joe dragging our country into futility, I am afraid, dear readers, that this rising obsession with perfecting ourselves is a vain masking of how far we have fallen from being that all important “Number One”. Worse, we are bringing the next generation with us.

Summer Series - Hillary Clinton

2007-08-22T11:14:00.000-07:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 8/22/07

The ’07 Seven Candidates of Summer Series

Previous candidates: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and the "Other Guys."

Final installment...

Hillary Clinton

Here's the deal about Hillary Clinton: She can win the general election. No, she's not the Democrats' best bet, but talk of her unfavorable numbers making her unelectable are overblown. Karl Rove's recent public attacks on her electability are his attempt to perpetuate this idea that she can't win. The guy's a master politician for the GOP. Why would this political genius attack an opponent in her primary when he claims she could easily be defeated in the general election? Does that make any sense? I mean, at all? If she was so easy to topple in November 2008, would Rove put her nominaton in jeopardy? Of course not.

That doesn't mean there aren't risks with a Clinton nomination, and that'll be addressed later in this blog. For now, let's examine her two biggest strengths:

1) Her husband.
2) Herself.

These two assets have the potential to propel her to the White House. Her husband, along with everything that comes with him (massive political network, White House and foreign experience, infectious personality), is an advantage to the Clinton campaign. If you ask Democrats and Independents, many explain the best part about a Hillary Clinton victory is knowing Bill will be close to every big decision.

Senator Clinton has also helped herself. Her performance in the debates have been exemplary. She's playing the "experience card" despite this year kicking off only her second term in public office. Her big lead in national polls allows her to go with the "don't screw up" strategy. She can consult with Bill and her team at every step and plan the best course of action for the campaign.

Of course, this leads to many describing Senator Clinton as "calculating," which is as accurate as it is understandable. She can sit on her lead in the polls, conserving money, take hertime and make smart, political decisions. The problem with this slow burn is that it excites no one. Barack Obama is famous for his oratory and attempt to spark change in Washington. John Edwards is noticably frustrated and furious with progressive issues not being addressed by either party. Both have, pound-for-pound, more passionate fan bases than Clinton.

Still, the greatest concern for Democrats and the Clinton-leaning voter is that pesky electability issue. Earlier I argued that she can win, and this is true. In fact, you could make a case that she's the favorite to be the next President! She is, after all, the favorite of the party that is the favorite to win the election.

All is not perfect or resolved. Republicans hate Clinton like Democrats hate Reagan. Much of the GOP is ashamed of their party, and while they wouldn't go as far as to support a Democrat next November, they might stay home and not vote Republican. But if Hillary Clinton is the nominee? They just might. There is fear among Democrats, as I outlined months ago, that a Clinton nomination brings Republicans out of the woodworks like no other candidate would do.

Ultimately, the Democrats are clearly playing with fire. In such a crucial and wide open election, one where a Democrat is actually supposed to win, nominating a wildcard like Hillary Clinton (or, for that matter, the young, inexperienced, and dare I say it, "un-white" Barack Obama) is questionable politics. Yet the national Democratic electorate still heavily favors her.

That's the Democratic Party for you.

I hope you enjoyed the Summer Series here at 1%. Thanks for reading. More presidential politics can be found at my site, Presidential Politics for America.

Cheerleader Joe

2007-08-20T11:40:00.001-07:00

CHEERLEADER JOE

In the American tradition of re-naming, like Jay Gatz who reinvents himself as Gatsby, like Marshall Mathers who calls himself Eminem, like Hillary Rodham Clinton who has triangulated herself for ’08 as Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman should re-name himself. Senator Joe Lieberman, I-CT, also known as Captain Lieberman, formerly Oedipus Lieberman, formerly Joe Lieberman, Democrat from CT, can now be known as Cheerleader Joe…from hell.

Picture this: a sort of dark and dreary scene with those pom-pom extras from Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” video and Joe shouting “bomb, bomb Iran,” “let’s go n-u-c-l-e-a-r in India,” or his latest geopolitical ditty, “hip, hop, ho, the road to Damascus,” which pays partial tribute to General Petreaus’s efforts. But does Cheerleader Joe ever stop? Maybe he's stopped reading because even some of the staunchest supporters of invasion Iraq have recently forecast that Petreaus’s efforts are likely to yield little in the big scheme of things.

