Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2009
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Yes We Did
Congratulations to President Barack Obama.
Congratulations America. And welcome back.
'Nuff said.
Congratulations America. And welcome back.
'Nuff said.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
My No on 8 Video
This is a somewhat-successful first attempt at using YouTube's "Direct Upload" feature, and it's my appeal to California voters to vote against the discriminatory Proposition 8. The audio is out of sync and it cuts off the last sentence, but the bulk of the message is there.
The video cuts off at the end, the last bit was supposed to say "The law is meant to protect the people, not to harm them. Vote No on Prop 8."
Also of note is this video, narrated by Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson, and describing a little bit more the history of discrimination we should be turning our backs on, not embracing like a long-lost friend.
The video cuts off at the end, the last bit was supposed to say "The law is meant to protect the people, not to harm them. Vote No on Prop 8."
Also of note is this video, narrated by Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson, and describing a little bit more the history of discrimination we should be turning our backs on, not embracing like a long-lost friend.
Friday, October 31, 2008
California Voters: The "Props" on the Ballot
(This was originally an e-mail I sent around to some of my close friends. A few of them encouraged me to blog it, so what the heck, here it is.)
One week from Tuesday, Nov. 4, is the big election -- although some of you may be voting early (and may have done so already). There are also 12 proposed laws on the California ballot. The props are long and filled with legalese, and the arguments from both sides are adamant and compelling.
I won't tell you guys how to vote (aside from no on Prop 8 -- it seriously goes against everything America is supposed to stand for), but I can tell you how *I* plan to vote at this point, and why, and perhaps help you make your decisions as well.
So here we go:
Proposition 1/1A:
A proposed bullet train system, to connect the major metropolitan areas of the state. Proponents claim that it would be a boon to the economy, alleviate CO2 emissions, and all-around bring the state into the 21st century.
The prop allows for a nearly $10 billion bond to be taken out, and no new taxes to be levied.
Well, here's the problem. The money's got to come from somewhere. And if new taxes aren't going to be spent, that means it has to come out of the state discretionary funds. That means that the money to pay for this train would come out of education, law enforcement, healthcare, roads, and other "discretionary" projects, and be added to the existing $7 billion state deficit we've already racked up under the Governator's watch.
In addition, it would appear that the bullet train lacks oversight or even a cohesive plan for the actual building. You know those government workers who shut down freeways but never actually seem to be working? We'll get more of that. There is no incentive for the construction companies to actually even start the project, let alone finish it; and no way for taxpayers to take action against them.
While I like the idea of a high-speed rail system in our state -- and really nationwide -- this proposition is not written with the citizens' best interests in mind, and can too easily be abused leaving the state saddled with a nearly $20 billion debt (the initial bond plus interest over 30 years) that we will still have to pay even if the project is not completed, or shut down entirely. A massive infrastructural project like this needs to be better planned and regulated -- and oh yeah, should probably specify exactly where the money will come from. I will be voting NO on Prop 1.
Proposition 2:
Provides for the "humane treatment" of animals raised for food, such as egg-laying chickens and cows raised for veal.
The argument for is basically treating animals humanely. I personally question the logic a little bit since they will eventually be killed and eaten, and it seems to humanize the animals unnecessarily.
The argument against claims that the measure will harm local farmers by creating additional overhead, forcing them to own more land to give more space to the animals, or cut back on their production.
Frankly I don't know what to think about it. But I don't like the idea of creating new laws for special interests on either side of the table. I'm going to go with my default on this, which is to vote NO on Prop 2.
Proposition 3:
Provides a bond for just under $1 billion to fund Children's Hospitals.
This one smells pretty fishy to me. Whenever someone claims that it's "for the children" I'm automatically suspicious, because that's an easy way to stop people from really thinking about the claims being made and just pull the lever "for the children."
This is another bond that will not create new taxes -- but as I said with prop 1, the money's got to come from somewhere. The opponents point out that a previous bond -- prop 61 passed in 2004 -- have apparently not yet been exhausted. They talk about these children's hospitals being able to afford the latest medical technologies -- but it sounds to me like the suppliers are just holding their hands out looking for cash.
I don't like the sound of it, and again, there's unspent money already there for this very purpose. It's not for the children, they're using the children to get more money to fill their coffers, and that's not right. I will vote NO on Prop 3.
Proposition 4:
Requires a waiting period and parental notification before terminating (aborting) the pregnancy of a minor.
The fact is, I agree with the opponents pretty much flat-out on this one. This law would not prevent teen pregnancy, or safeguard young women from sexual predators. It would merely make them more likely to hide their pregnancy, and seek out illegal or out-of-state abortions instead.
This is obviously an attempt by anti-abortion activists to create a chink in the abortion laws so that they can continue chiseling away at them.
Without getting into opinions about abortion itself, the fact is that the answer to this is education, not legislation. I will be voting NO on Prop 4.
Proposition 5:
Reforms drug laws, sentencing, and rehabilitation programs for non-violent offenders.
I am personally of the belief that drug use is a victimless crime. It can lead to crimes that victimize others, but prop 5 will not make California judges unable to sentence violent offenders. Instead, it reduces criminal penalties for non-violent offenders, as well as establishing/funding rehabilitation programs.
I believe in the inherent goodness of people, and I believe that people can get "clean." And under California's existing three-strikes legislation, it's not like they would get to make their mistakes ad infinitum.
I'm all for sending fewer people to jail for non-violent "crimes" and giving people a second chance. I will be voting YES on Prop 5.
Proposition 6:
More money to law enforcement, more things criminalized with harsher penalties (even adding new life sentences).
This goes against what I said above in 5. The answer to the problems is not more incarceration and potential for abuse of police power. And there is no guarantee of oversight of the nearly $1 billion that will go into this program.
Aiding in the creation of a police state is not and will never be part of my agenda. I will be voting NO on Prop 6.
Proposition 7:
Provision for renewable energy generation. Appears to be opposed by the major electrical utilities and the major political parties. I don't trust politicians or the folks who benefit most from keeping the status quo. They call prop 7 poorly-written, but having read it, it appears to close up current loopholes in the production of renewable energy, providing a legal mandate that these energy groups must achieve their goals and not merely try.
It also eliminates exemptions for "electrical corporations," defining them as "retail sellers" and holding them accountable.
