My good friend Geoff made a great point. Let me set the scene.
Today Bush signed the PRO-IP Act into law. You can look it up. And in case you were wondering, IP is short for intellectual property (anything from works of art to the design of computer chips or the formula for boner drugs). Suffice it to say the bill gives sweeping additional powers to U.S. IP holders, provides disproportionate punishments for IP infringement (even unintentional), creates a tax-payer funded "piracy czar" that will 'implement strategic plans to reduce IP infringement' (whatever that means), and allows IP holders to continue decimating consumers by bypassing rights of resell, 'leasing' software or music even though you bought the medium, preventing you from making backups of purchased products, and continuing to use shotgun lawsuits and non-disclosure agreements as enforcement mechanisms.
I quite disparagingly mentioned that Bush signed this act into law and Geoff rightly smacked my face and pointed out that it takes two to tango. Congress passed the legislation in the first place (unanimously in the Senate I might add), so they are equally to blame. So I will amend my statement and say that it was Bush AND all the fools in the House and Senate that have once again busted the balls of consumers everywhere.
Folks, Congress is not, nor should it be, a rubber stamp for the wishes of the executive. And the executive should never be a rubber stamp for Congress. If one of them won't stand up to bad legislation or ideas, the other should. If they don't, then both branches have failed the public. Here we see an EPIC FAIL. But here they are, for the last 8 years, loving cupping each others balls and just passing bill after bill that does this kind of stuff. Need I remind anyone of the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind? Obviously, these were not consumer oriented, but one legalized privacy invasion, domestic spying, and suspension of habeas corpus while the other punished struggling schools and students by taking away their funding. Bush has, to the best of my knowledge and research abilities, only vetoed TWO bills (only one spending bill) in his years in office. Congress has tabled lots of little stuff, but has continuously passed legislation deemed important by Bush (except his Swiss cheese energy bill, which they rightly smacked down hard and publicly). So here we have a big circle-jerk of people that are supposed to be checking and balancing each other. Now, because they like the stroking better than fighting the deep pockets and election-oiling money of the IP lobby, it's up to the over-burdened courts to be the last line of defense. This is a TWO BRANCH EPIC FAIL.
For the record, I'm all for IP protection, but within reason. No one should have 99 year monopolies on things like business organization ideas or video game joysticks (both of which exist, by the way). The IP lobby has successfully given themselves vast monopoly powers in a country that pretends to abhor the principle of monopoly. IP has become a way to stifle competition and bar entrance to lucrative markets. People that develop IP (including artists, software engineers, hardware designers, etc) should be and, I think, are justified in making a profit on their inventions and ideas. But creating a situation in which the consumers of those creations are punished for selling used items, are required to buy all new media every time a new technology wanders into the world, and are subject to monopoly prices because of IP laws is inexcusable. We should make all the little Congressmen and Congresswomen go back to the table and demand legislation that 1) protects the rights of consumers to reasonably use and protect their purchases (with backups and resell rights as a minimum), 2) makes the IP industry fund its own police work and policies (just like independent, non-corporate IP holders are forced to), and 3) creates a consistent system of copyright and patents for IP that gives reasonable time to people to make use and profit from their IP before that knowledge becomes public and available for others to use (rather than offering lifetime monopolies). The consumers got jacked, the IP lobby got a major windfall, and two of three branches of government set consumer rights back almost 50 years (back to the day of "copiers should be illegal because no one will buy books if they can copy them).
Congress and Bushy should stop wearing their ass as a hat.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
For those of you that missed it
I encourage everyone to read the previous post if you haven't, but this is too much to pass up.
A lot of you watched the debates. The news media will most likely cover the inconsequential or overly simplistic side of things: how the candidates looked, how they carried themselves, how the "debate" (I use that term very very loosely) was more vitriolic than the previous ones, abortion, supreme court appointments, and the like.
What you won't hear is this: Obama said what may be the smartest thing any politician has ever said in public. I paraphrase: "Neither side wants abortions. We need to address the things that increase abortion rates- education, access to health care, economic equality, and sex education." I thought McCain had the "Straight Talk Express" but Barack just straight-talked McCain back into the Cold War where he came from.
