1 Ginormous Mouth

Is it Time for an Electoral Hero?

2007-08-22T16:07:00.000-04:00

The Republican and Democratic races toward the White House began way too early. As an observer of politics who usually loves to see as many debates as possible, in this election cycle I have actually grown weary of hearing the candidates rehash the same talking points over and over again. The dipping of a dainty toe into the electoral water by Fred Thompson has done little to ignite my excitement for the rapidly approaching primary season.

Before Iowa holds its "First-In-the-Nation" Caucuses sometime in early September, maybe we should be rooting for an electoral hero; hoping for someone exciting, someone with vastly different and interesting ideas.

Somebody certainly needs to shake up this quickly stagnating presidential election before we have to listen to two candidates spouting the same noise instead of 20. Here is a list of the potential late entrants, dark horses and third party candidates and the odds for you betting folk.

Ralph Nader (2:1)

"Hi. Remember me? I got the Pinto off the road."
Nader has indicated his interest in running as an independent in 2008 if Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton. As much of a joke as Ralph Nader was in 2004, his flimsy pretense for getting back into politics in 2008 is even more ridiculous. Dennis Kucinich could get the nomination and Ralph Nader would still waste our time and ballot space with his agenda. I think the odds of Nader doing something sane like running for Congress or a mayoral office are very long, somewhere near 1,000:1.

Michael Bloomberg (8:1)

"You talkin' to me?"
Bloomberg would have been a great vice presidential candidate in the 19th century with his massive bank roll, his seeming disinterest in the presidency and his clout in a state that both parties want. Bloomberg could mobilize hundreds of millions for a 50 state campaign but he may not win his own state with Rudy and Hillary in the race. This is my personal favorite though he is an unlikely entrant at this point.

Al Gore (12:1)

After his departure from politics, Al Gore briefly moonlighted as a model for JC Penney's catologues.
Al had his chance to break into the Democratic primary process with the massive media coverage of Live Aid. He could have been the first to enter the race after the opening of An Inconvenient Truth last year. Gore may have plenty of clout in the Democratic Party and a new found respect from the grassroots. The problem for the former vice president is getting an organization going and competing against people who have been in the race answering questions for six months.

John McCain (100:1)

I know that John McCain is technically, already running for the Republican nomination. However, I think it would be clever for the senator to put on a fake moustache and monocle and debate the merits of John McCain's Iraq policy as "Jon McKannt." He would probably outrun himself and maybe even get the vice presidential nod as his alter ego.

Okay, seriously. The problem with third party candidates is that they get lumped in with goofy and quixotic campaigns by past candidates like Ross Perot, Pat Paulson, Ralph Nader and Henry Wallace in the 1948 election. I guess my only hope is for a savior who will leave my money alone and help turn this country around to arise from within the two major parties. If a good independent candidate emerges, I will gladly cast my vote. Unfortunately, I know that most people in my community will not because they have been scared into believing that anyone without an (R) or (D) next to their name is some nut job.

-Nicholas Katers

Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and the Low Road.

2007-08-21T17:04:00.000-04:00

Hey Mitt, remember where your other fingers are pointing.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama continue the assault on their top tier competition, with Mitt lashing out at Rudy Giuliani on illegal immigration and Obama's wife making a thinly veiled accusation that Hillary hasn't been able to run her own house and therefore can't run the White House. While the tactics aren't necessarily symptomatic of desperation in their campaigns, they do serve as reminders that the clock is ticking and these two candidates need to make up some ground. Going on the offensive is obviously a common tactic in any political race, but in these two cases, I believe that taking the low road is a huge mistake, and here's why.

First up, Mitt Romney.

While Rudy Giuliani has stayed relatively tight-lipped regarding his competition, Mitt Romney has drawn battle lines with the former New York Mayor on the illegal immigration issue.

It started recently when in a speech Romney stated, "If you look at lists compiled on Web sites of sanctuary cities, New York is at the top of the list when Mayor Giuliani was mayor." he then followed this up with, "He instructed city workers not to provide information to the federal government that would allow them to enforce the law. New York City was the poster child for sanctuary cities in the country." And the first stone was cast.

But Mitt's campaign wasn't done swinging its sword just yet. In a recent ad from the Romney Camp a narrator informs us that, "Immigration laws don’t work if they’re ignored. That’s the problem with cities like Newark, San Francisco and New York City that adopt sanctuary policies. Sanctuary cities become magnets that encourage illegal immigration and undermine
secure borders.”

Immigration is undoubtedly one of the top issues for Republican Voters in 2008. So how is it a bad move on Romney's part to reinforce the notion that he will be tough on immigration as president, whereas Rudy Giuliani might not?

Because, like almost every other major issue, Romney has famously "flip-flopped" on immigration as well.

(Seriously, I don't know which is more disturbing: The idea that Romney thinks we are so dumb that we won't remember or bother to look up his past stance on an issue. Or the idea that he is so dumb that he doesn't remember it himself. Call me crazy, but I have a feeling it's the former instead of the latter.)

For instance, while Romney has recently stated in regards to the recent bill many claimed was merely watered-down amnesty, "McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer", his position was a little different just two years ago.

In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' "Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."

Romney has also had his own trouble regarding the issue, when it was discovered that some of the people that took care of his lawn were actually... illegal immigrants.

From the Boston Globe:

A top aide to Gov. Mitt Romney said Friday the Republican was unaware that several of the workers employed by a lawn care company hired to take care of the grounds at his suburban home were illegal immigrants.

The Boston Globe said it interviewed in Spanish four current and former employees of Community Lawn Service with a Heart who worked on Romney's property. All but one said they were in the United States illegally.

No Sh*t! His f*cking groundskeepers were illegal immigrants! How many jokes can Leno and Letterman come up with from that?

And then there is the time that Massachusetts, under Mitt's governorship, gave grants to a firm that used the money to train illegal immigrants.

It's impossible for me to understand just how Mitt thinks that he won't end up with egg on his face over this one. I guess it's the same way he thought he could slither through the abortion issue.

As for Barack Obama, it's really short and sweet.

Barack, what happened to the "Politics of Hope"? What happened to the promise of elevating the political atmosphere from its incestuous mud pit? In the past month or so, Barack Obama has apparently decided to drop the strategy which garnered him so much of his popularity. His constant verbal attack on front-runner Hillary Clinton has obviously not helped him in the polls, with Clinton now pulling ahead by a large margin in key states.

Setting a qualifier for the Oval Office with a personal family matter like your wife did recently only serves the Hillary campaign. It boosts her sympathy vote. People know Bill cheated on her, but that doesn't hurt her at all. Many women can and will sympathize with her, and might ultimately view the statement by your wife as a cheap shot.

Barack, I'd recommend reigning in the wife and the verbal attacks until you lock down the Vice President nod.

Elvira Arellano: Looking at Illegal Immigration Through an Objective Lens.

2007-08-20T11:35:00.000-04:00

Elvira Arellano has made quite a name for herself in the past year regarding one of the most dividing issues in the country, illegal immigration. When the Mexican citizen from San Miguel Curahuango, Michoacán, discovered that she was due to be deported in August 2006, the thirty-two year old woman took sanctuary in the Adalberto United Methodist Church on Division Street in Chicago, and thrust herself onto the national stage. Now, exactly one year later, Ms. Arellano has been deported back to Mexico after leaving Adalberto United Methodist Church in order to attend and speak at a pro-immigration rally in Los Angeles, California. Ms. Arellano's deportation has, as expected, caused a flare up between the two opposing sides of the immigration debate.

So obviously, with this plastered across the headlines today, I got to thinking about the immigration debate, and more specifically Elvira Arellano's deportation. I've really tried to look at it from every angle and avoid passing judgement without looking objectively at all the information available on the subject. What I discovered for the most part were that the arguments being made from both sides often lack rationality and perspective.

What is disturbing in the debate over illegal immigration is the trend to label those opposed to open border policies as heartless racists. It is constantly insinuated that any person who openly opposes the current U.S. immigration policy and lack of enforcement is at best unknowingly biggoted and at worst a proud member of some violently racist community. The subject is almost always presented as cut and dry and lacking in nuance or variability; those opposed to illegal immigration are inherently xenophobic, jingoistic, misanthropes completely incapable of empathy, and in turn those that are pro-illegal-immigration are sympathetic, caring, humanists looking out for their fellow man.

(Don't get me wrong, both sides of the issue are more than capable of using hyperbole and false rhetoric to push their agenda, and yes there are some racists and bigots who are anti-immigrant whether legal or not, but since we are discussing the subject of Ms. Arellano's situation and subsequent deportation, I feel the need to address the biased argument presented by those who think that Ms. Arellano should be given amnesty and immunity.)

Ms. Arellano's entrance into the U.S. and defiance of immigration laws is symptomatic of the utilitarian mindset of those who believe that the immigration laws shouldn't necessarily apply to everybody.

Elvira Arellano entered the United States illegally in 1997 and was apprehended and deported shortly thereafter. But apparently this didn't act as a deterrent for Ms. Arellano who again entered the United States illegally only a few days later and lived in Oregon for three years.

Now, keeping this in mind, what does the law say about Ms. Arellano's wanton disregard of immigration law? Based on the Immigration and Nationality Act illegal entry into the US constitutes a misdemeanor for first-time offenders, while persons who have been shown to repeatedly enter the US can be charged as felons. Eliminating the moral and philisophical aspect of the situation, Ms. Arellano knowingly broke the law. In a civilised society the rule of law is meant to prevail. Laws can be made and changed through the legislative process, but the laws, ridiculous or not, are binding. They aren't merely suggestions. I certainly don't get to choose which laws I will adhere to, and believe me, there a large number of them that I find absurd and wouldn't mind breaking. But breaking these laws, regardless of how asinine they may be, can also result in punishment.

In 2000, Ms. Arellano packed up and moved to Chicago with her son, whereupon she used a false Social Security number to gain employment at O'Hare International Airport as a cleaning woman. This would constitute her second conscious disregard of U.S. law. So when a security raid discovered that the Social Security number she was using was not hers and that she was not a legal resident of the United States, she was once again scheduled for deportation. The forgery and use of a false Social Security number is a serious offense, and one that might involve prison time for any legitimate citizen. But Ms. Arellano wasn't going to face prison or probation. She was going to be taken back to her country, where she could have immediately began filing for her work visa to enter the United States legally.

This is the nature of the law, like it or not.

I am not a racist. I don't hate immigrants. I don't hate Hispanics. I also understand the the main contributing factor to the illegal immigration problem is the companies that hire them. And I know there are a million different philisophical and economic arguments for or against an open immigration policy, but that isn't what this post is about. This post is about the legal grounds upon which Ms. Arellano was deported.

Even if you think our borders should be wide open to anyone who wants to live in this country, you can not deny that Ms. Arellano has repeatedly broken the law as it currently stands. She should therefore, in my opinion, be subject to the legal consequences, just as any other individual is.

It is unfortunate that the situation could ultimately divide Ms. Arellano and her son, at least temporarily, but we need to look at how it came to this point. We need to look at the case based on objective legal grounds. Children are separated from their parents by prison walls every day because of current laws regarding marijuana. It's absurd, but it's the law, and these people aren't allowed sanctuary inside of a church. They aren't allowed to take their children to prison with them. They are simply locked away until they have served their time, no questions, no sympathy, no real debate.

We, as a free nation, can debate the issue of immigration freely and if the country and congress so decide for an open border policy then so-be-it; but for now, for the sake of legal consistency, laws need to be upheld.

The Illinois G.O.P. Straw Poll: Shaking Up the Field Again

2007-08-17T16:11:00.000-04:00

Yesterday a small band of G.O.P. loyalists got together for a little shin-dig at the Illinois State Fair in Springfield. The weather was rainy and the festivities short, but even with the inclimate whether, they still managed to make headlines with their first Straw Poll.

The Straw Poll didn't mean nearly as much as the one held in Iowa last Saturday, but it still holds some significance as an important event for an increasingly fractious and unpredictable Republican field.

With only 922 total votes cast in the poll, however, it isn't necessarily a scientific measurement of how the primary vote will turn out in Abe Lincoln's home state either. But, the interesting aspect of the Poll was that, unlike the Iowa event, all of the candidates were represented... and I don't think it turned out like anyone was expecting.

The Results:

1st- Mitt Romney- 40.35%
2nd- Fred Thompson- 19.96%
3rd- Ron Paul- 18.87%
4th- Rudy Giuliani- 11.61%
5th- John McCain- 4.12%
6th- Mike Huckabee- 3.04%
7th- Sam Brownback- 1.08%
8th- Duncan Hunter- .65%
9th- Tom Tancredo- .33%

Mitt Romney winning, just as in the Iowa Straw Poll, is not so surprising. He's got tons of campaign cash and his Illinois operation sent supporters to Springfield from Chicago suburbs to vote. It might be helping him in his overall battle with Rudy for the current top spot, but it doesn't necessarily mean a lot for his campaign in the long run, other than serving as a testiment to their organizational and transportation skills in mid-west states.

While headlines across the media read "Romney Wins Illinois Straw Poll", they should have read, "Two Top-Tier Candidates Beaten in Illinois Straw Poll by Undeclared and Fringe Candidates!". (If your a regular reader of this site, you know I don't consider Ron Paul a fringe candidate- I'm just writing the headline for the sake of consistency with the media's voice.)