We need renewable energy, in California and throughout the world. I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can tell the folks against 7 stand the most to profit if it fails, and the rest of us the most if it succeeds. I will vote YES on Prop 7.
Proposition 8:
Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Constitutional amendment.
Besides my obvious stake in this, it is wrong in any and all cases to pass laws that take away existing rights from a minority group. You don't have to approve of it, but don't make it illegal when it doesn't harm anyone.
I'll be putting out a video on this in the next day or so, but the short version is: VOTE NO ON 8.
Proposition 9:
Victims' rights to notification and testimony.
My default position to constitutional amendments is no, and Prop 9 is no different. While I feel for the victims of violent crime, prop 9 is a redundant constitutional amendment, and has been judged to cost taxpayers (us) in the hundreds of millions, in the middle of a serious deficit; and again, the provisions that it would "enact" already exist, and have since 1982. I will vote NO on Prop 9.
Proposition 10:
Bonds to purchase alternative fuel vehicles.
This proposition will cost $10 billion over 30 years, and fails, according to independent analysts, to provide adequate funds for its actual administration. As with the other bonds that will "not raise taxes," this money will come out of education, roads, healthcare, and other discretionary projects. It is also written in such a way as to possibly be construed to specify *certain kinds* of alternative fuel -- natural gas, ethanol, biodiesel and hydrogen -- and could be used to exclude major clean-fuel vehicle types like hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and full-electric cars.
Prop 7 covers the state's renewable energy issue, and the idea of taking $10 billion out of our economy with no real plan where it's going to come from is a bad idea. As much as I'd like the gov't to buy me a Prius, I will be voting NO on Prop 10.
Proposition 11:
Redistricting, Constitutional amendment.
Basically would allow the districts of state representatives to the federal congress to be redrawn. The weasel word that concerns me here is that it allows of the creation and maintenance of "communities of interest" -- and doesn't define what that means. This sounds to me like it would allow for redistricting based on ideological biases. This power, by the way, is given to an appointed -- not elected -- commission.
I don't like the smell of this. It's a new bureacracy that is not elected and therefore not accountable to the will of the people. And another constitutional amendment, which are hard to undo once done. I will vote NO on Prop. 11.
Proposition 12:
Provides low-interest rate home loans to U.S. Veterans.
It's understandable if folks are gun-shy of the home loan market after these last couple of harrowing weeks, which were caused in part by bad home loans. But as my roommate Brian pointed out, those were high interest rate home loans, not low interest rates. This could actually help the state economy.
Generally speaking, a house is one of the best investments you can make. This program has apparently been in place for a long time and is merely renewed each election. And regardless of your feelings on war or the military -- I happen to be a pacifist and don't get me started on Iraq -- the fact is that the people in the military do what they do out of loyalty to this country, and if they need a little help buying their piece of the American dream when they get done, then I think that's the least we can do.
(It's also a little telling that the opposition apparently consists of one guy. Most ballot measures get at least three people for each side, representing particular interests that want the measure to either pass or fail. He doesn't even have an organizational affiliation. He's just some guy.)
I will vote YES on Prop 12.
So, to recap:
Prop 1: NO
Prop 2: NO
Prop 3: NO
Prop 4: NO
Prop 5: YES
Prop 6: NO
Prop 7: YES
Prop 8: NO
Prop 9: NO
Prop 10: NO
Prop 11: NO
Prop 12: YES
One week from Tuesday, Nov. 4, is the big election -- although some of you may be voting early (and may have done so already). There are also 12 proposed laws on the California ballot. The props are long and filled with legalese, and the arguments from both sides are adamant and compelling.
I won't tell you guys how to vote (aside from no on Prop 8 -- it seriously goes against everything America is supposed to stand for), but I can tell you how *I* plan to vote at this point, and why, and perhaps help you make your decisions as well.
So here we go:
Proposition 1/1A:
A proposed bullet train system, to connect the major metropolitan areas of the state. Proponents claim that it would be a boon to the economy, alleviate CO2 emissions, and all-around bring the state into the 21st century.
The prop allows for a nearly $10 billion bond to be taken out, and no new taxes to be levied.
Well, here's the problem. The money's got to come from somewhere. And if new taxes aren't going to be spent, that means it has to come out of the state discretionary funds. That means that the money to pay for this train would come out of education, law enforcement, healthcare, roads, and other "discretionary" projects, and be added to the existing $7 billion state deficit we've already racked up under the Governator's watch.
In addition, it would appear that the bullet train lacks oversight or even a cohesive plan for the actual building. You know those government workers who shut down freeways but never actually seem to be working? We'll get more of that. There is no incentive for the construction companies to actually even start the project, let alone finish it; and no way for taxpayers to take action against them.
While I like the idea of a high-speed rail system in our state -- and really nationwide -- this proposition is not written with the citizens' best interests in mind, and can too easily be abused leaving the state saddled with a nearly $20 billion debt (the initial bond plus interest over 30 years) that we will still have to pay even if the project is not completed, or shut down entirely. A massive infrastructural project like this needs to be better planned and regulated -- and oh yeah, should probably specify exactly where the money will come from. I will be voting NO on Prop 1.
Proposition 2:
Provides for the "humane treatment" of animals raised for food, such as egg-laying chickens and cows raised for veal.
The argument for is basically treating animals humanely. I personally question the logic a little bit since they will eventually be killed and eaten, and it seems to humanize the animals unnecessarily.
The argument against claims that the measure will harm local farmers by creating additional overhead, forcing them to own more land to give more space to the animals, or cut back on their production.
Frankly I don't know what to think about it. But I don't like the idea of creating new laws for special interests on either side of the table. I'm going to go with my default on this, which is to vote NO on Prop 2.
Proposition 3:
Provides a bond for just under $1 billion to fund Children's Hospitals.
This one smells pretty fishy to me. Whenever someone claims that it's "for the children" I'm automatically suspicious, because that's an easy way to stop people from really thinking about the claims being made and just pull the lever "for the children."
This is another bond that will not create new taxes -- but as I said with prop 1, the money's got to come from somewhere. The opponents point out that a previous bond -- prop 61 passed in 2004 -- have apparently not yet been exhausted. They talk about these children's hospitals being able to afford the latest medical technologies -- but it sounds to me like the suppliers are just holding their hands out looking for cash.