To be fair, the candidates were supposed to be addressing the issue of how they would choose supreme court justices and whether Roe v. Wade would influence that decision. But you can't mention Roe v. Wade without someone haring off into esoteric arguments about "morality" and "a woman's right to choose". (Also- did anyone else notice that both candidates said they wouldn't use litmus tests and then proceeded to outline what could easily be construed as litmus tests?)
McCain spent his time on the abortion issue arguing about morality, whether Roe v. Wade was judged correctly, and how Obama voted against fetuses (even though Obama just spent the previous minute explaining the situation). But he NEVER NEVER NEVER came to central issue: neither side wants abortions.
The Republican solution (McCain's position and the party position) is to legislate them into non-existence (and by non-existence I mean into back alleys and foreign countries). The Democratic solution (officially implemented into the platform this year and pasted on Obama's website) is to reduce abortions by increasing and improving those things that directly lead to lower abortion rates and lower teen pregnancy- sex education (NOT JUST ABSTINENCE!!!!), higher levels of education (pregnancy rates and abortions are proportional to educational attainment), access to quality health care (for mother and baby), better adoption services, and better employment opportunities (higher incomes are proportional to lower abortion rates).
Obama was also right when he said these are areas that both sides can agree on. Whether you define life at conception or birth or somewhere in-between, addressing these issues will lower the overall rate and make everyone happier. You'll NEVER have zero abortions. The goal is to reduce the total number in a meaningful, lasting way. Which do you think will be more affective IN THE LONG RUN (not just by closing down legal facilities in the short term)?
Obama hit it square on the head. He faced the problem head on. He proposed a solution that addresses the ROOT causes of abortion, not just one that slaps a patch on the RESULTS. Everyone can agree that fewer abortions are a win for everyone. Legislation only drives it underground. Addressing the root causes will decrease the rate AND improve the education of the populace. That's a win-win. Now we just need to implement it. We've tried abstinence. We've tried it for the last 50 years. It's time to go beyond that and start putting the rest of the structure in place.
That's all I have to say about the debate. It was disgusting with the personal attacks, the lies and truth bending by both sides, the palpable anger, and, worst of all, the claim by McCain that Obama's policies are in any way associated with a "race war" and that schools are somehow equitable. I've been in school for twenty years. Racial equality is FAR from true in public schools or universities. Racism is alive and well. We have made huge strides, but we have much more distance to go. A potential leader of this country ignoring that and claiming that education is equitable is inexcusable.
Finally, someone explain this to me: The Republican platform mandates no abortions, even in cases of incest, rape, or other nefarious deeds. The platform also says no assisted suicide. However, this is the platform and party that advocates the death penalty, is typically hawkish and pro-war (which results in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS), and arbitrarily demands more rights to the infant's life than the mother. The platform says abortions should be illegal EVEN IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS AT STAKE. Someone, in a logical manner, needs to explain these vast discrepancies in "sacredness of life" and "ethic of life". Why do we protect live babies so they can be dead soldiers? Why do we kill prisoners but not allow those in chronic pain to choose to end that pain? Where is the consistency? Why is an infant's life more valuable than a mother's? Obviously, there is no true answer to these questions and they all depend on how you want to define life and its sacredness. But if you're going to be the party with an "ethic of life" you HAVE to be consistent. You can't kill convicts out of revenge or justice or anger and then turn around and say old people have to live even if every moment is in agony. Both are issues of life and death. To be the party of life, then EVERY life must count. And that means working to reduce poverty. The surest indicator of life expectancy isn't genes or lifestyle or vices- it's income. So the party of life also needs to be the party of poverty reduction. For a very well thought out, informative, well documented exploration of this idea, read Jim Wallis's book God's Politics.
Cheerio!
A lot of you watched the debates. The news media will most likely cover the inconsequential or overly simplistic side of things: how the candidates looked, how they carried themselves, how the "debate" (I use that term very very loosely) was more vitriolic than the previous ones, abortion, supreme court appointments, and the like.
What you won't hear is this: Obama said what may be the smartest thing any politician has ever said in public. I paraphrase: "Neither side wants abortions. We need to address the things that increase abortion rates- education, access to health care, economic equality, and sex education." I thought McCain had the "Straight Talk Express" but Barack just straight-talked McCain back into the Cold War where he came from.