The results of this Straw Poll are absolutely fascinating, even if they are only representative of 922 people. First there is, as mentioned earlier, Rudy and McCain's respective fourth and fifth place finishes. There's Ron Paul coming in second among declared candidates, and a very close third among all of them. Then you have Fred Thompson, a guy everybody talks about but nobody has really seen in the race, like some sort of G.O.P. phantom, beating the rest of the pack. And finally, poor Mike Huckabee, whose surprising second place finish in the Iowa Straw Poll seemed to assure a boost and rejuvination to his flagging campaign, coming in with a dismal three percent to place him in sixth. Even Tom Tancredo, who had spent a lot of time and money in Iowa and surprised everyone with a fourth place finish, came in dead last with literally only three votes. Needless to say it was more than a little inconsistent with the Iowa turnout.

So what does it really mean? Well, it means different things to different candidates:

Mitt Romney will tout it as a strong showing of support for his candidacy in Illinois. Which is rather inconsequential in the long-term, considering that the state is notoriously blue.

Fred Thompson's finish will give him just a bit more courage and incentive to finally man up and enter the race... or maybe it won't. Frankly, the guy's non-campaign is about as enigmatic as one can be. Who really knows what Fred is going to do?

Ron Paul's finish will boost the morale of his already fanatic supporters and should, but probably won't, get him the recognition he deserves from the mainstream press as a viable contender. He still has about six months to get the campaign kicked into high gear and move beyond a solely grassroots approach. I expect to see things continuing to amp up in the upcoming months. Debate appearances and a continual decline in the number of candidates should do wonders for Paul's national numbers.

Rudy Giuliani will say that the Poll didn't mean anything, and while it sincerely might not mean that much, G.O.P. voters in Iowa and Illinois aren't going to forget being shunned in the manner that Rudy has shunned them. Even as my post yesterday contemplated a potential Giuliani nomination, today I'm starting to wonder if his campaign isn't headed in the same direction McCain's was three months ago.

Mike Huckabee? The Illinois Poll is undoubtedly disappointing for a campaign seemingly poised to take off, but luckily for Mike his Iowa Stunner will have enough energy to get him through the news cycle regarding the tiny Illinois Straw Poll. What happens after that remains to be seen... but, truthfully, I don't see much.

And finally, what does it mean for Republican voters? It means that, with the primaries so far in the distance and a political landscape that can change in a day, there is a long way to go before a clear winner will emerge. So, sit back and enjoy the roller coaster ride.

The Republican's Worst Nightmare: It Isn't What They Think

2007-08-16T12:04:00.000-04:00

Since 1992 Republicans far and wide have possessed a religious-like hatred of all things Clinton. This hatred manifested itself most strongly in regards to Hillary Clinton. She's an opportunist, a liar, a cold and calculating political scam artist. Republicans across the country echoed these sentiments and they were and are correct in their evaluation. Which is why Republicans are now in an absolute clamor to keep Hillary from the White House and are also growing increasingly nervous as she appears to be slowly but surely locking down the nomination. It's almost as if, for Republicans, a Hillary Clinton presidency is indicitave of the Seventh Angel's opening of the Seventh Seal and thus signaling the fiery end of the world. While I certainly wouldn't take it that far, I will say that a Hillary Clinton presidency will not be a good thing for our country. And there are multiple reasons for my opinion on this, but, surprisingly, this post isn't about Hillary Clinton.

This post is about the Republican's unrealized nightmare; the thing that will, save for a miracle, undoubtedly ensure the inauguration of Mrs. Clinton in January of 2009. And that nightmare is...

... A Rudy Giuliani nomination.

Although it is still early on in the race, and the Republican field of candidates is much more volatile and unpredictable than the Democrat's, Rudy has a pretty strong foothold in the leader position.

This is pretty amazing in itself. As I have stated many times before, the Republicans seem to be putting on a display of how to lose a general election, and having a candidate like Rudy Giuliani with a clear lead only reinforces the assessment.

The Republicans of America seem hell-bent on having a candidate with a shadowy past; a candidate who has more strange appearances in costume than Dennis Rodman; and a candidate with more skeletons in his closet than Jeffrey Dahmer circa 1990. He's also a candidate that doesn't excite the base. He isn't going to send people running to the polls- unless they're the New Yorkers who want to cast a vote against him. When you ask a Republican who they are going to vote for, the answer all too often is something along the lines of, "I guess I'll vote for Giuliani... I'm not really sure."

Giuliani is simply put, a horrible candidate with a wide variety of past personal and professional issues.

Personally I think everybody should separate personal issues from the candidates policies, unless there is a conflict of interest involved, but this, admittedly, is wishful thinking. A politician's personal life is often the first thing placed under scrutiny, and the press will have a field day with Giuliani's. They'll start with his apparent penchant for dressing in drag, then they'll move onto his divorces. They'll discuss in detail his estranged relationship with his daughter. Then they'll move onto the fact that he was once married to his cousin; it's his second cousin to be accurate, but who besides Fox News is really going to make an honest effort to point that out. They might talk about Rudy rooming with gay friends after one of the divorces; subtely suggesting that Rudy might be batting for both teams. It's petty and meaningless, but it isn't pretty, and they will definitely bring these things up. What's worse? These are only his personal problems.

The real disturbing information comes from Giuliani's professional life. Because the 9/11 attacks and his subsequent reaction as mayor catapulted him out of severely slumped approval ratings and onto the national stage, he has obviously made terrorism and national defense the cornerstone of his campaign. But there's just a couple of problems with that. First, the NYFD Union has publicly blasted Giuliani for his lack of action regarding recommended changes after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Then Rudy, who no doubt had to make a request for it, was appointed to be on the Iraq Study Group- the one that released the now famous report on Iraq in December of 2006. This would finally give Rudy a chance to show America that he was capable of problem solving and thinking on a global scale. But what did he do with the opportunity? He just didn't bother showing up. He continued to be absent from the meetings until he was finally asked to either quit or start taking the appointment seriously, upon which time he quit. Seriously, how can anybody view the guy as a legitimate authority on national security when he doesn't even bother showing up for the meetings? Not to mention that based on his reactionary yelling at Ron Paul during the May 15th presidential debates, Rudy doesn't seem to have even read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Giuliani is also an attorney. In fact, he started his political climb as the District Attorney for New York City. After his departure from the mayor's office, Rudy ran his law firm Bracewell & Giuliani. Unfortunately for Giuliani (and America), his law firm has a client list that is decidely sordid. It includes Saudi Arabia and Rubert Murdoch's News Corp. (which would seem to be a conflict of interest, but apparently somehow isn't). Some members of his clientele go a long way in showing that Giuliani isn't so much concerned with the U.S. best interests, but more concerned with his own financial interest.

In his defense, Rudy has at least been rhetorically strong against foreign enemies and terrorists. Regarding Hugo Chavez for instance, Rudy's office made the following statement:

"Mayor Giuliani believes Hugo Chavez is not a friend of the United States, and his influence continues to grow because of our increasing reliance on Foreign sources of oil."

That's great. He's right, we are increasing our enemies influence with our dependence on their oil. The problem is that while Hugo Chavez might not be a friend of the U.S., he is apparently a friend of Giuliani's, considering the $100,000 to $200,000 paid to Bracewell & Giuliani for their lobbying efforts on behalf of Citgo Oil.

The point to all of this is, if Giuliani gets the nomination, a Hillary Clinton win is nearly certain. With his troubled and ambiguous past, he just isn't electable. And yet Republicans seem poised to offer him up, with little excitement, in 2008. After his loss, many will complain and Hillary will recieve the brunt of the Republican anger and blame. The truth is the blame will rest squarely on their shoulders for choosing such a poor candidate. But they don't have to.

Republicans face a critical choice in the upcoming primaries; they can either stick to the 9/11, War on Terror, World Police formula and get their asses handed to them again in 2008, or they can make a much needed change and go back to their initial principles of small government, personal responsibility, and individual and economic freedom. They can nominate Ron Paul and have a much better shot at winning the general election, and most importantly, avoid being swept slowly into the dust bin of history.

Globalization: Liberalism's Disasterous Gamble

2007-08-15T18:15:00.000-04:00

From Venezuela to Thailand, democratic regimes are being toppled by authoritarian substitutes: the military, charismatic left-wingers, or mere populists. Even in the USA, the bastion of constitutional rule, civil and human rights are being alarmingly eroded (though not without precedent in wartime).

The prominent ideologues of liberal democracy have committed a grave error by linking themselves inextricably with the doctrine of freemarketry and the emerging new order of globalization. As Thomas Friedman correctly observes in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", both strains of thought are strongly identified with the United States of America (USA).

Thus, liberal democracy came to be perceived by the multitudes as a ruse intended to safeguard the interests of an emerging, malignantly narcissistic empire (the USA) and of rapacious multinationals. Liberal democracy came to be identified with numbing, low-brow cultural homogeneity, encroachment on privacy and the individual, and suppression of national and other idiosyncratic sentiments.

Liberal democracy came to be confused and confuted with neo-colonial exploitation, social Darwinism, and the crumbling of social compacts and long-standing treaties, both explicit and implicit. It even came to be associated with materialism and a bewildering variety of social ills: rising crime rates, unemployment, poverty, drug addiction, prostitution, organ trafficking, monopolistic behavior, corporate malfeasance, and other antisocial forms of conduct.

The backlash was, thus, inevitable.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful concerned individuals can precipitate change in the world ... indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"

(Margaret Mead)

I. The Democratic Ideal and New Colonialism

"Democracy" is not the rule of the people. It is government by periodically vetted representatives of the people.

Democracy is not tantamount to a continuous expression of the popular will as it pertains to a range of issues. Functioning and fair democracy is representative and not participatory. Participatory "people power" is mob rule, not democracy.

Granted, "people power" is often required in order to establish democracy where it is unprecedented. Revolutions - velvet, rose, and orange - recently introduced democracy in Eastern Europe, for instance. People power - mass street demonstrations - toppled obnoxious dictatorships from Iran to the Philippines and from Peru to Indonesia.

But once the institutions of democracy are in place and more or less functional, the people can and must rest. They should let their chosen delegates do the job they were elected to do. And they must hold their emissaries responsible and accountable in fair and free ballots once every two or four or five years.

As heads of the state in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and East Europe can attest, these vital lessons are lost on the dozens of "new democracies" the world over. Many of these presidents and prime ministers, though democratically elected (multiply, in some cases), have fallen prey to enraged and vigorous "people power" movements in their countries.

And these breaches of the democratic tradition are not the only or most egregious ones.

The West boasts of the three waves of democratization that swept across the world 1975. Yet, in most developing countries and nations in transition, "democracy" is an empty word. Granted, the hallmarks of democracy are there: candidate lists, parties, election propaganda, and voting. But its quiddity is absent. It is being consistently hollowed out and rendered mock by election fraud, exclusionary policies, cronyism, corruption, intimidation, and collusion with Western interests, both commercial and political.

The new "democracies" are thinly-disguised and criminalized plutocracies (recall the Russian oligarchs), authoritarian regimes (Central Asia and the Caucasus), or Vichy-like heterarchies (Macedonia, Bosnia, and Iraq, to mention three recent examples).

The new "democracies" suffer from many of the same ills that afflict their veteran role models: murky campaign finances, venal revolving doors between state administration and private enterprise, endemic corruption, self-censoring media, socially, economically, and politically excluded minorities, and so on. But while this malaise does not threaten the foundations of the United States and France - it does imperil the stability and future of the likes of Ukraine, Serbia, and Moldova, Indonesia, Mexico, and Bolivia.

Worse still, the West has transformed the ideal of democracy into an ideology at the service of imposing a new colonial regime on its former colonies. Spearheaded by the United States, the white and Christian nations of the West embarked with missionary zeal on a transformation, willy-nilly, of their erstwhile charges into paragons of democracy and good governance.

And not for the first time. Napoleon justified his gory campaigns by claiming that they served to spread French ideals throughout a barbarous world. Kipling bemoaned the "White Man's (civilizing) burden", referring specifically to Britain's role in India. Hitler believed himself to be the last remaining barrier between the hordes of Bolshevism and the West. The Vatican concurred with him.

This self-righteousness would have been more tolerable had the West actually meant and practiced what it preached, however self-delusionally. Yet, in dozens of cases in the last 60 years alone, Western countries intervened, often by force of arms, to reverse and nullify the outcomes of perfectly legal and legitimate popular and democratic elections. They did so because of economic and geopolitical interests and they usually installed rabid dictators in place of the deposed elected functionaries.

This hypocrisy cost them dearly. Few in the poor and developing world believe that the United States or any of its allies are out to further the causes of democracy, human rights, and global peace. The nations of the West have sown cynicism and they are reaping strife and terrorism in return.

Moreover, democracy is far from what it is made out to be. Confronted with history, the myth breaks down.

For instance, it is maintained by their chief proponents that democracies are more peaceful than dictatorships. But the two most belligerent countries in the world are, by a wide margin, Israel and the United States (closely followed by the United Kingdom). As of late, China is one of the most tranquil polities.