I don't like the sound of it, and again, there's unspent money already there for this very purpose. It's not for the children, they're using the children to get more money to fill their coffers, and that's not right. I will vote NO on Prop 3.
Proposition 4:
Requires a waiting period and parental notification before terminating (aborting) the pregnancy of a minor.
The fact is, I agree with the opponents pretty much flat-out on this one. This law would not prevent teen pregnancy, or safeguard young women from sexual predators. It would merely make them more likely to hide their pregnancy, and seek out illegal or out-of-state abortions instead.
This is obviously an attempt by anti-abortion activists to create a chink in the abortion laws so that they can continue chiseling away at them.
Without getting into opinions about abortion itself, the fact is that the answer to this is education, not legislation. I will be voting NO on Prop 4.
Proposition 5:
Reforms drug laws, sentencing, and rehabilitation programs for non-violent offenders.
I am personally of the belief that drug use is a victimless crime. It can lead to crimes that victimize others, but prop 5 will not make California judges unable to sentence violent offenders. Instead, it reduces criminal penalties for non-violent offenders, as well as establishing/funding rehabilitation programs.
I believe in the inherent goodness of people, and I believe that people can get "clean." And under California's existing three-strikes legislation, it's not like they would get to make their mistakes ad infinitum.
I'm all for sending fewer people to jail for non-violent "crimes" and giving people a second chance. I will be voting YES on Prop 5.
Proposition 6:
More money to law enforcement, more things criminalized with harsher penalties (even adding new life sentences).
This goes against what I said above in 5. The answer to the problems is not more incarceration and potential for abuse of police power. And there is no guarantee of oversight of the nearly $1 billion that will go into this program.
Aiding in the creation of a police state is not and will never be part of my agenda. I will be voting NO on Prop 6.
Proposition 7:
Provision for renewable energy generation. Appears to be opposed by the major electrical utilities and the major political parties. I don't trust politicians or the folks who benefit most from keeping the status quo. They call prop 7 poorly-written, but having read it, it appears to close up current loopholes in the production of renewable energy, providing a legal mandate that these energy groups must achieve their goals and not merely try.
It also eliminates exemptions for "electrical corporations," defining them as "retail sellers" and holding them accountable.
We need renewable energy, in California and throughout the world. I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can tell the folks against 7 stand the most to profit if it fails, and the rest of us the most if it succeeds. I will vote YES on Prop 7.
Proposition 8:
Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Constitutional amendment.
Besides my obvious stake in this, it is wrong in any and all cases to pass laws that take away existing rights from a minority group. You don't have to approve of it, but don't make it illegal when it doesn't harm anyone.
I'll be putting out a video on this in the next day or so, but the short version is: VOTE NO ON 8.
Proposition 9:
Victims' rights to notification and testimony.
My default position to constitutional amendments is no, and Prop 9 is no different. While I feel for the victims of violent crime, prop 9 is a redundant constitutional amendment, and has been judged to cost taxpayers (us) in the hundreds of millions, in the middle of a serious deficit; and again, the provisions that it would "enact" already exist, and have since 1982. I will vote NO on Prop 9.
Proposition 10:
Bonds to purchase alternative fuel vehicles.
This proposition will cost $10 billion over 30 years, and fails, according to independent analysts, to provide adequate funds for its actual administration. As with the other bonds that will "not raise taxes," this money will come out of education, roads, healthcare, and other discretionary projects. It is also written in such a way as to possibly be construed to specify *certain kinds* of alternative fuel -- natural gas, ethanol, biodiesel and hydrogen -- and could be used to exclude major clean-fuel vehicle types like hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and full-electric cars.
Prop 7 covers the state's renewable energy issue, and the idea of taking $10 billion out of our economy with no real plan where it's going to come from is a bad idea. As much as I'd like the gov't to buy me a Prius, I will be voting NO on Prop 10.
Proposition 11:
Redistricting, Constitutional amendment.
Basically would allow the districts of state representatives to the federal congress to be redrawn. The weasel word that concerns me here is that it allows of the creation and maintenance of "communities of interest" -- and doesn't define what that means. This sounds to me like it would allow for redistricting based on ideological biases. This power, by the way, is given to an appointed -- not elected -- commission.
I don't like the smell of this. It's a new bureacracy that is not elected and therefore not accountable to the will of the people. And another constitutional amendment, which are hard to undo once done. I will vote NO on Prop. 11.
Proposition 12:
Provides low-interest rate home loans to U.S. Veterans.
It's understandable if folks are gun-shy of the home loan market after these last couple of harrowing weeks, which were caused in part by bad home loans. But as my roommate Brian pointed out, those were high interest rate home loans, not low interest rates. This could actually help the state economy.
Generally speaking, a house is one of the best investments you can make. This program has apparently been in place for a long time and is merely renewed each election. And regardless of your feelings on war or the military -- I happen to be a pacifist and don't get me started on Iraq -- the fact is that the people in the military do what they do out of loyalty to this country, and if they need a little help buying their piece of the American dream when they get done, then I think that's the least we can do.
(It's also a little telling that the opposition apparently consists of one guy. Most ballot measures get at least three people for each side, representing particular interests that want the measure to either pass or fail. He doesn't even have an organizational affiliation. He's just some guy.)
I will vote YES on Prop 12.
So, to recap:
Prop 1: NO
Prop 2: NO
Prop 3: NO
Prop 4: NO
Prop 5: YES
Prop 6: NO
Prop 7: YES
Prop 8: NO
Prop 9: NO
Prop 10: NO
Prop 11: NO
Prop 12: YES
Friday, October 03, 2008
Last Night's Debate
Not really much to say, I think the pundits have it right and the country does too. Palin didn't self-destruct, Biden won the debate in terms of actually being able to do the job.
I'm actually planning to do a YouTube video re: the election, hopefully get that done this weekend when I've got the opportunity.
I'm actually planning to do a YouTube video re: the election, hopefully get that done this weekend when I've got the opportunity.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
She's On The List
If that episode of Friends is to be believed, everybody has a list of celebrities that, if the opportunity presents itself, they would sleep with.1 I don't know if that episode is to be believed, in the sense that I'm not sure everybody has such a list, but I certainly have one.
Obviously that list is of male celebrities, and is pure fantasy since most of them are (apparently) straight, and no, I won't tell you who.