To be fair, the candidates were supposed to be addressing the issue of how they would choose supreme court justices and whether Roe v. Wade would influence that decision. But you can't mention Roe v. Wade without someone haring off into esoteric arguments about "morality" and "a woman's right to choose". (Also- did anyone else notice that both candidates said they wouldn't use litmus tests and then proceeded to outline what could easily be construed as litmus tests?)
McCain spent his time on the abortion issue arguing about morality, whether Roe v. Wade was judged correctly, and how Obama voted against fetuses (even though Obama just spent the previous minute explaining the situation). But he NEVER NEVER NEVER came to central issue: neither side wants abortions.
The Republican solution (McCain's position and the party position) is to legislate them into non-existence (and by non-existence I mean into back alleys and foreign countries). The Democratic solution (officially implemented into the platform this year and pasted on Obama's website) is to reduce abortions by increasing and improving those things that directly lead to lower abortion rates and lower teen pregnancy- sex education (NOT JUST ABSTINENCE!!!!), higher levels of education (pregnancy rates and abortions are proportional to educational attainment), access to quality health care (for mother and baby), better adoption services, and better employment opportunities (higher incomes are proportional to lower abortion rates).
Obama was also right when he said these are areas that both sides can agree on. Whether you define life at conception or birth or somewhere in-between, addressing these issues will lower the overall rate and make everyone happier. You'll NEVER have zero abortions. The goal is to reduce the total number in a meaningful, lasting way. Which do you think will be more affective IN THE LONG RUN (not just by closing down legal facilities in the short term)?
Obama hit it square on the head. He faced the problem head on. He proposed a solution that addresses the ROOT causes of abortion, not just one that slaps a patch on the RESULTS. Everyone can agree that fewer abortions are a win for everyone. Legislation only drives it underground. Addressing the root causes will decrease the rate AND improve the education of the populace. That's a win-win. Now we just need to implement it. We've tried abstinence. We've tried it for the last 50 years. It's time to go beyond that and start putting the rest of the structure in place.
That's all I have to say about the debate. It was disgusting with the personal attacks, the lies and truth bending by both sides, the palpable anger, and, worst of all, the claim by McCain that Obama's policies are in any way associated with a "race war" and that schools are somehow equitable. I've been in school for twenty years. Racial equality is FAR from true in public schools or universities. Racism is alive and well. We have made huge strides, but we have much more distance to go. A potential leader of this country ignoring that and claiming that education is equitable is inexcusable.
Finally, someone explain this to me: The Republican platform mandates no abortions, even in cases of incest, rape, or other nefarious deeds. The platform also says no assisted suicide. However, this is the platform and party that advocates the death penalty, is typically hawkish and pro-war (which results in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS), and arbitrarily demands more rights to the infant's life than the mother. The platform says abortions should be illegal EVEN IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS AT STAKE. Someone, in a logical manner, needs to explain these vast discrepancies in "sacredness of life" and "ethic of life". Why do we protect live babies so they can be dead soldiers? Why do we kill prisoners but not allow those in chronic pain to choose to end that pain? Where is the consistency? Why is an infant's life more valuable than a mother's? Obviously, there is no true answer to these questions and they all depend on how you want to define life and its sacredness. But if you're going to be the party with an "ethic of life" you HAVE to be consistent. You can't kill convicts out of revenge or justice or anger and then turn around and say old people have to live even if every moment is in agony. Both are issues of life and death. To be the party of life, then EVERY life must count. And that means working to reduce poverty. The surest indicator of life expectancy isn't genes or lifestyle or vices- it's income. So the party of life also needs to be the party of poverty reduction. For a very well thought out, informative, well documented exploration of this idea, read Jim Wallis's book God's Politics.
Cheerio!
Monday, October 13, 2008
Things you find in the news for $2000, Alex.
Politics on the brain. It's all anyone can seem to focus on. It'll all be forgotten six minutes after the votes are in, but it's impossible to escape now- the name calling, belligerent attitudes, the lies and half-truths, the purposeful misunderstanding and the stupidity. So here's a little common sense from Adam to put some of the crap in context.