Democracies are said to be inherently stable (or to successfully incorporate the instability inherent in politics). This, too, is a confabulation. The Weimar Republic gave birth to Adolf Hitler and Italy had almost 50 governments in as many years. The bloodiest civil wars in history erupted in Republican Spain and, seven decades earlier, in the United States. Czechoslovakia, the USSR, and Yugoslavia imploded upon becoming democratic, having survived intact for more than half a century as tyrannies.

Democracies are said to be conducive to economic growth (indeed, to be a prerequisite to such). But the fastest economic growth rates in history go to imperial Rome, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and post-Mao China.

Finally, how represented is the vox populi even in established democracies?

In a democracy, people can freely protest and make their opinions known, no doubt. Sometimes, they can even change their representatives (though the rate of turnover in the US Congress in the last two decades is lower than it was in the last 20 years of the Politburo).

But is this a sufficient incentive (or deterrent)? The members of the various elites in Western democracies are mobile - they ceaselessly and facilely hop from one lucrative sinecure to another. Lost the elections as a Senator? How about a multi-million dollar book contract, a consultant position with a firm you formerly oversaw or regulated, your own talk show on television, a cushy job in the administration?

The truth is that voters are powerless. The rich and mighty take care of their own. Malfeasance carries little risk and rarely any sanction. Western democracies are ossified bastions of self-perpetuating interest groups aided and abetted and legitimized by the ritualized spectacle that we call "elections". And don't you think the denizens of Africa and Asia and eastern Europe and the Middle East are blissfully unaware of this charade.

II. Democracy and Empire

As the United states is re-discovering in Iraq and Israel in Palestine, maintaining democratic institutions and empire-building are incompatible activities. History repeatedly shows that one cannot preserve a democratic core in conjunction with an oppressed periphery of colonial real estate.

The role of imperial power entails the suppression, subversion, or manipulation of all forms of free speech, governance, and elections. It usually involves unsavory practices such as torture, illegal confinement, assassinations, and collusion with organized crime. Empires typically degenerate into an abyss of corruption, megalomaniacal projects, deceit, paranoia, and self-directed aggression.

The annals of both Rome and Britain teach us that, as democracy grows entrenched, empires disintegrate fitfully. Rome chose to keep its empire by sacrificing its republic. Britain chose to democratize by letting go of its unwieldy holdings overseas. Both policies failed to uphold their erstwhile social institutions while they grappled with their smothering possessions.

by: Sam Vaknin

Karl Rove's Resignation: What does it mean?

2007-08-14T15:15:00.000-04:00

"...and then I was like, dude, smell my finger."

The news of Karl Rove resignation on Monday came as a shock to some, but a relief to many. While many Democrats rejoiced, talking of continuing investigations, and while some Republicans commented on an impressive career as a political strategist, everybody speculated on what the departure of "The Architect" means for the already troubled White House. Does it mean upcoming indictments? Or can we take the explanation, Rove's desire to spend more time teaching and with family, at face value? Does it signal Rove's acknowledgement of Bush's lame-duck presidency?

Peter Baker and Michael A. Fletcher of the Washington Post noted, "The White House labored to dismiss the sense that Rove's resignation underscores a lame-duck presidency, even as it felt like an era was coming to an end on the South Lawn yesterday morning."

The cookie cutter dismissal is completely laughable. Of course it underscores a lame-duck presidency; a presidency that has been unable to accomplish much of anything since the beginning of its second term (The exact time of its total power dissapativity can be argued, but I say it can be pin-pointed, at least the final nail in the coffin so-to-speak, to Hurricane Katrina). But how did Rove and the administration go from a seemingly unstoppable political machine, to a political pariah? How did Rove become the equivalent of a leper in Washington, the place often considered his personal playground during the Presidents first term?

Simply put, the answer lies in the desert sand of the Middle East.

The downfall of Rove and ultimately the Bush Administration can be attributed to a grand and uncompromising vision, forged by the 9/11 terror attacks and held aloft by a Republican super-majority, of the United States' role as peace-maker and divine liberator of the world.

In implementing this policy and vision, Rove and the Administration were all too willing to make huge gambles, huge leaps of faith, bolstered by a naive confidence that the end result would be worth it and the people of America would be more than willing to go along for the ride.

And so, armed with the grand vision and cajones the size of John Wayne's 10 gallon cowboy hat, they threw caution to the wind and made the call that would ultimately become the legacy of the Bush Administration; the call that would erradicate the idea of a Republican super-majority, or even a Republican win, for decades to come.

Like the political theory of Communism, Rove and the Administration, failed to factor in the fickleness and unmatched restlessness of human nature They failed to accurately assess the long-term will of the American Public, and therefore underestimated the ability of popular opinion to swing against them. They also underestimated the ferocity and cunningness of the Washington Democrats to wage an all out political war.

All of the rest- Hurricane Katrina, the Attorney Firings, the Valerie Plame leak scandal- certainly didn't help, but the Iraq invasion blunder and subsequent mishandling effectively dismembered the legacy of the Bush administration and the notion of Rove as a political mastermind.

But what happens now? Does Rove's resignation signal the end of the bipartisan stalemate in Washington? Will the Democrats be satisfied with Rove's "walk-of-shame" back to Texas? No. In the short-term it means absolutely nothing, other than the acknowledgement of the end of a disappointing presidency. The Democrats will continue to push for an indictment, and will likely never get a result that they will find satisfactory- even as they seemingly ride Rove and Bush to the White House. And during the next presidency, whichever party controls the West Wing, both parties will find new boogey men to unearth and rail against, and thus Washington will continue in the same manner as it always has.

The only concrete hope that my cynical heart gains from all of this, is the possibility that we may never again be subject to such a cringe-worthy scene as the following:

The Iowa Straw Poll: The Fallout

2007-08-13T10:08:00.000-04:00

The fair ground is empty. All of the buses are back in their garages. The barbecue has long been digested. The votes have been counted, a winner declared. But the fallout from the Ames, Iowa Republican Straw Poll is still being felt across the G.O.P. Presidential Race.

The turnout was lower than expected, just over 14,000 votes were cast, and most of the media has interpreted that as a lack of enthusiasm for Republican candidates. Personally, I don't think the weather being hotter than Marion Barry's crackpipe did much to bring in the crowds either.

But regardless of whether Iowa isn't enthusiastic about Republicans or just more enthusiastic about not getting heatstroke, the Straw Poll was far from meaningless. Far from it. One campaign has fallen on its own sword, the positions of others have changed, and with that, some will see a fundraising increase while others will be eyeing the exit. Let's take a look at how the results of the latest event in a 28 year tradition will affect the Republican tribe:

We'll start with the winners of the Ames Iowa Straw Poll.

Mitt Romney

"...and I personally welcome our new overlord."

Sure Mitt won. But, he was supposed to. He spent an incredible amount of money and, being a top-tier candidate, already had the name recognition the other candidates lack. Anything less than a win would have been disasterous.

He will certainly get a bit of a boost from the event, seeing as how he won by a large enough margin, but it didn't launch him past Guiliani as the front runner in the national polls. Overall, with Guiliani and McCain opting out of the Straw Poll, this wasn't much of a deal maker or breaker for Romney.

Onto the real winner...

Mike Huckabee

"Ooh! A penny!"

Hands down Mike Huckabee gained the most out of the Straw Poll. Coming in as the runner-up, he managed to win a good percentage of the votes without spending a lot of money or having the name recognition of a "top-tier" candidate. He won the battle over Brownback for the title of "Family Values" candidate. He will, without a doubt, see a lot more attention from the media and a lot more contribution money flying into his coffers. Enough to keep him in the race until the end.

Will he win the nomination because of a strong showing in the Iowa Straw Poll alone. Nope. But it certainly doesn't hurt. And there is still plenty of time for Mike to build a substantial following.

Now, onto the Losers:

Tommy Thompson

After a disappointing showing in the Poll, Thompson returned to the arms of the president- the only one who didn't mind his Shrek-like appearance.

Tommy Thompson put as much, if not more effort into winning Iowa than Mitt Romney. Putting all his chips on the table, he campaigned his hardest there, travelling for months in an RV modified to run from Corn-Ethanol, stopping in every single county and making numerous impromptu speeches. There is no doubt he was hoping for a top three finish that would boost his campaign. He was definitely hoping for a better showing than 6th place.

Knowing just how hard Tommy tried does make me feel bad for the guy. It's like the fat kid in school bringing cookies from home for everybody in an attempt to win the other students hearts and instead being left unnappreciated and holding an empty tray.

Having said early on that any result less than second place would constitute a reason to end his campaign, yesterday Tommy nobly stood by his word and withdrew from the race officially. Tommy Thompson, we hardly knew ye. Your impressive jowls and wig-like hair will certainly be missed.

Sam Brownback

Brownback suddenly realized that losing the Straw Poll, while unfortunate, wasn't nearly as bad as when he lost his manhood in a Kansas State Prison.

The biggest battle, as stated before, was between Huckabee and Brownback for the title of "Family Values Candidate". Brownback lost. That doesn't mean the end for Brownback, but only because he isn't going to come to grips with the reality of his situation. He will stay in the race, but won't come close to winning anything.

Duncan Hunter
Duncan was beat by Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani, two of the candidates who didn't even actively participate in the Straw Poll. Out of 14,302 ballots cast, Hunter recieved a pitiful 174. Duncan buddy, you're a nice guy, but it's over. It's about time to go the way of Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore.

And finally, those largely unaffected either way by the Ames Iowa Straw Poll:

Ron Paul
Ron came in at 5th place in the Poll. Not great, but not really all that bad either. While this could be viewed by some as a disappointing setback, the reality is that while Mitt Romney and the other candidates had spent months building a presence in the Hawkeye state, Ron had only set up a campaign office in the state very recently and had only spent a total of 17 days campaigning in earnest. Tommy Thompson, as stated earlier, had bet his whole campaign on Iowa and still fell short of Dr. Paul.

That being said, Ron can't have this kind of finish in states like New Hampshire or South Carolina and expect to win the nomination. There is still plenty of time, but urgency is becoming a factor at this point as we near closer to Labor Day.

Rudy Guiliani
Rudy made a smart play by avoiding this event, effectively downplaying its importance and taking the focus off the top-tier candidates and moving it to the second tier. Rudy likely wouldn't have won in Iowa, a state notorious for down-home styled conservatism, and thus avoided a potential catastrophe.

But, by avoiding the state almost entirely, he also didn't win any fans in Iowa either. His campaign has given up on the state in favor of focusing on others. Only time will tell how effective that strategy actually is.

Tom Tancredo
His supporters are undoubtedly bolstered and excited by his 4th place finish. The media isn't. There isn't going to be much to come from Tancredo's fourth place finish, a little more campaign money maybe, but no real growth.

Well, that about wraps it up for the Iowa Straw Poll. Check in romorrow for a look at the resignation of Karl Rove.

The Iowa Straw Poll: A Crash Course

2007-08-10T16:15:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow, in Ames, Iowa, most of the Republican presidential hopefuls will wait with baited breath and crossed fingers as 40,000 or so Iowans cast their votes in a mock election to decide the Republican Presidential nominee. While the vote ultimately, and admittedly, means nothing, the event serves as a great fundraising tool for the Iowa G.O.P. and, maybe more importantly, has served in the past as a means of seperating the candidates meant for the long haul, and those that should pack things in and return to reality.

With only one Straw Poll winner in the event's history going on to actually win the presidency (George W. Bush in 1999), the Poll doesn't necessarily serve as a sort of political divining rod. Instead, its more important role of thinning out the herd is more often realized and thus bestows the maintained level of importance to the event. Indeed, a bad showing in the Straw Poll has served as the harbinger of doom for many candidacies since it's inception in 1979. In the 1999 Straw Poll, for instance, both Lamar Alexander and Dan Quayle dropped out of the race immediately following a poor showing, and Pat Buchanan and Elizabeth Dole dropped from the race within a month.

(Maybe that's why one candidate has chosen to avoid participation in the poll this year. McCain's troubled candidacy certainly couldn't survive a dismal showing. Guiliani will also be a no-show, though his absence likely has less to do with concern over a bad showing and more to do with his stubborness in participating in the election process on his own terms. Remember, he won't be participating in the YouTube debates either.)

Conversely, a good showing at the Straw Poll can bolster a candidate's campaign, keep them in the race, and possibly even launch them into top-tier status. This year, the Poll will be of much more importance to the more unknown candidates, such as Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback.

With that in mind, let's review the particapants. I'll go in order of what I predict the outcome will be.

(1st Place) Mitt Romney- I don't think there's any question as to whether the former Governor of Massachussetts will win the poll. He has an exhorbitant amount of money as compared to the other hopefuls, and he has focused nearly all of his energy in the key primary state. The question is: Will he win by a landslide? Like the U.S. Olympic Basketball "Dream Team", only a win by massive amounts can be viewed as a positive. With Giuliani and McCain sitting this one out, he has to be able to show that he is, by far, the premiere candidate in the remaining field. If the vote is even close, it will be a disaster for Romney's campaign.