I kid you not: as Think Progress reports today, Joe composed yet another manifesto for victory for none other than The Wall Street Journal, the same publication that announced last week that George Bush lost his brain. Many of us folks in CT know that Cheerleader Joe—or whatever you want to call him—lost his mind a long time ago.

Fuzziness

2007-08-19T05:48:00.001-07:00

FUZZINESS

Though not new, it’s certainly a PR strategy that’s been in the news—for lack of a better term—lately: in America, if you don’t like the truth or anything closely resembling the truth, revise and edit to make things fuzzy. Take a look at corporate America’s latest “fuzzing” of Wikipedia; if they don’t like something, they fuzzy it. Very Orwellian—yes, but I think it's more simple than that because many of the fuzzies haven’t read Orwell. Sorry. Remember: our President’s mantra in 2000 was “fuzzy numbers”; one never knew that that also meant “fuzzy realities.”

Invoking the name of General David Petraeus in the last few weeks as if he were banging his chest at a keg party, Bush has sought refuge in the General’s overseeing of the “surge”—really an escalation—and his forthcoming report on September 15th. Yet, this week we learn that Petraeus WILL not write the forthcoming report; it will be written by—frightening, I know—George. Bush and this team—I’m sure—will revise and edit whatever Petraeus reports; folks, any high schooler well-versed in cheating, lying, editing and revising knows that this is NOT a good thing.

Even Thomas Friedman, who makes me frequently “invoke” my impression of Linda Blair in The Exorcist, knows this is not a good thing. One might think that Friedman would have his pom-poms in a stir for this fuzzy Petraeus report, but no. In today’s column, Tom says it best:

Had the surge happened in 2003, when it should have, it might
have prevented the kindling of all of Iraq’s sectarian passions.
But now that those fires have been set, trying to unify Iraq feels
like doing carpentry on a burning house.

Nothing fuzzy ‘bout that. Love the “burning house” metaphor, Tom. So as Iraq burns and our soldiers yearn to get out, George W. Bush and much of his media continue to smokescreen the American public yet again by “fuzzying” reality to obscure the truth.

ADDENDUM: Please check out this post at Drinking Liberally for a more thorough overview of some of the fuzziness going on.

Fatigue

2007-08-17T18:06:00.000-07:00

Fatigue '08

Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker wrote about Democrats and the overall 2008 saturation recently, and I think many Americans would agree: enough parsing, enough news, enough already. Yeah, we need to know about these candidates and their positions. Yes, we would like them to be more frank in their responses. Sure, we want to know whether or not they are representing the best interests of the people—yeah, whatever. But how many more debates, stump speeches, polls, thrusts and parries, and lies must we endure in this off election year? Sorry, Republicans, but Nosferatu Giuliani’s latest, ah, “exaggeration” about how much time he spent at the WTC clean-up handedly wins the Emmy for best performance of legend in one’s own mind. And The New York Times wins the award for best new drama for The Days & Conflicts of Martha’s Vineyard, starring the Clinton and Obama supporters.

What’s even more amazing is that we have over a year to go. Meanwhile, there is some “real” disturbing news on the electoral front that seldom registers on the front pages or in the American psyche, right, left or center. Take, for instance, this unsolved controversy over paper trail-less electronic voting and how “easy” it is to tamper with results. And what about how the Republicans in California would like to change how the electoral votes in the state are distributed? Yes, I’m being totally partisan—and a bit conspiratorial—but what about the corollary involving certain Secretaries of State, political parties, and voting outcomes? Sorry, I haven’t recovered from the 2000 cake-up of Kathleen Harris.

Indeed, we (and I mean everybody) are interested in 2008; we’ve all been terrorized enough by Bush and company. But instead of being over-saturated with nano-second news on which state will out-mojo the next for "the" primary date, porn-star named Mitt Romney’s family of boys, Hillary’s cleavage, and Johnny’s sexy hair, I think we could all focus on more pressing issues related to and not related to the election to avoid '08 fatigue.