Rant #1) I have watched each debate and have surprisingly little to say about them. Both candidates are just using the questions as springboards for prepared talking points, which is shameful. The format of the debates, which disallows any meaningful discussion, is ridiculous. Senator Obama may be "winning" them by public estimations, but he's not hammering Senator McCain into the ground—he's not explaining why he would be the best next president, or why McCain would be the worst. And McCain isn't saying much beyond "my opponent just doesn't get it" while evading answers and distancing himself from the president he voted with 90% of the time.
But one thing did leap out at me, at both Presidential debates, on the issue of Pakistani borders. It's a big question right now because Al Qaeda is crafty and knows that most of the time (Iraq not being a notable exception) we respect the borders of international nations which have not attacked us first. Barack said in both debates that if he knew proof-positive where Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government was unwilling or unable to take Bin Laden out, that he would authorize a strike to go across and get Bin Laden.
Senator McCain responded that Senator Obama is foolish because the President should "speak softly and carry a big stick" and not "telegraph his punches". Yet John never said he wouldn't do the exact same thing. So, I am left with two possibilities: either McCain would respect Pakistani sovereignty and not fire the shot if Bin Laden was moonwalking just across that line (doubtful), or he and Obama believe the exact same thing—the only difference is that McCain refuses to say it out loud.
What's that shit painted on the side of his bus again?? "Straight Talk Express"?
Now, I don't know what the answer is. Personally, it makes me nervous to just Tweety Bird it and use "I tawt I taw a terrorist" as justification for pretty much anything. But I do know is that if McCain is going to cling to the political equivalent of "I KEEP IT REAL" then he damn sure better, otherwise he risks alienating people who are actually hoping for straight talk.
Rant #2) This is why I cannot read commentaries by Glenn Beck; the man is a sensationalist asshole—the modern day equivalent of an op-ed Hearst— who makes a living coming up with the wildest arguments he can, no matter how illogical or foolish they may be. The commentary has been linked for your enjoyment, but I will sum it up to save you time:
Mr. Beck is upset about claims of racial undertones from liberal groups/individuals. He points to certain moments on the campaign trail—the quickly infamous "that one", of course, and the "Joe six-pack" images being thrown around by Governor Palin. He claims that the subtext people read into such comments—that they are racially charged attempts to "otherize" Senator Obama and make him seem distant and foreign—are ridiculous, unfounded, and irresponsible. Fine, that is a fair argument. Yet mere sentences later, Mr. Beck basically says 'the subtext of all of this is clear— if you vote against Obama, you are a racist.' Now how in the hell can you decry the use of subtext as irresponsible in one case, then draw imaginary parallels between "please don't call our candidate 'uppity'" (as did Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia) and "Vote for change, or join the KKK."?
Rant #3) Speaking of that particular organization, this Bill Ayers business is K-K-KILLING me.
Let me get this straight, and stop me if I hit a snag: Bill Ayers helped found the Weather Underground. Check.
Weather Underground did some bad shit, some of which Ayers was a part of. Check.
Ayers never faced charges due to prosecutorial misconduct, yet voluntarily turned himself in to authorities in 1980. Check.
30 years later, Bill Ayers is a university professor and former 'Chicago Citizen Of The Year' for his championing of Elementary Education and the writing of a massive grant to benefit under-funded schools. Check.
Barack Obama sat on a Board of Directors with Ayers and, at one point, lived a few streets away. Check.
Obama is "palling around with terrorists". Wait, what the fuck?
Not only is this connection retardedly tenuous and stupidly inflammatory, something else is bothering me. Let's get some other things straight:
John McCain has served nearly 30 years in the US Senate alongside Robert Byrd. Check.
Robert Byrd is an admitted former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Check.
The KKK is considered a domestic terror organization. Check.
So how in the crap is John McCain not "palling around" with a "terrorist who targeted his own country"? EPIC FAIL, McCain campaign— your accusations are saturated with liquid FAIL and country-fried hypocrisy. If Obama is unfit to serve as President because of this, then so is John McCain; let's all write in Ron Paul and get this country back on track.
Sadly, however, most people aren't concerned about this apparent hypocritical stance—I spent an hour and a half in the Foxnews Forums yesterday, trying to get an answer to my question, and in 16,000 replies to "Does Obama-Ayers Connection Matter?" not a single person even attempted to explain to me why dispersing grant money with a former anarchist is magically different from writing legislation with a former Klan member. Instead, I was told that I must be a "comunist" (sic) and love "the Curan" (sadly, sadly sic).