I have, however, another, shorter list of female celebrities that I would hook up with. On the Kinsey Scale, I'd consider myself a pretty solid 5, even a 5.5, but not a full 6. There are a select few ladies out there who are just so goddamn amazing, even I couldn't resist.
Tina Fey is definitely on that list.
Tina Fey, in fact, is on a sub-list of that list. I wouldn't just hit that, I would get down on my knee and propose and raise a family with her. Seriously, I love this woman. And I hope, if I ever actually get to meet her, that this admission doesn't make it awkward.
And, that her husband isn't around.
Anyway.
It's not like she's a new addition to the list, however she's come back to the fore with her spot-on impersonations of Sarah Palin2 on Saturday Night Live. Everyone saw the first Palin-Hillary sketch a week or two ago, but last night she appeared again, this time in a satire of Palin's trainwreck of an interview with Katie Couric:
Funny shit, but also a little scary. Why do I say scary? Because here's the relevant excerpt from the real interview with Couric:
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
You see what I mean by scary? The SNL sketch practically doesn't count as satire because it's almost fucking verbatim to Palin's actual answer.
Seriously, here's the transcript of what Palin says. Now play the SNL sketch and read along:
The way they sync up is almost like playing Dark Side of the Moon while watching Wizard of Oz, except instead of freaking out because that's totally trippy, man, you're freaking out because there's a very real chance she will end up President of the United States if John McCain wins and then dies. And the odds of each one are, at this point, pretty much 50-50.
Even just reading it on its own, it's impossible to parse. As Ed Brayton over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars put it:
And yet the campaigns are still neck-and-neck.
Sorry to cock-knock my male readers, luring them in with dirty Tina Fey talk and then abruptly seguing into politics again. But the Palin sketch just got me thinking. So much depends on Thursday's debate.
Obviously that list is of male celebrities, and is pure fantasy since most of them are (apparently) straight, and no, I won't tell you who.
I have, however, another, shorter list of female celebrities that I would hook up with. On the Kinsey Scale, I'd consider myself a pretty solid 5, even a 5.5, but not a full 6. There are a select few ladies out there who are just so goddamn amazing, even I couldn't resist.
Tina Fey is definitely on that list.
Tina Fey, in fact, is on a sub-list of that list. I wouldn't just hit that, I would get down on my knee and propose and raise a family with her. Seriously, I love this woman. And I hope, if I ever actually get to meet her, that this admission doesn't make it awkward.
And, that her husband isn't around.
Anyway.
It's not like she's a new addition to the list, however she's come back to the fore with her spot-on impersonations of Sarah Palin2 on Saturday Night Live. Everyone saw the first Palin-Hillary sketch a week or two ago, but last night she appeared again, this time in a satire of Palin's trainwreck of an interview with Katie Couric:
Funny shit, but also a little scary. Why do I say scary? Because here's the relevant excerpt from the real interview with Couric:
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
You see what I mean by scary? The SNL sketch practically doesn't count as satire because it's almost fucking verbatim to Palin's actual answer.
Seriously, here's the transcript of what Palin says. Now play the SNL sketch and read along:
That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.
The way they sync up is almost like playing Dark Side of the Moon while watching Wizard of Oz, except instead of freaking out because that's totally trippy, man, you're freaking out because there's a very real chance she will end up President of the United States if John McCain wins and then dies. And the odds of each one are, at this point, pretty much 50-50.
Even just reading it on its own, it's impossible to parse. As Ed Brayton over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars put it:
She literally babbles incoherently, just stringing together a bunch of totally unrelated talking points that couldn't make a coherent sentence at gunpoint. It's gibberish. It's word salad. It sounds like she's playing one of those refrigerator magnet games with a bunch of words and phrases and trying to tie them all together.
And yet the campaigns are still neck-and-neck.
Sorry to cock-knock my male readers, luring them in with dirty Tina Fey talk and then abruptly seguing into politics again. But the Palin sketch just got me thinking. So much depends on Thursday's debate.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Election 2008: Presidential Debate #1
Political post. If you don't want to hear it, go read Dr. McNinja instead.1
Last night was the first of three Presidential debates for the 2008 election, between Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and Republican nominee John McCain. If you haven't seen it, it is available in its entirety on CNN.com.
The first question that's asked is who won. I'm not sure that's the right question to ask, but I'll bite. There are two answers here. On the one hand, from as objective a standpoint as I could figure, it seemed more or less like a draw. McCain was out of his league when it came to the economic discussion that dominated the first half hour of the debate, but he came back strong when they started talking about Iraq, and managed to get the upper hand a bit with "the Surge worked nanner-nanner," to which the ever graceful Obama could only reply "Yes, it did." I think they were about evenly matched in terms of Russia/Pakistan talks. So like I say, a draw.
But a draw, in this case, can also be seen as a win for Obama. John McCain is and has been behind in the polls as the afterglow of Sarah Palin's nomination began to wear off (which, as is often the case, occurred when she opened her mouth and spoke); his "suspend the campaign/debate" bluff got called and he wound up losing the skirmish and appearing at the debate after all. McCain needed a home run, and he was most likely to get it from this debate, as it was (supposed to be) about foreign policy, which is (supposed to be) his specialty. He needed to show that Obama was in over his head when it came to foreign policy, and that he, John McCain, had what it took.
And while perhaps J McC did show -- at least to those already inclined to think so -- that he "has what it takes," so did Obama. No major gaffes on Obama's part. He remained cool, collected, and for every question, he had an answer.2
As I said, McCain needed a home run, this was his best chance to hit one -- and he didn't. Policy-wise, they tied. "Not a game-changer either way," the pundits are saying. That means the game remains as it was: Obama started ahead in the polls, and remained ahead in the polls, and so the tie was, in a sense, a victory for Obama.
Of course, the debates aren't really for staunch Republicans or Democrats, who have already made up their minds and are just watching the way one might watch a football match, a gladiatorial match, or an episode of Destroyed in Seconds. They're not really weighing the two candidates' stances on the issues, they just don't want to miss the very real possibility of political carnage.3
No, the debates are for those beautiful bastards, the undecideds -- who, ironically, are the ultimate deciders. They are the third-or-so of the population that one of the candidates needs to win over. And according to the polls, Obama convinced more of them that he could handle the gig than McCain did last night.