(2nd Place) Ron Paul- Just as I don't think there is any question as to whether Romney will win, I don't think there should be any question as to whether Paul will get 2nd place. As oft-ignored as the Congressman is by the mainstream media, he has a burgeoning and dedicated grassroots support group that are more than capable of voting him past the rest of the field. The best scenario for Dr. Paul (other than winning the whole thing) is to come in a very close second. If he is able to do this, I believe, the media will have no choice but to pay more attention to him as a legitimate candidate. (As an aside: Go Ron Go!)

(3rd Place) Mike Huckabee- The Governor of Arkansas is, in my opinion, also a shoe-in for a third place finish. He has had some very good appearances in the debates, and his campaign is really starting to get legs. Those legs aren't strong enough at this point to put him with Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, but they will keep him at a distance from the rest of the field.

(4th Place) Sam Brownback- The self-imposed "Family Values Candidate" is in need of a finish ahead of Mike Huckabee- his main competitor for the Family Values label. If he fails to deliver this placement, his campaign will never get off the ground. I just don't see it happening. While Brownback has practically waged war on Mitt Romney over his waffling abortion stance, he has come across only as judgemental and self-righteous, while Huckabee has, without attacking anybody, quietly and eloquently explained his stances when it comes to the "Family and Christian" values subject. Huckabee has also moved to make himself more than a one issue candidate, with his passionate appeal for the FairTax. Simply put, Brownback has not.

(5th Place)Tom Tancredo- I'm not willing to call Tom's 5th place finish a lock. It's too hard to tell with these following candidates; too hard to measure their support. Tom has, like Brownback, postioned himself as a one issue candidate and has come across as reckless, lumbering, and angry in his debate appearances. I don't expect his candidacy to survive through to the primaries.

(6th Place) Tommy Thompson- If it was based on debate appearances, charisma, or looks; Tommy Thompson would come in dead last in the Iowa Straw Poll. But Tommy is from nearby Wisconson, and therefore has more name recognition in the mid-western state. He also has more money than Duncan Hunter. Either way his campaign will be wrapping up shortly- if not immediately following the Straw Poll, then very soon after.

(7th Place) Duncan Hunter- Duncan, as I have said multiple times before, just doesn't have the name recognition, the money, the platform, or the charisma to garner a lot of support. It's odd the way things work out- the guy isn't stupid or controversial or grating in his speech or mannerisms. He just isn't memorable. I had a hard time separating him from Jim Gilmore in prior debates, and following the Iowa Straw Poll the only difference will be that Hunter managed to last until the Poll before pulling out of the race.

All in all, this event holds much less clout than it has in previous elections, but still serves as a barometer for each of the candidates current popularity and potential. The real interesting thing to watch for this year will be Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee's numbers.

The American Economy: Are the Best Days Behind Us?

2007-08-09T16:49:00.000-04:00

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. This statement definitely comes to mind after watching the stock markets plunge today. It certainly feels as if we're looking down the barrel of a recession right now. But, at this point nobody should be surprised or amazed at the very real possibility of it. Oil and gas prices are through the roof, we're involved in two wars, the real estate market- the main contributor to keeping the economy afloat after the market collapse of 2000 and the 9/11 terror attacks- is in the dumps, and the public is becoming increasingly nervous.

Just looking at the list, a reasonable person would have to wonder why we aren't already in a recession. It's actually pretty amazing that we've managed to keep our economy in the black ink. And the main factor that has kept us balancing on this economic tightwire and the recession monster at bay is a dangerous combination of seemingly impervious consumer confidence- the reason the stock market has continuously set new records over the past few years- and massive lines of credit.

When the next recession hits us, and it will, expect the worst. People have become accustomed to a robust economy and, with an unhealthy amount of optimism, many have spent themselves into a dire situation.

In the situation of an economic downturn- or a euphamistic "correction"- these people more often than not find themselves in a desperate situation. Once the full weight of their troubles are upon them, you can expect them to place the blame for their financial situation on a myriad of random factors; unable to admit that they couldn't save and instead spent themselves into a hole. It's a hard lesson to learn, a hard mistake to admit.

However, these individuals have the excuse of not being financial experts or being capable of singularly affecting the rest of the country. What's really disturbing is that spending well beyond one's means isn't only an increasing trend in the private sector of our country, it's being done on a much larger scale by our own government.

Watch...

continued...

and...

The officials in our government know that they are spending towards bankruptcy. It's called "the dirty little secret" in Washington.

But these same officials are so self serving that they have offered up billions of tax dollars in entitlements in order to procure votes, even with the knowledge that the money necessary for them would not be there; that the burden of the entitlement invoice would fall on future generations. Foolishly they borrow billions of dollars from other nations, such as China and Saudi Arabia, effectively selling out our interests, with the knowledge that their errant spending and borrowing could bankrupt the country.

It is without a doubt time for an economic paradigm shift; time for a massive increase in economic responsibility in both the government and the general populace. Be have become slaves to an "instant gratification" mentality and are slowly committing economic suicide. We need to learn the value and principles of saving and avoiding spending on credit as much as possible.

Maybe most importantly, we need to elect officials such as Ron Paul, with a sound and principled voting record on government spending and size; officials who understand the concept of limited government and know that out-of-control spending is the sure fire way to end a prosperous nation.

This is urgent! It is as critical to our nation's future success and stability as protection from invading armies. We are at one of the most important crossroads in our nation's history- which way are we going to go?

Barry Bonds: Baseball's Faust

2007-08-08T13:02:00.000-04:00

It was times like these that Bonds believed literacy to be over-rated

How did Barry do it? Do we even need to ask? The answer is painfully obvious as noted in the comparison below.

It is, of course, not impossible to grow to such a large size without the use of steroids, but let's not kid ourselves. Barry hit a great deal of his homeruns juiced to the gills. And last night he hit what should be his most important, number 756, to pass Hank Aaron as the all time homerun leader.

We all knew it was coming. Two seasons ago, many had quietly accepted that the most hated man in pro sports would become the holder of the most prestigious and hallowed sports record in all of America; a record formerly possessed by the near-deity Babe Ruth and the notoriously classy and humble Henry Aaron. It was a disappointing reality, especially to those of us that grew up eating, sleeping, and breathing the sport. He had already taken the record for single season homeruns from Mark McGwire, who took it from Roger Maris- the only one of the three to not earn the record with the assistants of human growth hormones. We knew it was only a matter of time before we would be watching number 756.

But still, such was the amount of hate for Mr. Bonds, that many of us openly hoped for a career ending injury, an unexpected retirement, or some sort of indictment to keep the nightmare of him holding this record from becoming a reality. Wow! Besides the retirement option, they're horrible things to wish aren't they? Why do we hate Bonds so much?

It isn't necessarily because of the steroids, or the lying, or the attitute and arrogance, or even his disturbingly effeminate voice. It's because...

No, wait. It is because of all of that.

Barry made a deal with the devil. He was a great ball player, one of the best, but he wanted more than that. He sold out his credibility, the credibility of Major League Baseball, and took the most important record in American Sports from someone who actually deserved it. He made a mockery out of a landmark achievment and was a whiny, cocky, bastard the whole trip. The intense level of national hatred (that is, anywhere outside of San Fran) for him is well deserved and I applaud it.

F*ck you Barry!

Here's to the hopes that A-Rod smashes your record and leaves you relegated to the scrap books of baseball history as the embarrassment that you are.

Ad Executives That Will Burn In Hell Part 2: The Intel Dancing Commercial

2007-08-07T13:41:00.000-04:00

In continuation of my section "Advertising Executives That Will Burn In Hell", I present the Intel Dancing Ads. These commercials are so painfully annoying that it was really hard for me to watch them again solely for the sake of commenting on their general crappiness.

These ads fall into a category of advertising that really bothers me- The Hipster Sales Pitch. Ads of the HSP variety consist of twenty-somethings doing twenty-something activities that ad executives think twenty-somethings do. In the delusional world of so many ad executives, the entire populace consists only of artists, musicians, black guys with afros, black girls with afros, skaters, surfers, skydivers, breakdancers, cool computer hackers, and funny slackers. They're all fashionably dressed but in an edgy sort of way and their hair is an equally stylish overexaggeration of real people's hair cuts. Men's hair is spiked seven inches tall, girls hair cut into jagged pieces, a carefully engineered mess. You will never see a pair of pressed khaki pants, never a tucked shirt, never a jean without a rip. The ads subliminally say, "All the cool young people like our products and you're probably just as cool, so why not like our products too?" They try to define an entire generation with a snapshot. For another example of the HSP tactic see the image below.

Note the jeans with paint stains, the alternative style of hat, the artwork in the background that was supposedly made by the hungry young artist. He's just taking a break from living his dream to enjoy some Mickey D's- and you know he calls it Mickey D's too, cause that's what all the cool people call McDonalds. The ad absolutely reeks of the HSP.

But back to the Intel ads.

In these ads the trendy fashionable twenty somethings just love to dance. "Pop and Lock", "Liquid", and "the Robot" style are all on display here- the movements made over a poppy electronic soundtrack that you would likely hear while shopping at the Gap.

Now imagine the brainstorm session that led to these atrocious commercials:

Ad exec #1: "What do these kids do for fun nowadays?
Ad exec #2: "Extreme sports?"
Ad exec #1: "Yeah, but that's already been done. We need something different."
Ad exec #3: "Dancing?"
Ad exec #1: "Yeah, but... wait a minute. I'm pretty sure my daughter likes to dance."
Ad exec #3: "See."
Ad exec #1: "Okay, so we've got dancing. But how can we tie that in with our processor chip?"
Ad exec #3: "We don't even have to. Just put some f*cking kids dancing on there.Make sure they look cool, put on some cool music, and there's your commercial."
Ad exec #1: "You're absolutely right! Okay then, get me some cool looking dancers people!"

It's oversimplified, I know. But it's the jist of the thought process. Now imagine the actual shoot for the commercial:

Actor #1: "Okay, so what do you want me to do?"
Director: "Just look into the camera and dance."
Actor #1: "Any particular way?"
Director: "Nah, just go wild. Do whatever comes to mind. Oh, and make faces at the camera. Be playful."
Actor #2: "And I'm supposed to do the same thing?"
Director: "Yeah. Just have fun with it."

I'm genuinely embarrassed for these people dancing in the commercials. I know they got paid to do it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't nearly enough to have to see themselves on the television every commercial break, dancing like a mime having a seizure.

Intel, I hate your commercials, and though there aren't a lot of choices besides you when it comes to the processing chip market, trust me, because of these commercials... I will always try to get a computer with a Pentium, if I can help it.

The ABC Iowa Republican Presidential Debate- As Planned For and Appreciated as a Cancer Diagnosis

2007-08-06T12:26:00.000-04:00

After a very interesting debate with YouTube and the Democrats, this rididulous excuse for a debate was as painful and unnecessary as a Tabasco enema. ABC did the lousiest job in the history of the world of promoting or really even acknowledging the debate. It was taped on a Sunday morning practically before the rooster crowed and after was aired intermittently by ABC affiliates with no real sense of rhyme or reason (the airtime in Atlanta was mysteriously at 11 a.m., and the only way of knowing this was looking up a near cryptic PDF chart of station times around the country).

But maybe there was a reason for ABC's coyness on their debate coverage. Maybe they knew ahead of time that it was going to be the steaming turd that it turned out to be.

Besides the fact that it wasn't aired live or during primetime, the debate was essentially a rehash of every debate prior. Rudy McRomney were still center stage and again recieved the majority of questioning (McCain though, was given much less than Rudy and Mitt). George Stephanopoulos was in my opinion too pushy a mediator- I know that candidates have a hard time sticking to the time allotted for answers, but George was cutting them off before time was even up or right in the middle of a necessary explanation. At times he did a good job of trying to keep the candidates on topic and asking the tough questions, but he came off to me as boorish.

Lastly, the debate was just boring. Although there were some mix-ups, most notably between Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney, they just didn't seem all that passionate. The candidates seemed somewhat tired, and although the second tier candidates were desperately trying to stand-out, all the candidates appeared to just be going through the motions of a 2nd class debate.

So, now that we've got the lameness of the debate covered, let's get to the breakdown of the candidates.

Mitt Romney

"My wife says I look like the Fonz. HEEEYYYY!"

Like a freshly releases prison inmate on a stripper, Mitt was all over this debate. Not necessarily in a good or bad way, but he seemed to get the predominate amount of face time and questioning. It seemed as though every time I looked up, there was Politician Ken Doll. He spoke over his time limit more often than the others, and also frequently interrupted them out of turn.

In the debate Mitt fought back against being labeled a flip-flopper on the abortion issue. In possibly the biggest drama of the debate, Sam Brownback and Mitt crossed horns when a commercial of Brownbackss that accused Romney of taking a blatantly pro-choice stance earlier in his career came to issue. This could have been an opportunity for Mitt to bury this issue once and for all by being brutally honest, but instead, he only opened himself up for more attacks (Brownback didn't come out looking good either, but I'll get to him later). Stephanopoulos repeatedly asked if the allegations made in the commercial were accurate, and Mitt began his little dance. He answers, "Virtually nothing in that ad is true"(emphasis mine) Stephanopoulos prods him, asks him what exactly is inaccurate, to which Romney responds with a red herring. Instead of answering what in the commercial is inaccurate, he mentions that he recently received an award from the Massachussett's Citizens for Life group, and Stephanopoulos let it rest.