It's about 2008

2007-08-16T14:59:00.000-07:00

It’s about 2008

As Captain LIEberman, formerly Oedipus Lieberman, formerly Joe Lieberman, Republicrat from CT, fantasizes about going nuclear in India, George Bush loses his brain. Who knows what will happen next, especially considering that Bush’s brain is also known as a turd?

But Rove’s departure should come as no surprise. It’s real simple: what do you with your party’s best campaign strategist when you have a president whose approval ratings—ooh…ah—hover in the high 20s to mid 30s and there’s no “clear” frontrunner emerging, despite rumors that troll-looking Fred Thompson can work some Hogwarts magic? Send in Rove, Karl Rove.

Sure, the media can fixate on and speculate about Rove’s departure. Pundits can and will buy into the lame excuse that blossom wants to spend time with his family—and I’m a staffer at The National Review. But the obvious reason for Rove’s timely exit stage to Texas is to get ready for 2008. That became abundantly evident in his interview for The Wall Street Journal and during his guest spot on the Rush Limbaugh show. And what better way to ceremoniously yet symbolically reveal his plans than to call Hillary a “fatally flawed candidate.” I have to admit: I do like it that Hillary is channeling her inner Pat Benatar and hitting back.

It’s about 2008, stupid! No doubt, like the hand at the end of Carrie, Karl Rove will be back.

Summer Series - Mitt Romney

2007-08-15T04:29:00.000-07:00

Weekly Presidential Politics - 8/15/07

The ’07 Seven Candidates of Summer Series

Previous candidates: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, and the "Other Guys."

Now it's time for the favorites. First, for the GOP...

Mitt Romney

This week, the Summer Series blends nicely with current events. The recent Ames Iowa Straw Poll saw a healthy victory for Mitt Romney, whose 4,500 votes bested second place Mike Huckabee by 2,000. Before addressing the Romney candidacy as a whole, let's first address the significance of Romney's performance this weekend.

Romney's domination of the Iowa Straw Poll was completely expected, and therefore not nearly as big of a victory as the numbers show. With Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain not even trying to win the ISP, Romney was supposed to trump the field while the second and third tier candidates jockeyed for a strong second place finish. Furthermore, Romney spared no expense to guarantee a victory, outspending the rest of the field combined. Still, a win is a win, and Romney should see a slight bump in numbers across the country.

The Iowa Straw Poll results are a great example of Romney's strategy in the Republican primary. His allocation of resources in Iowa and New Hampshire is already making him money elsewhere, exampled by the media coverage of the ISP attracting voters and money across the country. Furthermore, potential Romney voters across the country will be attracted to his healthy Iowa and New Hampshire polls numbers, despite him not spending any extra cash outside of those two locations. The more Republican voters see him as a legitimate candidate who can win the nomination, the more money he'll raise and the more voters he'll attract.

Rudy Giuliani still leads national polls among Republicans with Fred Thompson almost always placing second, but with horse race coverage a very real aspect of the primary system, the winner of the early primaries are in the best position to win the nomination, most recently evidenced in 2004 by John Kerry and John Edwards overtaking Howard Dean just by defeating him in Iowa. In Iowa, Mitt Romney was trouncing the competition, even before the Iowa Straw Poll. He's led all Iowa polls for months, sometimes by as much as double digits. We should fully expect him to win the kick-off caucus.

Examining the primaries after Iowa, Romney is competitive in Nevada poll numbers, and he leads most New Hampshire polls. An Iowa Caucus victory for Romney would only strengthen his chances in those two states, perhaps securing a victory in both. Three wins there, or at least two firsts and a second, would send Romney off and running, especially with Republicans hesitant to support the socially liberal Giuliani.

In sum, regardless of current national numbers, Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Rove Resignation

2007-08-13T03:27:00.000-07:00

Extra, extra! Read all about it. I thought I was hallucinating. Maybe the planets are aligning or something.