Nonetheless, McCain is clearly of the Orwellian belief that you can control make something true merely by saying that it is true. For example, his campaign ran online ads declaring him the winner not only before yesterday's debate, but before he'd even confirmed that he would attend the debate.
So it's no surprise that, post-debate, the McCain campaign ran the following advertisement:
I think, however, that this ad backfires in a number of ways.
First off, we'll address the obvious elephant in the room: these statements are taken out of context. All three of them were followed by "but." Obama agreed with McCain's sentiments, but not the conclusions he drew or the actions he intended to take. But I suppose that kind of quote-mining is just par for the political course, so we won't belabor that. Let's talk about some of the other problems with it.
As one YouTube commenter pointed out:
Well said, random internet person. Well said.
It also shows a fundamental (the politicians and pundits like that word) flaw in McCain's thinking. Specifically, that being willing to concede that someone else is right, and/or that you have occasionally been wrong, is some kind of weakness. That's exactly the bullshit pigheaded arrogance that has made Dubya the worst President, certainly in the recent history if not in the entire history of our nation.
It's okay to admit that you were wrong. In fact, to me, that shows more leadership potential and a better understanding of the nuances of human interaction than Bush or McCain seem to display.
On top of that, this ad, at least in concept, is plagiarized directly from this ad that VP nominee Joe Biden put together during the primary elections:
Let's stand back and think about this for a second. John McCain puts out an ad stating flat-out that Barack Obama is not ready to lead. And yet:
- John McCain chooses Sarah Palin as his running mate in a blatant attempt to cash in on Hillary's popularity.
- John McCain abandons his "experience" platform and adopts a "change" platform identical to the one that Obama has been using since the beginning.
- John McCain uses the "[blank] we can believe in" structure, recognizing its effectiveness in Obama's campaign
-Even last night, he appropriated Obama's rhetorical "Main Street/Wall Street" dichotomy, recognizing it as an effective sound bite, as well as another of Obama's frequently-repeated phrases, "Let me be clear."
- His "victory ad" is copied from his opponent's running mate.
In other words, McCain has spent his campaign following the other side's lead. If Obama isn't ready to lead, then why is McCain following right behind him at every move?
Also, it's a non-sequitur. The "punchline" of the ad has nothing to do with the preceding content. How does "I agree with Sen. McCain" automatically lead to "No"? It doesn't. They're two separate ads.
Here's my theory as to what happened: As a visual effects and graphics guy, I know that those graphics would have taken some time. So the fact is that they were already planning that ad, and had made the graphics and recorded the narration before the debate even happened, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to get the ad up so instantaneously.
They had already planned to release an ad stating that Obama was not ready to lead, already created the beginning and end bits, and were just waiting for Barack to put his foot in his mouth at the debate, so they could use that clip in the ad as their proof.
And the best they got out of him was his occasional concession that McCain had the right idea, but not the right approach, and just left the latter part out.
This is exactly the problem with their thinking -- the thinking that we already have in the White House. They make a plan and they refuse to deviate from it, even when it is clearly no longer the best strategy. "Stay the course." Fuck's sake.
Last comment on the debate: body language. Watch the debate with the sound off and just judge each one based on body cues. Obama was cool, relaxed -- hate to be trite, but "Presidential." He looked right at McCain, both while speaking to McCain and while McCain was speaking. He stood up straight and proud, and came across as someone I would be proud to have representing our country abroad.
McCain, on the other hand, was small, hunched over, tense, and looked more pissed-off as the night went on. He blinked a LOT, especially at the beginning -- generally a sign of either uncertainty or outright deceit -- and refused to look at or even directly address Obama. There are several ways to read that, none of them particularly good:
- On a purely primal level, social inferiors will not look their superiors in the eyes. You see this in wolves, lions, dogs, and apes. Subordinate males will not look at the dominant male. So just coming from the animal instinct level, John McCain recognized Obama as the alpha male on the stage.
- McCain is known to have a fiery temper, and despite his death's head rictus of a smile, he was all but vibrating with rage as Obama positively refused to be ignorant of the issues. It may be that he avoided looking at Obama because he would have utterly lost his composure if he had done so.4
- McCain was showing a total lack of respect, even contempt, for a formidable and worthy opponent. You don't have to like someone to respect them, and we don't need another 4 years of global petulance and disrespect from our Commander-in-Chief.5
I'm trying not to present a false dichotomy here, but I really can't think of any positive reason that McCain should have totally avoided eye contact, or even addressing Obama directly, especially when the format of the debate was that the two candidates would take five minutes in each topic to address each other directly. If any of you can put a positive spin on McCain's attitude, I'd be glad to hear it.
I was not myself undecided and this debate has not swung my vote. It's only made me more baffled -- and terrified -- that the race could be as close as it is.
As has been said by others, I don't believe that Obama is the pure-souled superpolitician who will finally bring back the unicorns. But I believe that this country needs a drastic change in direction, and Barack Obama represents that in far more ways than John McCain.
And if Obama really does bring back the unicorns, to boot -- well, I will be happy to admit I was wrong.
In the meantime, I'm very much looking forward to Thursday's debate.
Last night was the first of three Presidential debates for the 2008 election, between Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and Republican nominee John McCain. If you haven't seen it, it is available in its entirety on CNN.com.
The first question that's asked is who won. I'm not sure that's the right question to ask, but I'll bite. There are two answers here. On the one hand, from as objective a standpoint as I could figure, it seemed more or less like a draw. McCain was out of his league when it came to the economic discussion that dominated the first half hour of the debate, but he came back strong when they started talking about Iraq, and managed to get the upper hand a bit with "the Surge worked nanner-nanner," to which the ever graceful Obama could only reply "Yes, it did." I think they were about evenly matched in terms of Russia/Pakistan talks. So like I say, a draw.
But a draw, in this case, can also be seen as a win for Obama. John McCain is and has been behind in the polls as the afterglow of Sarah Palin's nomination began to wear off (which, as is often the case, occurred when she opened her mouth and spoke); his "suspend the campaign/debate" bluff got called and he wound up losing the skirmish and appearing at the debate after all. McCain needed a home run, and he was most likely to get it from this debate, as it was (supposed to be) about foreign policy, which is (supposed to be) his specialty. He needed to show that Obama was in over his head when it came to foreign policy, and that he, John McCain, had what it took.