Mitt also gets the memorable line of the event award. When he said that Barack Obama had gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in a week, you just knew that the line would be everywhere for the next 24 hours. As cynical as I am, when he said it, I knew that he or somebody on his staff had thought of the line previously, and he went into the debate looking for an opportunity to use it.

There were a couple of absurdities that I noticed with Mitt. During the scuffle, Sam Brownback pointed out to people that they could go to YouTube and see a video of Mitt making a speech regarding his pro-choice position in the early nineties. Romney laughed it off stating sarcastically, "Ah, YouTube is a definitive source" or something to that effect. I don't think Mitt understands YouTube. I don't think he understands that YouTube wasn't the one stating the Romney was pro-choice in '94, it was Romney himself, in a video posted to YouTube. The YouTube bashing made Romney sound much dumber than he actually is.

Then in a second head scratcher, while Ron Paul talked about the Iraq war and the horribly mistaken predictions made by the architects of the invasion, Mitt interrupted again and said strangely, "Has he forgotten about 9/11?". Now, pause the tape and watch it again. Are you asking yourself the same question I am? What the f*ck does 9/11 have to do with anything the Ron Paul was discussing at that point? It's like a robot on the fritz... "9/11... 9/11, Iraq does not compute. System error. 9/11. When in doubt pull 9/11 out.". It was by far the dumbest thing I heard in the debate. Anyway, the audience began to applaud, and it's hard to decide what exactly it is that they're applauding, but from the look of strange satisfaction on Mitt's face he's sure the applause was directed to his odd and irrelevant question. It was disturbing, but luckily as Ron Paul finished his statement (essentially telling Mitt to shut the f*ck up for a minute) the audience exploded in applause and the audiences sympathies became clear.

Anyway, it's gotten longer than anticipated but to sum it up, I really hope this guy doesn't get the nomination and luckily I don't think he will.

Rudy Giuliani

"...and then I picked up my kid, like this, and screamed in her face 'You were an accident and your mother was a whore'. Maybe that's why she doesn't talk to me anymore."

There isn't much to say here. Honestly, there wasn't any moment that really stands out with Rudy. He came across as amiable, somewhat self-depracating and able to tell a quick joke (when he acknowledged he had made far too many mistakes it was probably the funniest moment of the dull event), but hey, if I wanted funny then I'd vote for Dave Chappelle.

He'll have to be much stronger in the YouTube debate, if he even shows up for it.

Ron Paul

"Will the major media ever take me seriously?" Shake, Shake. "Outlook doubtful."

As I've stated before, barring some catastrophe or odd change in platform, I'm going to be voting for Dr. Paul in the primaries. So, as a Ron Paul supporter, I'm obviously frustrated with these debates.

How is the candidate with the third most money on hand still given such little face time? How is the only candidate who is a practicing doctor and OB-GYN not asked about health care or abortion? Why are the questions given to Ron Paul consistenly geared towards one subject, Iraq, when he has educated himself and has insightful information on a myriad of others?

Because the media is trying to marginalize him. I'm not a conspiracy kind of guy, but this is the only explanation for it. He has won numerous online polls, showed strongly in fundraising in the second quarter, and has a notoriously rabid grassroots effort behind him. But the big media still continue to try and have him relegated to the past as a "fringe candidate" a "novelty".

But as a positive, Ron Paul wasn't at the edge of the stage anymore, although he got about the same amount of questions as in the past.

As for his performance, well it was similar to his other debate performances. It was good and consistent, but it's hard for him to be anything but similar and consistent when they ask him the same question over and over.

All of his answers were sound and honest, but, as a matter of point, I think Ron should avoid using the word Neo-Con in these debates, and instead stick to the full term neo-conservative or maybe "this new brand of supposed conservatism". While an accurate term, it is also a buzzword with a stigma attached to it, and it just isn't appreciated by a lot of conservatives.

Either way, I certainly hope that the YouTube Republican Debate happens, because I think that will be Dr. Paul's only real chance to get a fair shake from the major media.

Mike Huckabee

The reporter tried to understand exactly where Mike Huckabees analogy of the presidential race and a woman's hips was going.

Fortunately for Mike the debate was his best showing so far. Unfortunately for Mike, it was at the debate that will get the least amount of attention in this race.

I think it can be argued that Mike made the strongest showing of any candidate in the debate, in that he will almost certainly recieve the largest percentage gain of support from it. Mike came across as a very informed and confident candidate. He knew what he was talking about and was eloquent and passionate in his stances.

His stance on health care was reasonable and well made. Our health system is far more reactive than proactive and we should start to focus more on preventative medicine. He also argued strongly for the FairTax.

Mike has certainly bolstered his national presence and name recognition with this debate,and he might even move into the "top-tier" before it's all said and done, but I don't think it will be enough. Huckabee will not be president.

The Others

John McCain

I felt bad for John as I watched this debate. He appeared so tired, beaten, and weary- the media circling his struggling campaign like hungry buzzards. Whereas in the first debates John recieved a large percentage of the questions and talk time, the questions were noticeably less frequent this go around. I think his campaign will be wrapping up before the fall, and he seems resigned to his fate.

Tommy Thompson

Did not show strongly at this debate. He seems so uncomfortable in his own skin when answering question; unsure of what to say next. Amazingly enough, I think Thompson got the same amount of questions and face time as Ron Paul, which again just blows me away, considering Thompson absolutely has to be near last place in the Republicans. His campaign will also likely fold by fall.

Tom Tancredo

I'm not sure if Tom is for real or not. I can't tell if he's really a presidential candidate or a conservative talk show host. Tom stood staunchly behind his statement that a preemptive nuclear strike on Mecca and Medina was reasonable and shouldn't be off the table. WOW! Just... WOW! If this guy miraculously pulls of the upset and becomes president, I'm probably going to invest in a bomb shelter of some sort. Tom should work on a more gentle and reasonable approach to foreign policy.

Sam Brownback

Sam stood out more than he has in the other debates. The mix up with Romney was a highlight, but I doubt it will give him the same kind of boost that Ron Paul recieved from the famous Paul/Giuliani dust-up. What Sam doesn't seem to understand is that while America does care about family values, they aren't the top priority on the list anymore. If the race were for Student President of Texas Christian University then Sam would have a fighting chance, but not so with the U.S. Presidential election. He also comes across as a notoriously holier-than-thou type of Christian, which really grinds on me. It appears Sam's whole life revolves around his faith, and he thinks your's should too, or you are a much lesser person; barely deserving of the term American or human. Brownback will probably last past the fall (the extreme religious right really knows how to stick together), but he needs to go ahead and pack it in.

Duncan Hunter

Na-na-na-na, Na-na-na-na, Hey-hey-hey, Goodbye!
The race is on between Thompson, McCain, and Duncan Hunter to see who will bow next. My money is on Duncan. He doesn't seem stupid, or extremely incapable, or even ugly. He is just too boring his platform is too safe and obviously doesn't resonate with anyone. Later Dunc!

Sean Penn: Actorvist and Friend of Chavez

2007-08-03T15:30:00.000-04:00

"See Jeff- I mean, Sean- I keep my Fast Times at Ridgemont High DVD right next to my copy of the Communist Manifesto. They're my faves!"

Add Sean Penn to the list of Hollywood's finest to visit Venezualan dictator (and apparent People magazine reader) Hugo Chavez. Hugo, who has praised the actor for his calls to impeach President Bush, and Penn talked privately for two hours yesterday. Chavez followed up the pow-wow with a speech given in front of supporters in which he called for President Bush to end the war in Iraq by stating, "Enough already with so much genocide...".

Now, before I address Spicoli, let me say that I'm not a huge fan of the Iraq war, but I do have to question Hugo's use of the word "genocide".

Here's the definition of genocide: "The systematic, planned annihilation of an ethnic or racial group."

A blunder, a mistake, a debacle, unnecessary, overtly-aggressive,even just plain stupid- the War in Iraq could arguably be called any of these. But genocide is not an accurate adjective for the Iraq War, and Hugo and Sean know this. Nevertheless they use this word freely and will continue to do so.

Hugo seems to be a big fan of hyperbole and histrionics in his speeches (Remember the UN meeting where he could "smell the sulfur", because the devil himself, George Bush had been in prior attendance); and Sean doesn't seem to mind. After all, he's an actor; familiar with both tactics in his profession. And maybe it's this, Hugo's grandiose rhetoric and posturing, that attracts these Hollywood actorvists. Sean certainly isn't the first.

Danny Glover has high fived and hugged the dictator. Harry Belafonte, whose claim to fame is singing the songs "Banana-boat" and "Day-O", has joined Hugo in calling George Bush "Satan". And Cindy Sheehan, peace-mom and fan of high profile arrests, famously kissed Chavez. Hey, what do you know- more grand gesturing and histrionics.

Now, I'm not the type to tell Sean to "just shut up and act". Everybody is entitled to their opinion and the use of their fame to transmit it- and I am simultaneously entitled to laugh at his naivety, idealism, and blatant attention whoring. He might as just come out and say,"Ooh ooh, look at me! I'm meeting with the Venezualan leader who openly hates the U.S. and called George Bush the devil. I'm an edgy, political rebel, who just so happens to be an incredible actor as well."

Look Sean, we know that you hate George Bush. We know that you're against the war in Iraq. You've made it abundantly clear, and lot of Americans agree with you. But you and Danny and Harry and Cindy travelling down south to Caracas to kiss the ass of Venezuala's dictator isn't what I'd call a very pro-active or even reasonable approach to accomplishing your purported goal of ending the war or impeaching George Bush. But, hey, if your goal is to get a lot of media attention and garner the adoration of throngs of leftists and socialists, then congratulations. The rest of us, even most of those against the war in Iraq, don't take you seriously and can see right through your brooding activist facade.

Al Qaeda's Threat Tape and Reality

2007-08-02T11:08:00.000-04:00

Zawahiri and bin Laden wait patiently for a table at their favorite Chinese buffet.

Al Qaeda, the most media savvy terrorist group in the history of the world, has released a video warning us to "wait for a big surprise". Coming from "as Sahab", the propaganda arm of al Qaeda, the short clip flashes through pictures of al Qaeda leadership, President Bush with Pakistan's top dog Musharraf, and an SUV in a motorcade. It closes with the words "Soon -- God Willing".

Naturally, this video makes many Americans a little bit nervous, a little more likely to take a second look at every seemingly abandoned backpack or bag, and board planes with a little prayer on their lips.

It's frustrating isn't it?

We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars waging a "War on Terror" against these guys, and yet, they still have the ability to make us fidget about nervously with a vaguely menacing, YouTube-like video.

These guys love 7th century barbarism, but certainly appear to have an appreciation for 21st century technology. A major part of what they do now to accomplish their mission of "terrorizing" or instilling fear in us is to remind us with videos and tape recordings that they are still around. Ironically, their recruiting efforts and propaganda material have gone on to the internet, a tool and invention of the Western Society that they spend everyday trying to destroy.

It's actually somewhat humorous. Seriously, think about it. Imagine some bearded terrorist in a flowing robe and religious headdress, sitting indian style in a cave with a laptop. He's using Adobe Premiere to make the new al Qaeda propaganda video because he likes the layout and toolbar options of the program better than those in Windows Moviemaker. Maybe he doesn't even like Windows at all. On second thought, he might be an open-source code loving Firefox guy. Or maybe he even uses a Mac. Hell, he might even be listening to a downloaded podcast from the local cleric on his iPod. (I realize this isn't an actuality, but it is definitely amusing to think about. And we should laugh at these guys.)

I mean, I understand that the members of al Qaeda are dangerous, but isn't their "web-campaign of terror" tinged with just a bit of absurdity. This latest threat video was made with all the building excitement and pomposity of a Jerry Bruckheimer summer blockbuster advertisement. I half expected to see a MPAA rating after the closing frames. Instead of being terrified, we should be laughing at these people and their inflated egos and delusions of grandeur. In the grand scheme of things, they are nobodies. Of course we should remain vigilant and do everything in our power to prevent these attacks, but while doing this we also shouldn't give them the satisfaction of a position as the number one fear in the nation. Realistically speaking they are just some radical fundamentalists with over-sized pipe bombs, some computers, and a dismal operational success rate.

It's time for a new strategy in this war on terror... a more media savvy approach. We need to put videos all over the internet that taunt al Qaeda and their inability to kill Americans as efficiently as do cigarettes, cars, swimming pools, and... bacon!

Yeah, that will drive them crazy. The animal most despised by these Islamic fanatics is, in reality, responsible for more American deaths, through cholestoral induced heart attacks and even the rare fatal pig attack, than they are. The slogan could be "Americans aren't afraid of the bacon on our plates. Why should we be afraid of you?"

Okay, okay- seriously though, since the definition of terrorism according to the FBI is: the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives., then isn't part of a reasonable approach to the "War on Terror" understanding and being honest about the terrorists wobbling capabilities, and thereby eliminate some of the intimidation factor?

We obviously need our intelligence and police resources to remain alert to the potential dangers of these terrorists and we need to be observant ourselves, but we shouldn't place ourselves in a panic everytime al Qaeda makes a threatening video or Michael Chertoff tells us he has a "gut feeling" about a "Summer Spectacular" attack.