And while perhaps J McC did show -- at least to those already inclined to think so -- that he "has what it takes," so did Obama. No major gaffes on Obama's part. He remained cool, collected, and for every question, he had an answer.2
As I said, McCain needed a home run, this was his best chance to hit one -- and he didn't. Policy-wise, they tied. "Not a game-changer either way," the pundits are saying. That means the game remains as it was: Obama started ahead in the polls, and remained ahead in the polls, and so the tie was, in a sense, a victory for Obama.
Of course, the debates aren't really for staunch Republicans or Democrats, who have already made up their minds and are just watching the way one might watch a football match, a gladiatorial match, or an episode of Destroyed in Seconds. They're not really weighing the two candidates' stances on the issues, they just don't want to miss the very real possibility of political carnage.3
No, the debates are for those beautiful bastards, the undecideds -- who, ironically, are the ultimate deciders. They are the third-or-so of the population that one of the candidates needs to win over. And according to the polls, Obama convinced more of them that he could handle the gig than McCain did last night.
Nonetheless, McCain is clearly of the Orwellian belief that you can control make something true merely by saying that it is true. For example, his campaign ran online ads declaring him the winner not only before yesterday's debate, but before he'd even confirmed that he would attend the debate.
So it's no surprise that, post-debate, the McCain campaign ran the following advertisement:
I think, however, that this ad backfires in a number of ways.
First off, we'll address the obvious elephant in the room: these statements are taken out of context. All three of them were followed by "but." Obama agreed with McCain's sentiments, but not the conclusions he drew or the actions he intended to take. But I suppose that kind of quote-mining is just par for the political course, so we won't belabor that. Let's talk about some of the other problems with it.
As one YouTube commenter pointed out:
By attacking Obama for agreeing with McCain, isn't his own campaign affirming the idea that McCain's policies are WRONG?
Well said, random internet person. Well said.
It also shows a fundamental (the politicians and pundits like that word) flaw in McCain's thinking. Specifically, that being willing to concede that someone else is right, and/or that you have occasionally been wrong, is some kind of weakness. That's exactly the bullshit pigheaded arrogance that has made Dubya the worst President, certainly in the recent history if not in the entire history of our nation.
It's okay to admit that you were wrong. In fact, to me, that shows more leadership potential and a better understanding of the nuances of human interaction than Bush or McCain seem to display.
On top of that, this ad, at least in concept, is plagiarized directly from this ad that VP nominee Joe Biden put together during the primary elections:
Let's stand back and think about this for a second. John McCain puts out an ad stating flat-out that Barack Obama is not ready to lead. And yet:
- John McCain chooses Sarah Palin as his running mate in a blatant attempt to cash in on Hillary's popularity.
- John McCain abandons his "experience" platform and adopts a "change" platform identical to the one that Obama has been using since the beginning.
- John McCain uses the "[blank] we can believe in" structure, recognizing its effectiveness in Obama's campaign
-Even last night, he appropriated Obama's rhetorical "Main Street/Wall Street" dichotomy, recognizing it as an effective sound bite, as well as another of Obama's frequently-repeated phrases, "Let me be clear."
- His "victory ad" is copied from his opponent's running mate.
In other words, McCain has spent his campaign following the other side's lead. If Obama isn't ready to lead, then why is McCain following right behind him at every move?
Also, it's a non-sequitur. The "punchline" of the ad has nothing to do with the preceding content. How does "I agree with Sen. McCain" automatically lead to "No"? It doesn't. They're two separate ads.
Here's my theory as to what happened: As a visual effects and graphics guy, I know that those graphics would have taken some time. So the fact is that they were already planning that ad, and had made the graphics and recorded the narration before the debate even happened, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to get the ad up so instantaneously.
They had already planned to release an ad stating that Obama was not ready to lead, already created the beginning and end bits, and were just waiting for Barack to put his foot in his mouth at the debate, so they could use that clip in the ad as their proof.
And the best they got out of him was his occasional concession that McCain had the right idea, but not the right approach, and just left the latter part out.
This is exactly the problem with their thinking -- the thinking that we already have in the White House. They make a plan and they refuse to deviate from it, even when it is clearly no longer the best strategy. "Stay the course." Fuck's sake.
Last comment on the debate: body language. Watch the debate with the sound off and just judge each one based on body cues. Obama was cool, relaxed -- hate to be trite, but "Presidential." He looked right at McCain, both while speaking to McCain and while McCain was speaking. He stood up straight and proud, and came across as someone I would be proud to have representing our country abroad.
McCain, on the other hand, was small, hunched over, tense, and looked more pissed-off as the night went on. He blinked a LOT, especially at the beginning -- generally a sign of either uncertainty or outright deceit -- and refused to look at or even directly address Obama. There are several ways to read that, none of them particularly good:
- On a purely primal level, social inferiors will not look their superiors in the eyes. You see this in wolves, lions, dogs, and apes. Subordinate males will not look at the dominant male. So just coming from the animal instinct level, John McCain recognized Obama as the alpha male on the stage.
- McCain is known to have a fiery temper, and despite his death's head rictus of a smile, he was all but vibrating with rage as Obama positively refused to be ignorant of the issues. It may be that he avoided looking at Obama because he would have utterly lost his composure if he had done so.4
- McCain was showing a total lack of respect, even contempt, for a formidable and worthy opponent. You don't have to like someone to respect them, and we don't need another 4 years of global petulance and disrespect from our Commander-in-Chief.5
I'm trying not to present a false dichotomy here, but I really can't think of any positive reason that McCain should have totally avoided eye contact, or even addressing Obama directly, especially when the format of the debate was that the two candidates would take five minutes in each topic to address each other directly. If any of you can put a positive spin on McCain's attitude, I'd be glad to hear it.
I was not myself undecided and this debate has not swung my vote. It's only made me more baffled -- and terrified -- that the race could be as close as it is.
As has been said by others, I don't believe that Obama is the pure-souled superpolitician who will finally bring back the unicorns. But I believe that this country needs a drastic change in direction, and Barack Obama represents that in far more ways than John McCain.
And if Obama really does bring back the unicorns, to boot -- well, I will be happy to admit I was wrong.
In the meantime, I'm very much looking forward to Thursday's debate.
- And even if you do want to hear it, go read Dr. McNinja afterwards, because that's some funny shit. Make sure you read the alt-text!↩
- Well, not quite every question. I was annoyed at the way both of them dodged the very direct question "What specific programs will you have to cut [read: what specific campaign promises will you be breaking] as a result of the economic crisis?" But both of them did it, so that one's a draw too.↩
- For this reason, I'm inclined to think that the Biden-Palin debate will be the highest rated of all the debates this election season. One internet wit predicted it will end with Palin curled up and sobbing in a corner, while Biden dons parachute pants and does the Hammer Dance across the stage. ↩
- McCain also apparently didn't realize that his tactic of "make up lies about the opponent's positions and declare them as truth" wouldn't work if his opponent was standing right there to contradict him, which Obama did on multiple occasions, finally neutralizing many of the false talking points McCain has been spreading around the last few months.↩
- The more cynical or knee-jerk among us would probably say McCain was exhibiting racism, but I think, all else being equal (no pun intended), McCain would have behaved the same way with a white man. ↩
Friday, September 26, 2008
More GB3 News
Haven't posted lately, as I've been busy with Sandrima (just locked a 3D track of what I think will be one of the stand-out shots of the project) and there's not much to post about.
Well, I take that back. There's actually been a LOT to post about, if we're going to talk politics, hasn't there? But the baffling actions of the McCain campaign have moved so fast that it really felt more appropriate to address them via Twitter than try to write up a meaningful blog about it, especially since I am having trouble understand what it all actually means besides "McCain is losing his marbles" and I don't want to stoop to that unnecessarily. Also, the mainstream media is FINALLY pulling their heads out and noticing that this is ridiculous, no longer forcing the Daily Show to be the sole source of sanity and accountability in this race, so I felt like the MSM had it covered.
So I've been out, although I probably will write a blog re: tonight's debate -- which, despite McCain's confidence, is anyone's game.
But I thought I'd follow-up on the Ghostbusters 3 story from my last blog with some new and exciting information.
One of the biggest stumbling points to another Ghostbusters film has always been Bill Murray. My understanding is this: like Indiana Jones, for which a sequel could only move forward with unanimous approval from Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford, Ghostbusters is split among the controlling interests of Reitman, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Murray. A third Ghostbusters film could only be made if all four of the principals approved of it, and for the last 20 years, Bill Murray wasn't having it.
When Ghostbusters 2 was produced, he was openly unhappy with the process of the production, as well as the final product, and declared that he was done with Ghostbusters. When the subject of the sequel came up, Murray either said no flat-out, or yes on the provision that Venkman be killed near the beginning of the film and return as a ghost.1
Things got more promising when Aykroyd, high off a viewing of TMNT, proposed that GB3 be made as a CGI feature. Though I'm on record around the web as hating that idea -- I would rather not have GB3 at all in that case -- Murray said that he would be willing to provide the voice for Venkman in that case. This opened the door to his willing reprisal of the role of Peter Venkman in the upcoming Ghostbusters video game, and apparently re-awakened his enthusiasm for the franchise, as he talks about in this video from Fantastic Fest (the GB talk starts at about the 5:00 mark):
It's funny, I always assumed that Murray was just kind of a crotchety guy and moved on from GB because of diva-esque "artistic differences," not getting enough screen time, whatever. But the interview here is so frank and open that I'm realizing that's wrong. It seems that the fact is that Bill Murray loves Ghostbusters, and he loves the Venkman character, and he was hurt and angry by the way the characters he so enjoyed, and the strength of the story possibilities, were marginalized and disrespected in favor of the effects and a lazy re-hash of the original.
Now, don't get me wrong, I personally like GB2, but based more on the mere fact of its existence than its relative merits. Objectively I can see where he is coming from. It was more slime than substance, and a clearly inferior sequel. And he didn't trust, for the last few decades, that a GB3 would be anything more than another hollow exercise in visual effects (and given the direction Hollywood movies have steadily taken, who can blame him?).
But it sounds like he's willing to give it another shot, and that he's in the same place I'm at with the talk of Office writers taking a crack at it -- new blood might be exactly what the franchise needs, not to re-invent itself, but to stage a triumphant return that more people would love to see than I think even the studio realizes.
If Bill Murray is on board, then this is the best news imaginable for the franchise.
Well, I take that back. There's actually been a LOT to post about, if we're going to talk politics, hasn't there? But the baffling actions of the McCain campaign have moved so fast that it really felt more appropriate to address them via Twitter than try to write up a meaningful blog about it, especially since I am having trouble understand what it all actually means besides "McCain is losing his marbles" and I don't want to stoop to that unnecessarily. Also, the mainstream media is FINALLY pulling their heads out and noticing that this is ridiculous, no longer forcing the Daily Show to be the sole source of sanity and accountability in this race, so I felt like the MSM had it covered.
So I've been out, although I probably will write a blog re: tonight's debate -- which, despite McCain's confidence, is anyone's game.
But I thought I'd follow-up on the Ghostbusters 3 story from my last blog with some new and exciting information.
One of the biggest stumbling points to another Ghostbusters film has always been Bill Murray. My understanding is this: like Indiana Jones, for which a sequel could only move forward with unanimous approval from Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford, Ghostbusters is split among the controlling interests of Reitman, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Murray. A third Ghostbusters film could only be made if all four of the principals approved of it, and for the last 20 years, Bill Murray wasn't having it.
When Ghostbusters 2 was produced, he was openly unhappy with the process of the production, as well as the final product, and declared that he was done with Ghostbusters. When the subject of the sequel came up, Murray either said no flat-out, or yes on the provision that Venkman be killed near the beginning of the film and return as a ghost.1
Things got more promising when Aykroyd, high off a viewing of TMNT, proposed that GB3 be made as a CGI feature. Though I'm on record around the web as hating that idea -- I would rather not have GB3 at all in that case -- Murray said that he would be willing to provide the voice for Venkman in that case. This opened the door to his willing reprisal of the role of Peter Venkman in the upcoming Ghostbusters video game, and apparently re-awakened his enthusiasm for the franchise, as he talks about in this video from Fantastic Fest (the GB talk starts at about the 5:00 mark):
It's funny, I always assumed that Murray was just kind of a crotchety guy and moved on from GB because of diva-esque "artistic differences," not getting enough screen time, whatever. But the interview here is so frank and open that I'm realizing that's wrong. It seems that the fact is that Bill Murray loves Ghostbusters, and he loves the Venkman character, and he was hurt and angry by the way the characters he so enjoyed, and the strength of the story possibilities, were marginalized and disrespected in favor of the effects and a lazy re-hash of the original.