Really Short Post Today

2007-08-01T11:43:00.000-04:00

I don't have a lot of time to post today, but I've found some informative video clips from Anderson Cooper's show 360. As I've stated before, I'm a big fan of Anderson. In my opinion, he is the most objective journalist in the big leagues and he definitely doesn't shy away from tough subject matter. On his show he does a segment called "Keeping Them Honest". It is by far my favorite part of the show and arguably the most important as well. The absolutely irresponsible way the government bureaucracy spends our tax dollars is criminal and shameful. Everybody in America should see these segments. They should be shown to the general population with the same frequency and urgency as the Emergency Broadcast System tests. People should be getting angry about their wasted tax dollars.

So with that being said, here are just a couple of the "Keeping Them Honest" segments.

Is Success in Iraq a Good Thing?

2007-07-31T12:29:00.000-04:00

An Army lieutenant, realizing he won't be back home by dinner, calls in for pizza.

Yesterday brought some of the first positive news on the Iraq War seen in recent memory. In an op-ed piece published in the New York Times, Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack described an improving situation in Iraq with the military surge in a piece titled "A War We Just Might Win". While there has frequently been positive viewpoints on Iraq from the conservative side of the spectrum, this one may hold condsiderably more weight with the country as these two gentlemen are members of the Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank with a decidedly anti-Iraq-war stance.

In the article they detail such positives as:

Higher troop morale: "Today, morale is high. The soldiers and Marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."

Increasingly peaceful situations in formerly troubled areas: "In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi army company patrolling the street."

And an increased willingness in the Iraqis to cooperate and police themselves:"We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi army troops cover the countryside."

In addition to this stunning admission of improvement comes the equally heartening news that the U.S. deathtoll in Iraq is the lowest in eight months.

With news like this coming from plausibly objective sources, one would reasonably assume that a lot of Americans would be rejoicing; happy that the situation in Iraq seems to be calming down (at least, as of right now). But in times as confusing as these, many of us have become skeptical of any good news coming from that part of the world, and reasonably so. After all, how many times have we heard positive assessments that have ultimately turned out to be false or exaggerated ("...the insurgency is in its last throes" certainly comes to mind).

But the difference here is that the O'Hanlon, Pollack New York Times Op-ed piece comes from two people with nothing to gain from stating their observation in Iraq. It deserves to be read with an open mind. We should want success in Iraq. As Americans, whether we agree or not with the reasoning behind going to Iraq, shouldn't we hope for a positive outcome? Shouldn't we hope for the eventual stabilization of the country and the region?

So why are so many Americans upset with Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack? Why are so many dismissing the article automatically as biased and uninformed? The answer is that many people have an emotional and political investment in being right about the war being unwinnable, a quagmire, and a disaster. For it to be a success would prove detrimental to them in one way or another. This is unfortunate; and it's unfortunate because people just can't seem to separate their unadulterated hatred of the George W. Bush administration from the military operation in Iraq. Their desire to see the failure of the Bush administration has become juxtaposed with the military operation, and ultimately leads to a subconscious desire to see the military fail as well. It's time for a lot of people in this country to stop always thinking of every event only in its political context.

As much as I think going into Iraq was a mistake, as much as I think the Bush administration has made numerous policy errors; and as much as I think our military is due for a major geographical and logistical drawback- one that would allow us to truly protect ourselves without spending unreasonably and exacerbating anti-american sentiment around the globe- I still hope for the best in Iraq. I don't want a success to be mistaken as an affirmation of this type of foreign policy, and I hope we learn a lesson from this experience, but I certainly don't want to see Iraq turn into a disaster, a genocidal bloodbath. Regardless of an American's political stripe, a success in establishing a stable Iraq should absolutely be considered a good thing.

Are Giuliani and Romney Scared of YouTube?

2007-07-30T10:26:00.000-04:00

While Rudy and Mitt discussed strategies on avoiding the YouTube debates, McCain decided to join Ron Paul over by the zoo visitors.

As I already commented in a previous post, the Republicans seem to be making a case study on how to lose a general election.

In the most obtuse strategic move to be made so far in this election cycle, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, the two front runners in the Republican arena, have decided to avoid the CNN/YouTube Republican debate on Sept 17th. Giuliani, and later Romney, cited scheduling conflicts as reason for their expected absence. An indignant Romney offered up this explanation in defense of his decision to avoid the debates, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

While Mitt may think that he is acting like a statesmen by defining what is acceptable questioning for a presidential candidate; to many people, he is coming across as either pompous and arrogant or simply afraid to answer questioning of a more spontaneous and plebian nature.

Are some of the questions asked in the YouTube forum posed in a silly manner? Yes. But, so what? Okay, a question was asked by a snow-man, but the question itself, a question about the candidates stance on climate change and global warming, wasn't frivolous. It wasn't stupid. It's a reasonable question that is on a lot of minds these days, no matter which side of the argument a person may be on.

Mitt and Giuliani certainly must know that they aren't going to win a lot of points with the online community for taking this position and refusing to interact with them. But do they know how many Americans actively use the internet? Of course they do. They have people in their camps that can and do give them this sort of information. So why are they taking the risk of disenfranchising so many?

Because it's a greater risk that CNN will allow someone to ask Rudy a question about 9/11 that makes him look incompetent rather than heroic. People actively involved in the internet community are, by nature, curious. And with the amount of information to be found on the net, they are therefore usually more informed than the average voter. For instance, many know that Rudy was asked to change a lot of things regarding strategic safety measures after the initial World Trade Center attack in 1993. And they know that he didn't comply. CNN might let one of the questions regarding this get on the air, and that could get uncomfortable for Rudy. I doubt he wants that.

As for Romney, there is information circulating the internet detailing his past positions on such topics as abortion, gay rights and marriage- Positions that have since changed. Maybe Mitt just doesn't want to deal with questions about it.

So they both say that they already had an event scheduled and cannot change them. But seriously, think about the absurdity of these excuses. A presidential candidate would never turn down an event with national exposure unless... they thought that the exposure would be negative.

There are two candidates, as of this writing, that have agreed to participate in the YouTube Republican debates: John McCain and (unsurprisingly) Ron Paul. My hat goes off to these gentlemen. They aren't afraid to be asked potentially tough questions by regular citizens- probably because they have nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, nothing in their careers or beliefs that they feel can't be answered for.

The Democrats have already participated in the YouTube debate format and the event turned out to be much more interesting than any of the previous debates. All the Republicans should do the same. They should be able to answer any question, posed by any person, be it Anderson Cooper from CNN or Will from Boston- or why should anybody vote for them?

I Support Ron Paul!- I Just Can't Support the Music

2007-07-28T11:26:00.000-04:00

"Oh Ron Paul, your ideas are great. But the songs in your videos... they hurt the ears!"

Okay, I don't usually post on Saturdays but this can't wait until Monday. So last night, I finally decided to support and vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming primaries. I've sat and read over all the issues, watched an infinite amount of videos from all the candidates, and mulled over who I think would best serve the interest of the U.S.

I'll get into all the details of why I'm voting for Ron later. Right now, this matter is more important.

While watching such an enormous amount of videos, I noticed- the music in a lot of Ron Paul videos is pretty bad. Well, okay. It's really bad. Take this video for example.

YIKES! I would rather listen to that John Mellencamp Chevy commercial nonstop for a year than hear this song one more time. I'm not trying to be mean- the people that made the song meant well, and it wouldn't be so bad, but the production is lacking.

Anyway... for a man with as much internet support as Ron, surely, there has to be some better songs out there. His campaign even has enough money to buy the rights to a well known song. Maybe that's the answer.

So here's the deal. On the comment board of this post, list (only once- please) the song that you think should be the "official campaign song" for Ron Paul's campaign. In three weeks I will take the top five song choices (and you can, and should, double check that it's the top five- that's why you need to post your choice in the comments section), place them in a poll, and we will have a vote to see which song wins. I will contact the Paul campaign at that point and tell them what the people want.

Enough people vote and the Paul campaign will have an awesome campaign song.

I'm going to do my part for the campaign, and so can you! Tell us what song makes you think of a Ron Paul Presidency!

For instance, someone suggested this song to me:

Remember, vote for a song, and VOTE RON PAUL 2008!

John Edwards- Political Mastermind or Economic Numbnuts?

2007-07-27T11:24:00.000-04:00

"See this? It ain't just a pretty face and gorgeous hair. I'm pretty sure there are some brains in here too."

John Edwards continues his Robin Hood approach to winning the democratic nomination.

In a speech he made on Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa, Edwards stated that if he is elected president (which thankfully won't happen), he will implement a hike in the capital gains tax- taking it from an already wallet-thinning 15% to a tear-inducing 28%- while simultaneously raising the income tax on households that make over $200,000 a year.

The self-imposed "Champion of the Working Class" backed his plan with predictable political rhetoric. In his speech he stated, "The great engine of growth in America isn't the special interests or the money-managers; it is the teachers and factory workers and engineers who quietly contribute every day." (emphasis mine)

A crowd pleaser for sure, but, maybe Johnny hasn't gotten the memo yet. This isn't a "Grapes of Wrath" styled America that we live in now. Most Americans don't stash their savings in mayonnaise jars anymore. They don't bury it in their backyards.

While John Edwards, and many other politicians, have continually perpetuated the notion that the only legitimate and noble way to earn a dollar is off the sweat of our brow, and only the ultra-rich (cough, cough- John Edwards- cough) own stock, a large percentage of Americans- teachers, factory workers, and engineers included- have been putting a portion of their money in equities.

With 52.7 million households (according to a 2002 study) having money invested in the market, it obviously isn't just Warren Buffett and Daddy Warbucks who will be affected by such a pandering approach.

Who exactly does John Edwards think this will help? Why is the notion of first cutting government spending and waste in order to make up for a deficit so far-fetched to him?

Increasing the capital gains tax by nearly double will ultimately affect everyone, as it will almost certainly result in a major decrease of investment money going into the economy (after all, why expose your money to even more government taxation?) and, as history shows, large decreases in the amount of capital being invested into the private sector predictably result in periods of measurable stagnation.

John, can you say, "Economic Downturn"?

I can't tell which is worse: The idea that John Edwards is fully aware of the implications of such a tax increase and yet, continues to push the idea in hopes of garnering the classist vote, or, that somebody with no realistic idea of economics has the potential of filling the highest position of power in the land.

If Edwards is indeed literate in macroeconomics and does actually understand the market, then what we are seeing in his class-warfare styled campaign, is divisive politics at its worst.

But, if he really thinks a capital gains tax increase of such proportions is a sound piece of economic policy that will ultimately help the middle class, then maybe he needs to put down "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and pick up a copy of "Wealth of Nations".

Mad Men and Advertisements I Hate

2007-07-26T09:48:00.000-04:00

So I was sitting there last night watching AMC's new show "Mad Men" (the encore presentation). It's a show about advertising executives on Madison Avenue in the late 50's and early 60's, and it's pretty interesting, other than the fact that it lacks any form of subtlety whatsoever.

"After these scotches, me and the fellas are gonna go get some more scotch, smoke some cigarettes, and grope some of the secretary broads in the office."

Seriously- the misogynistic attitudes of these hard drinking, heavy smoking ad-executives slap you in the face from frame one and don't let up until the credits roll. Apparantly, in the fifties and sixties, women were treated as nothing more than sex-doll secretaries, everybody was blowing a perpetual plume of cigarette smoke out of their mouths and nostrils, and the men drank scotch before, during, and after meetings. Okay, I get it!

But it got me thinking. Especially a scene in which the main character, teetering over the edge of a deal and about to lose it, suddenly has a moment of divine inspiration and explains what makes advertising efficient: "It makes the customer feel safe" or something to that effect. Then in an even better scene, over drinks, the same character explains to a woman, who also happens to be a potential client, that the reason she hasn't found love is because it doesn't exist. Love is something invented by men such as himself- to sell nylons. It was so cynical, so heartless, so... absolutely true.

Advertising, for the most part, is manipulative, invasive, and annoying. It's also a major part of American culture. It's everywhere you look in this country- absolutely everywhere. From the moment you wake up with an alarm clock radio, until the moment you turn the television or computer off and go to bed, you are being bombarded with advertising trying to sell you cars, and electronics, and knives that can cut through copper pipe but "amazingly" remain sharp enough to cut through a tomato (or your fingers).

As big a fan of the free market as I am, I have come to consider advertising a barely necessary evil; a nuisance really. It's far too aggressive, and a lot of it is just plain awful. For the especially bad advertisements- the ones that you can't get out of your head, but not in a good way- I suspect there is a designated layer in hell for their creators.Forget the fire, brimstone, and sulfur- for eternity this layer has that Head-On "Apply directly to forehead" commercial playing in surround sound and the phone ringing off the hook with telemarketers.

So with that thought in my mind, I decided to introduce a new segment into this blog. I'm going to call it either "Advertisements That I Hate" or "Advertising Executives That Will Burn in Hell", I haven't quite decided. First up is...

The John Mellencamp Chevy Truck Commercial

This is an especially egregious offender. There are so many reasons to hate it: The transparant pandering to American's sense of nostalgia and collective memory. The pseudo-folksiness of the song itself. You can just imagine the ad executives saying things like, "Focus groups and studies show that 73% of people feel patriotism when they hear Mr. Mellencamp's song, as compared to a mere 6% that feel cynicism. Mind you, that 6% isn't even in the demographic of truck buyers, so I think overall this is a win. Let's use it."

And the imagery. Ugh. The anger in me starts to build when in the first few seconds we see an image of Rosa Parks on the bus. Seriously, what the f*ck does Rosa Parks have to do with Chevy Trucks? How can you, in good conscience, even try to associate the two? Was the bus a Chevy or something?

But it doesn't stop there. Oh no! Next we see Muhammed Ali knocking someone out, then Vietnam, then hippies dancing, then Martin Luther King appears right as Mr. Mellencamp sings "I do believe, there's a dream for everyone". GROAN! At this point I already want to blind myself and rip my ears off. But they aren't done yet.

Next is Nixon waving so long, then the moon landing, then Dale Earnhardt(who f*cking DIED in a Chevy! Come on people!), then Katrina and the Twin Tower light display. Interlocked with all of these historical and patriotic images are clips of Chevrolet trucks either working hard or being made by hard working people. There's also random clips of John Mellencamp. There's John sitting on a stump next to an old (presumably Chevy) truck and strumming his guitar. There's John on some sort of billboard/stage thing, pointing to the "East Coast".

I hate this commercial with a passion - it was the first example that came to mind when I thought of this segment. I had firmly decided after seeing it for the first time that, when and if I bought a truck, it would not be a Chevy... and John Mellencamp is a horses ass.

That's it for today. See ya tomorrow.

The Michael Vick / Dog Fighting Fiasco

2007-07-25T10:16:00.000-04:00

"I like this little one... sure hope I don't have to electrocute it."

(I live and work in Atlanta, home of the Falcons, and so I suppose I'll have to throw my two cents in on the controversy surrounding quarterback Mike Vick.)

I remember specifically when I found out that the Falcons would pick up Vick in the 2001 NFL draft. I was working as a waiter at a small seafood restaurant just outside Atlanta and there was always talk about the faint possibility of the Falcons signing him. My customers talked about it. My co-workers talked about it. It was truly the "topic of the moment".

At that time we (the customers and I) were fairly certain that Vick was going to go to San Diego to play with the Chargers- but God, we wanted him. We needed him. We were facing the possible draft of one Ladainian Tomlison from Texas Christian University who was also a great player, but hey, he was no Michael Vick. Michael Vick appeared to be the best quarterback in ages, possibly ever. He was the human highlight reel. He had led Virginia Tech to an appearance in the national championship deciding Nokia Sugar Bowl and had single handedly kept Florida State from making the game a complete blowout. If we could get Vick, we thought, the Falcons could turn their program around and get back into Super Bowl contention again.

And then one day a co-worker came into the restaurant before he started his shift and informed everybody that the Falcons had made a deal with the San Diego Chargers and we would indeed be getting Michael Vick. High-fives all around (there might have even been a hug or two, I can't really recall). Suddenly, the Falcons were right back in the race.

Fast forward six years and...

Ladainian Tomlison is last year's NFL League MVP and Mike Vick has been benched by the NFL powers-that-be, faces a federal indictment, a possible six years in prison stemming from a dog-fighting operation he was involved with in Virginia, and probably won't be seen in a Falcons jersey ever again. Time certainly changes things.

What is especially disturbing about Vick's case is the absolute viciousness of the charges. This isn't the first time a sports star has looked an indictment in the face (although the numbers sure seem to be increasing- I'm looking at you Pac-Man Jones) and it won't be the last, but never before has there been such public disgust or demonstration over their criminal behavior. PETA recently held a demonstration outside the Falcon's training facility in Flowery Branch, Georgia calling for the release of Vick from the team, and there have been numerous other small protests around the state and country. It's simply impossible for many to read the indictment and not put the faces of their beloved pooches on those that were methodically tortured and killed at Bad Newz Kennels for the sake of entertainment and gambling. The thought of electrocuting, hanging, or slamming a dog into the ground until it is dead absolutely makes my blood boil and I don't even own a pet.

And while I am a member of the school of thought that believes a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty, it certainly appears that the evidence against Mr. Vick is particularly damning. His name is all over the business licensing and paperwork surrounding the home where these events took place, they've dug up a number of dog carcasses on the property, and he's going to have to answer to the allegations of him being directly involved in the brutal killing of around eight dogs "in or around April of 2007". Again, I'm not saying that he did everything he has been indicted for, but it isn't hard to believe he was an active participant in one way or another.

Overall, there are a couple of ways to look at it.

Arthur Blank and the Falcons are taking a big bite out of a s**t sandwich right about now. Financially it's a bad situation, but also, and maybe more importantly, they are facing a PR firestorm. Questions of how much they knew about Vick's involvement are starting to spring up, not to mention accusations of the Falcons organization covering up a number of other incidents that Vick had been involved in over his career. Also, that number 7 jersey was, at least, always dependable when it came to bringing in crowds of massive proportions- it no longer will be. Obviously, one way or another, whether for moral or sporting reasons, those crowds that came to see the self-described "Superman" throw and run for touchdowns under the glare of the Georgia Dome's lights will inevitably diminish.

Falcons fans are bewildered. There is a feeling of obligation to support the hero of our team, but at the same time we are also coming to terms with the fact that Michael Vick has been more of a curse than a gift. In posterity, some fans (myself included), openly pine for a time machine- to go back to the 2001 draft, pick up Tomlison, and let Vick go, as initially intended, to San Diego.

As for Michael Vick, he will have to look himself in the mirror everyday for the rest of his life and see a squandered opportunity and career. Even if he is ultimately found to be innocent of all charges (statistically, he has only a 5% chance of acquittal in Federal Court) , he has only allowed himself to be cast in a bad light by consistently associating with nefarious and criminal members of society. He will never get another endorsement deal. His legacy will be one of legal troubles, not of touchdown or rushing records. What a shame. What a waste.

And if he is guilty of doing these horrifying things to animals, then I sincerely hope he eventually sees the absolutely atrocious nature of his actions and apologizes.

But, from all this bad, there does come one good- a slight source of hope. I hope that this will shine a light on and help end an awful practice that, unfortunately, takes place in America everyday. I've often heard the statement, "You can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat animals" and I believe it to be absolutely true. Dog fighting is an event practiced in this country by a certain sociopathic element of people; ruthless people, completely incapable of showing empathy. It needs to stop.

The YouTube Democratic Debate. (The Verdict)

2007-07-24T10:43:00.000-04:00

Okay, I apologize for my cynical post yesterday. I admit it- I was wrong. The debate was entertaining, and by far the best format so far. The questions were, for the most part, good choices. Some of them were incredibly provoking, especially one aimed directly at John Edwards by a Minister from his home state. Anderson Cooper was all anyone could ask for- he forced the candidates to stay on topic, he was well informed, included information (even if- no, especially if it might look bad for the candidate), and even tossed a few funny jabs at the candidates. Most importantly, he made the candidates answer the questions directly. Mrs. Clinton, in one instance, did her best at dodging the question of whether she would put American troops in Darfur- and she would have been given a pass by any other moderator- but Cooper asked for a third time and forced an answer. No. And you could tell she was a little unhappy about being backed into that corner. I literally stood up and applauded Anderson.

Quite possibly the best part about last night was after the debate (unfortunately, also when most Democrats had likely turned the channel to watch re-runs of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy on A&E-- just kidding Dems. I'll make fun of the Repubs when it's their debate). CNN actually fact-checked a lot of claims the candidates had made during the debates. Brilliant, and maybe this has been done before, but regardless- this is something that should be included in every debate. In fact, they should focus even more on it. Seriously. The moving line graph of fluctuating opinion is kinda' interesting, but come on, it's nowhere near as important as whether the folks on stage are actually lying or not.

Anyway, before I give a run down of how I think the candidates fared, let me tip my hat to CNN and YouTube for giving us a breath of fresh air in an insanely protracted election cycle.

Okay, today I'll be starting with the most entertaining candidate.

Mike Gravel

Why can't my handlers just give me f***ing decaf before these debate things?

Oh, Mikey G. You're a wild man!

Having been more reserved in the last debate, Mike came out swinging last night. He had to make an impression, and boy did he ever- just not the one he probably wanted.

His first chance to speak and he was angrily calling out Barack Obama on fundraising. Unfortunately for Mike, even though he was correct to point it out, Obama made him regret the tactic when he answered on the allegation smoother than silk pajamas and the audience exploded with applause.

Seeming to slip in between lucidity, sarcasm, and fits of rage, Mike also managed to be the most honest candidate there, when he admitted that the Vietnam soldiers had died in vain; that they had died for a flawed foreign policy, and that there hadn't been a need for it. It's a tough thing to say, for sure, and none of the others on stage would repeat it (well, to be fair, Kucinich wasn't given a chance)- but hey, it's brutally honest. And that's what makes Mike interesting. He won't win- in fact, I don't see him making it much further- but he does indeed serve a purpose up on that stage.

Hillary

Okay, so I've made it adamantly clear how much I dislike this woman as a politician. Thinking of her in the Oval Office makes me consider a move to the warm, sunny beaches of Costa Rica- an umbrella drink in hand, soft waves crashing, a parrot on my shoulder, a little spider monkey in a floral shirt just hanging out...

Anyway, last night's performance brought me closer to that beach. Not much. But just a little.

Everyone on that stage definitely knew who the front runner was. She set the pace. She answered with certainty. She was poised. She was cool, calm, and collected. And God, how I hate her. She is the Politician 9000- Super Deluxe Model.

On the plus side, her YouTube personalized commercial was a disaster. Yippee!

Barack Obama

"Shouting out to all my b*tches in da' back! Now how black is that?"

Barack opened up about as strong as a candidate can get, but seemed to falter a little towards the end. It wasn't a bad showing by any means- but it wasn't a decisive victory either.

Hillary punked him out with her answer as to whether or not she would, as president, meet with despots and dictators from Iran, North Korea, and so on. She basically had the exact same answer as Barack, but worded it more cautiously. However, this wasn't too crushing a blow in my opinion.

And while I don't think he won the debate, he did have some of the best answers of the night, especially to the ridiculous question of reparations for African-Americans. That was an absolute home-run. Go back to the tape. Seriously. Watch his answer to the question and remind yourself that you are seeing the smoothest politician to grace this election cycle. He diverts the question- it's a tough one, considering his ethnicity-he can't really answer yes or no, so he switches it to fixing the school system. It's a win-win for everyone. He didn't say no to the potential black voters, and he didn't say yes to the potential white voters. And everybody likes fixing education! YAY!

He also had, in my opinion, one of the better personalized YouTube commercials.

Johnny-I'm just like you-Edwards

"... and I was all like: Talk to the hand Big Oil, cause I ain't listening."

John took the populist approach. And he took it like a fiending crack addict takes a car radio- recklessly. Seriously, it was so obvious. It seemed like he just wanted everybody to know how normal he was and how hard he would fight for the masses. "I fought against the big insurance companies" and "I fought for legislation against big oil". It was tiring...

The "daddy worked in a factory", "3 day poverty tour" bit is old school politics Johnny. You're a little behind the curve. Try a new trick. Get pissed like Gravel. Talk about hope and the future like Obama. Do anything, but don't try to pass yourself off as the hero in Washington who fights for the little guy. I don't buy it. You are a trial lawyer by nature. One of those sharks that come up with ostensible class action lawsuits to "help" victims. And in the end you rake in millions of dollars, and the mother of the guy who died of lung cancer gets a Joe Camel fanny pack and an apology. You're trying to pull that same stunt on the American people, positioning yourself as the only one who can really "help" them. Thankfully you won't win.

On a somewhat positive side, I did respect his truthfullness in his answer to the most eloquent question of the night from a minister in his home state. It takes cajones to stand in front of a room full of Democrats and say you are morally opposed to gay marriage. (And was it just me, or did the minister seem to be so caught up in the thunderous applause and the moment that he didn't even actually listen to John's answer? Maybe he was just nervous, I don't know.)

John also had, in my opinion, the best of the personalized YouTube commercials. It was powerful and put his hair fiasco to rest.

The Rest

As standard procedure dictates, I'll keep it short and sweet with these guys.

Joe Biden- He had some strong answers, but in all reality, he's just not with his party on the Iraq issue. It's the most important issue to potential voters (Democrat voters at least) and without them behind him, well... obviously this guy is just running for fun or name recognition. I'm not sure which.

And what did I tell you about this guy and his mouth. It's like the part of his brain that exercises verbal caution fell right out of his head along with his hair. In his answer to the last question of the night, he managed to curse and illude to a fixation with Dennis Kucinich's wife. It might not seem like a big deal, but a smarter candidate wouldn't even take the risk.

Dennis Kucinich- Last night was make or break for Dennis. He needed to stand out from the rest of the candidates, and he did. But it wasn't in the right way.

I like the guy, I really do. I disagree wholeheartedly with just about every one of his policies, but you can tell that he means well, and you know he is sincere. That being said, he looked like a misguided, college-activist gnome last night, not a presidential candidate. Hey Dennis, it's a presidential debate, not American Idol- don't give out text message numbers. I know you want the war to end, but you just came off a little overzealous and immature as a candidate.