Now, don't get me wrong, I personally like GB2, but based more on the mere fact of its existence than its relative merits. Objectively I can see where he is coming from. It was more slime than substance, and a clearly inferior sequel. And he didn't trust, for the last few decades, that a GB3 would be anything more than another hollow exercise in visual effects (and given the direction Hollywood movies have steadily taken, who can blame him?).
But it sounds like he's willing to give it another shot, and that he's in the same place I'm at with the talk of Office writers taking a crack at it -- new blood might be exactly what the franchise needs, not to re-invent itself, but to stage a triumphant return that more people would love to see than I think even the studio realizes.
If Bill Murray is on board, then this is the best news imaginable for the franchise.
- Considering that his problem with GB2 was what he saw as the overuse of visual effects, this seems like an odd request. I've long thought that this notion of killing off the most popular character was just a bluff that he knew they would never call, thereby saying "no" without having to say it.↩
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Why McCain must not be elected...
If it's not obvious, my blog is likely to get more politically-oriented in the next couple months leading up to the election. Because the fact of it is, folks, this one matters.
For my non-American readers, I apologize since I'm sure our politics bore your pants clean off. I'll try to intersperse lighter fare. But the fact is that if McCain wins, we are literally going to be in a world of shit.
You may not trust Obama. He's a politician and as the saying goes, if someone or something seems to good to be true, it probably is.
But we have had great Presidents in the past. We've had Lincoln, and Kennedy -- both of whom, incidentally, had less experience than Obama -- and I believe that leaders like that still exist. I believe that someone like Obama can be genuine, and I would rather take a chance on him, even given the slim possibility that he's lying about his goodness, than throw the future away on a man who is almost certainly telling the truth about his evil.
You may not want Obama -- but do you really want the alternative?
Think about it.
For my non-American readers, I apologize since I'm sure our politics bore your pants clean off. I'll try to intersperse lighter fare. But the fact is that if McCain wins, we are literally going to be in a world of shit.
You may not trust Obama. He's a politician and as the saying goes, if someone or something seems to good to be true, it probably is.
But we have had great Presidents in the past. We've had Lincoln, and Kennedy -- both of whom, incidentally, had less experience than Obama -- and I believe that leaders like that still exist. I believe that someone like Obama can be genuine, and I would rather take a chance on him, even given the slim possibility that he's lying about his goodness, than throw the future away on a man who is almost certainly telling the truth about his evil.
You may not want Obama -- but do you really want the alternative?
Think about it.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Thank You, Daily Show, Part 2
Awesome.
These next few months are going to get interesting. I can't wait to see what happens, in particular, when Biden and Palin share the stage.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Thank You, Daily Show
I'm a big fan of the Daily Show. I've been watching it semi-regularly since it first went on the air in 1996 with Craig Kilborn in the chair. At that point it was more of a rip-off "SNL's Weekend Update," reporting current news and adding a punchline. They had interviews like they do now, where the interviewer would ask the interviewee absurd questions, but they were clearly editing tricks, where the interviewees were not actually asked those questions.
When Jon Stewart took over, the show became more overtly political, and also grew a pair. Now when a ridiculous question pops up in an interview, we can rest safely assured that the correspondent actually asked that question.
It's gotten to the point where The Daily Show is the only news commentary show I trust. Jon Stewart is astoundingly intelligent; whenever a guest comes on who has written a book, Jon has read the book in preparation for the interview. He asks his guests harder and more sincere questions than anyone else in the news media; he has, on a supposedly fluff "comedy show," taken powerful politicians to task in front of a live studio audience.
Most importantly, they do their research. If a politician or news analyst makes a statement directly in contradiction to another of their own statements, they dig it up and share it with the world.
Case in point, this video from last night's show, taking the media to task for their double standard in letting VP-nominated Sarah Palin off the hook for...well, everything.
I'm voting Obama, and enthusiastically so, and anyone who isn't -- well, I just have nothing to say to them, because obviously we neither speak the same language nor live in the same reality. But regardless of your politics, regardless of which way the pendulum swings, it's good to know that The Daily Show is there to call people on their bullshit. And I've seen them hit the Dems just as hard, and with good cause.
If I believed there was a God, I would thank him for The Daily Show. Since I don't, I'll settle for just thanking them.
Speaking of which, I'm really bogged down with work and haven't had time to continue Case for a Creator. Considering I don't want to just post glib or dismissive posts, I'll hold off continuing the reading for a while until I can review and post more substantively.
When Jon Stewart took over, the show became more overtly political, and also grew a pair. Now when a ridiculous question pops up in an interview, we can rest safely assured that the correspondent actually asked that question.
It's gotten to the point where The Daily Show is the only news commentary show I trust. Jon Stewart is astoundingly intelligent; whenever a guest comes on who has written a book, Jon has read the book in preparation for the interview. He asks his guests harder and more sincere questions than anyone else in the news media; he has, on a supposedly fluff "comedy show," taken powerful politicians to task in front of a live studio audience.
Most importantly, they do their research. If a politician or news analyst makes a statement directly in contradiction to another of their own statements, they dig it up and share it with the world.
Case in point, this video from last night's show, taking the media to task for their double standard in letting VP-nominated Sarah Palin off the hook for...well, everything.
I'm voting Obama, and enthusiastically so, and anyone who isn't -- well, I just have nothing to say to them, because obviously we neither speak the same language nor live in the same reality. But regardless of your politics, regardless of which way the pendulum swings, it's good to know that The Daily Show is there to call people on their bullshit. And I've seen them hit the Dems just as hard, and with good cause.
If I believed there was a God, I would thank him for The Daily Show. Since I don't, I'll settle for just thanking them.
Speaking of which, I'm really bogged down with work and haven't had time to continue Case for a Creator. Considering I don't want to just post glib or dismissive posts, I'll hold off continuing the reading for a while until I can review and post more substantively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)