He had one bright moment when he called down the rest of the Senate for not admitting they could stop the war if they voted against funding it completely, but he came out looking nearly insane (or at least out of touch with mainstream America) when he called for reparations to all African Americans.

Bill Richardson- There isn't really much to say. He also tried to seperate himself from the pack and used the tactic of practically begging for someone to challenge him on his Iraq stance. Unfortunately for him, Joe Biden, the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, accepted the offer and quickly made Bill look like an uninformed idealist.

His personalized YouTube video was probably the worst.

The one thing that did stand out,and again I'll have to get a little juvenile here but, I swear I heard someone fart during one of his answers. Someone please tell me that I wasn't hallucinating. Did that really happen?

Chris Dodd- Well, now I guess I know a little about Chris Dodd after the debate. He's far too centrist to win the nomination. He didn't do bad in the debate and he tried to stand out (mostly by reminding everyone that he was the guy who has white hair, but, I mean, so does Biden, so does Gravel. It's pretty weak and he should fire whoever came up with that idea.). He seemed honest, candid even. But, there just isn't much there. Nothing he said really sticks out in my mind right now.

Highlight of the Night- Mike Gravel's answer to the question, "Who was your favorite teacher?"

Lowpoint of the Night-The absolutely ludicrous question by that guy up in Boston about reparations. I still can't believe that CNN chose this question. First of all, the idea of reparations is bogus by definition. Slavery in the U.S. was abolished nearly 150 years ago and nobody alive today, especially the moron who asked the question, has ever experienced a policy of slavery in the U.S.- Stop asking for a handout over something that you didn't even experience and never will.

But strangely enough, what really drove me nuts was the way he asked it. "Is African Americans ever gonna get reparations fo' slavery?" Hey, whatever-your-name-is in Boston, I hope you like manual labor, because nobody will ever take you seriously with grammar like that. Speaking ignorantly and incorrectly isn't cool, no matter what MTV and Young Jeezy tell you.

Anyway, that about wraps it up. See you tomorrow.

The CNN/YouTube Presidential Debates- A Chance for the Little Guy to Speak? Not Really.

2007-07-23T11:14:00.001-04:00

The spotlight is on Charleston, South Carolina tonight as the Democratic candidates get ready to head into a debate at the Citadel. But this is no ordinary debate. Oh no, far from it. This is the "CNN / YouTube" debate, or, as the media has come to refer to it, the most revolutionary act in the political process of this country since Suffrage. Okay, well maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but there certainly seems to be a kind of "magic in the air" feel emanating from the media when they bring up tonight's debate. They continue to sling out adjectives like "historical", "ground-breaking", and "revolutionary". And in a way, I suppose it is.

This will be the first time in history that questions will come from average, every day citizens through grainy, jostling web-cams. And, don't forget- the "average, every day" part is what is really being stressed.

[In fact, just to make you feel more comfortable with the fact that you're average, Anderson and the YouTube guy even filmed the commercials for it just like you would! All shaky camerawork with (ostensibly) unscripted and spur of the moment dialogue. See the camera shake? They are just like you.]

People are naturally excited about the possibility this holds. They love the idea that all they have to do is send in a question and the presidential candidate they directed it to will have to answer it live on TV. Ah yes, the possibilities are endless.

Let us, for a moment, enter into the lovely daydream of what this event is supposed to be...

Finally, the gap between the common man and the political and media classes will be bridged. They will have to answer directly to us, the people that vote for them. Finally they will have to answer tough questions posed by the (up until now) voiceless.

And, oh yes, the questions will be tough. Finally! Incredibly tough questions that the Larry King's and Wolf Blitzer's wouldn't ask in a million years, for fear of losing their jobs. Questions like : "Barack, is cocaine, like the late-great Rick James said, 'a helluva drug'?", or, "Hillary, did Vince Foster really committ suicide?", or, "Senator Biden, how many Indians does it take to run a gas station?". Oh, just imagine how awkward it will become, how sweet that scene will be when they begin to stutter- tiny sweat beads forming at their brow.

And there will be funny questions too. Really funny questions. Not the lame joke-to-open-a-speech kind of funny; but gut busting, genuinely hilarious questions. "Barack, if you weren't married- and this is just a hypothetical- would you find Hillary attractive enough to make pancakes for in the morning, if ya know what I mean?", or, "Senator Edwards, on a scale of 1 to 10, how high would you rate yourself in the looks department? Don't hold back John. You know you're hot. YOU KNOW IT!"

And how great will it be to see some of the second tier candidates- guys that might even be better choices than the candidates the media wants us to know so very well- actually be given more than just the show dog walk-around treatment. (Hell, if it's really the internet crowd being represented in these debates, then they might have to call the Republican night the "Ron Paul and Some Other Guys Answer Your Questions" debate.) They'll probably even get more than one question to answer. The questions will be on big issues, and they'll have ample time to answer and explain their positions.

Oh how sweet it will be. It will be the most earth-shattering political experience the country has seen since women were allowed the vote or the ending of Jim Crow laws.

But now we have to turn the Nitrous-Oxide down and return to reality.

"Hey Barack, that guy right there thinks his question about the Whitewater scandal is actually gonna be aired. Poor guy. He doesn't know how this politics thing works, does he?"

In all actuality, this debate is simply a brilliant PR stunt for YouTube and CNN. BRILLIANT I tell you, but still a stunt, nonetheless. YouTube comes out looking legitimate and vastly important. CNN comes out looking hip and with it; ready to share its "old guard of the media" status with the youngsters and their wacky technology. And we, the average internet user, feel a little more significant.

Sure, we can send in questions. We can ask anything we want- "Joe Biden, is that your real hair?", but who picks the questions that will air is ultimately the only thing that matters. With over 1700 entries as of Friday, they can pick and choose the same thing they would have asked anyway, effectively turning this forum into a digital puppet show- "Senator Clinton, what is your plan regarding the imminent energy crisis our nation faces?"- and where's the fun in that? How is that groundbreaking? Couldn't we have done online voting on the video questions? Wouldn't that be genuinely "historic" and "ground-breaking"?

And don't think for a minute that these candidates haven't been prepped for the questions. They know exactly what's coming.

But, somewhat naively, many of us will still feel amazed and empowered by it, thinking, "Well, my question didn't get aired, but it could have." The truth is, unless yours is some middle-of-the-road, open ended, softballish question directed at a top tier candidate, the country won't be getting to see your face or your bedroom wall posters any time soon. Although, in some cases, that's a good thing, as witnessed by this entry below.

D-Wizzle was sure that this would be his big break. After this aired on the debates, the hip-hop moguls would be beating down his door.

Maybe I'll be wrong. Maybe the questions will be surprisingly tough and simultaneously entertaining. Maybe one of the candidates will crack on live television. I hope that's the case. But for now, I'm going to remain skeptical of this dog-and-pony show.

The 2008 Election: 1 Ginormous Breakdown (Part. 3- The Third Party Candidates)

2007-07-20T12:10:00.001-04:00

Ahh, the third parties.

If the Republicans and Democrats are Gene Simmons and Ace Frehley, the third parties are Peter Criss. On the U.S. political map they are little known, underacknowledged, and underappreciated- but never really underestimated. Maybe it's because they just can't seem to organize all that well.

Always possessing the most colorful assortment of political hopefuls, this election cycle's field includes a marijuana activist, a former Black Panther leader, and a chiropractor with an affinity for the Matrix movies. I'm not joking.

But, to be fair, the third parties are growing exponentially as large sectors of the American population become disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties. They still have a long way to go before they can be considered mainstream, but hey, there is noticable progress being made. And maybe when they get bigger they'll be able to recruit more viable candidates; candidates that don't seem so... well, to put it lightly, unelectable.

I apologize to all of you out there who have your emotions and time invested into one of the candidates I'm about to mention, but, look...

These people will never win. Never, ever. Never, ever, ever. And I'm not trying to belittle their attempt, after all it isn't their fault that the Republican and Democrat parties maintain such a strangling grip on the U.S. political scene and funding, but I've been honest with my opinion on every other candidate and I'm not gonna stop here. They are message candidates that aren't really able to get their message out, except maybe to your sixteen year old brother who will talk fervently about them after stumbling across their MySpace page. "Dude, legalizing marijuana is the most important issue facing our country today."

The truth is that most people just don't know who they are. So third parties, get your act together, work hard at getting your message out and earning your place at the table- because, after all, you deserve it. But again, let me reiterate the fact that in 2008, these people will never ever win. Never ever. (Okay, I'm won't say that anymore. I swear.)

Let's get started.

(Libertarian Party)

Steve Kubby

I bet you didn't know Jeff Goldblum loves to smoke weed.

Yeah, how awesome would it be to see the new president making his inaugural speech in front of a Citizen Kane style banner with that picture on it?

He may look (slightly) like an evil Jeff Goldblum, but his name is Steve Kubby and he's in a bind. See, a majority of Libertarian party members are earnestly supporting major candidate Ron Paul, who is essentially a libertarian himself (He ran in 1988 on their ticket). What's a guy like Steve supposed to do? Well, I'll get to that, but for now...

Steve Kubby has cut his political teeth as an activist for the legalization of Marijuana (He played a key role in the drafting and passage of California Proposition 215). In case you haven't been able to tell yet, this guy loves smoking weed- he even announced his candidacy at the Seattle Hempfest. Seriously. But don't let me get ahead of myself here. He has a legitimate reason.

When Steve was only 23 years of age he was diagnosed with adrenal cancer, and following this had three surgeries over the next few years (1968, 1975, and 1976) to remove tumors that had continued to build up.

Steve then began to undergo conventional therapies for his cancer such as radiation and chemotherapy, but in 1981 dropped the excruciating procedures for a much more unconventional treatment- maintaining a healthy diet and smoking marijuana. He has been healthy ever since. That's pretty amazing on two levels. First, controlling cancer for 25 years through diet and medicinal marijuana; and second, to be able to eat healthy while smoking marijuana considering "the munchies" and the ubiquity of Doritos and Taco Bells. Mmmmm. Cheezy Gordita Crunch.

I'll stop making light of Steve because his is honestly an amazing and inspiring story... just not enough to win him the presidency.

The Prediction: Steve made a very smart move recently and endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy. If Ron Paul pulls off the upset, look to see Steve somewhere in that cabinet. Maybe he'll even be the Drug Czar!

(Green Party)

Elaine Brown

Slender Black Female, Age 64, seeks black man. Turn-on's include: Sitting by the fire, Pam Grier movies, Black Berets and racial militarism. Turn-offs: White skin, blond hair, blue eyes. Non-African Americans need not respond.

Elaine Brown. Where to begin?

If you aren't a black militant, there isn't much to like in this candidate. I think that's a reasonable start. In fact, her candidacy really got me thinking, "What is the Green Party exactly?" (I had always assumed they were some sort of environmental action party. Maybe they are, I don't know.)

You see, I currently reside in Atlanta and have for some time now. So does Mrs. Brown. I know her type. She is the idealogical predecessor of people like Cynthia McKinney (who, by the way, is also rumored to be considering a run for president on the Green ticket). These are people with narrow minds, fervent passion, and misguided anger towards those that they percieve as their oppressors. They rabble-rouse, stir up their constituents by instilling them with fear through half-truths, and constantly seek others to blame for nearly everything. They are the most dangerous of politicians, and these two ladies seem to have nestled snugly into the Green Party. (By the way, if one of you wants to enlighten me, please feel free to- I'm not really all that educated on the Greenies. Thanks.) Anyway...

Elaine Brown became a member of the Black Panther Party in the late sixties and worked her way up to become Chairperson from 1974 up until 1977 when the party disbanded.

She also doesn't seem to be too successful at running campaigns, with a failed attempt to become a member or the City Council of Oakland in 1973 and another failed attempt at becoming the Mayor of Brunswick, Georgia (she was disqualified for not establishing residency in the city).

She has publicly called Colin Powell, Chris Rock, Russell Simmons, and P. Diddy "New Age House Negroes" and threw in Oprah Winfrey as a "New Age House Negress" for good measure.

To top off this astounding resume, David Horowitz, a very well-known journalist and former supporter of the Black Panther party, has publicly accused Mrs. Brown of having Betty Van Patter, a mother of three, murdered in 1973.

And that about sums it up. This woman is a hate-mongering oxygen-thief. I will revel in her political loss. NEXT!

(Constitution Party)

Don J. Grundmann

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is his drivers license picture.

After you read this section, you will never hear of this guy again. Trust me. I'm not gonna even try to polish this turd. I had a hard enough time just trying to find a picture of the guy. Google Images, with billions of pictures to be searched, and all I could come up with was this one.

Anyway, there isn't much to know about this guy. He's as obscure as I am right now.

But doing a little background check gave me the following facts on ol' Don:

1.He became a member of the American Independant Party Committee in 2006.

2.He is currently a chiropractor in San Leandro, California.

3.He uses imagery from the Matrix in his campaign.

And that's pretty much it.

So there you have it folks- your line up of presidential candidates for 2008! I hope you've enjoyed it and maybe even got a better idea of who you're gonna vote for.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and make sure to check in next week for more of my commentary on current events and American culture.