Rant #4) It pisses me off that age has become an issue in this campaign, for either side. Health, certainly. Computer literacy, absolutely. Age, who gives a shit? My grandmother is roughly the same age as John McCain and she has been slamming death's door with her walker for quite a while now. Chuck Norris is almost as old McCain, but he would roundhouse-kick his way through every cabinet meeting for 8 years and still never need to sleep. Age does not matter. Period. McCain is in good health, and has released (to his credit) over 1,000 pages of medical documents for the press to look over, which is way more than Obama has done. He's healthy—who cares if he is 40 or 80? 'Is he the best thing for America?' is the only question I care about.
Another thing I care about is not running shady campaigns. One thing you will never hear in this election cycle is the Obama campaign using McCain's middle name (Sydney) with a strange emphasis, yet members of McCain's campaign constantly refer to Senator Obama as "Barack Hussein". Come on—are you seriously trying to claim that you have no idea what you are doing? That you have no idea what the name 'Hussein' means to some Americans, and that you are not using an accident of birth to diminish Senator Obama's character, reputation, and qualifications by making that association? Give me a fucking break! Hey, Glenn Beck, where was that example in your ramblings? Even you know that is some bullshit.
I will also stab the next asshat who says Sarah Palin should not be President because she needs to be spending time with her kids. You would never hear someone say that Bill Clinton should not have run because he needed to spend time with Chelsea. Quit elevating motherhood over fatherhood in a lame attempt to keep America male-dominated— it shows a tremendous lack of class and a very poor understanding of Western history (I or Brandon can explain this in detail if anyone would like).
The funny thing about any discriminatory 'ism' is that it works both ways: Republicans, you can't say being old is not a handicap then say being young is. Democrats, you can't suggest that women shouldn't run for office because of their children then say men should. Barack Obama, you can't deride President Bush for making specious Al Qaeda-Iraq connections and then connect John McCain to Rush Limbaugh in Spanish-language ads. And John McCain, you can't claim to keep a clean campaign while your supporters chant "TERRORIST, TERRORIST" at your rallies and you do absolutely nothing to stop them; that is deeply and unspeakably shameful. It reflects horribly on your character, Senator McCain, and though I wish you had won the Republican nomination in 2000, I can't in good conscience support a man who would allow such an unbelievably callow thing to occur— you are a war-hero, a dignified politician and a so-called 'maverick': have some fucking self-respect.
Rant # 5) You know what, I don't even need to rant on this one… it pretty much speaks for itself.
A quote from Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP of the NRA. "We will encourage gun owners, hunters and anyone who values freedom to vote McCain-Palin on November 4."
Sigh.
For fuck's sake, someone get this election over with—I can't clear enough head space to write about anything but politics, and it's killing my fiction output.
--Adam
ed. note: in recent days, Senator McCain has actually gotten vocal about his supporters not disrespecting Senator Obama at rallies, for which the author is quite pleased. However, the author maintains his view that John McCain bears a striking resemblance to one Franklin The Turtle.
Rant #1) I have watched each debate and have surprisingly little to say about them. Both candidates are just using the questions as springboards for prepared talking points, which is shameful. The format of the debates, which disallows any meaningful discussion, is ridiculous. Senator Obama may be "winning" them by public estimations, but he's not hammering Senator McCain into the ground—he's not explaining why he would be the best next president, or why McCain would be the worst. And McCain isn't saying much beyond "my opponent just doesn't get it" while evading answers and distancing himself from the president he voted with 90% of the time.
But one thing did leap out at me, at both Presidential debates, on the issue of Pakistani borders. It's a big question right now because Al Qaeda is crafty and knows that most of the time (Iraq not being a notable exception) we respect the borders of international nations which have not attacked us first. Barack said in both debates that if he knew proof-positive where Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government was unwilling or unable to take Bin Laden out, that he would authorize a strike to go across and get Bin Laden.
Senator McCain responded that Senator Obama is foolish because the President should "speak softly and carry a big stick" and not "telegraph his punches". Yet John never said he wouldn't do the exact same thing. So, I am left with two possibilities: either McCain would respect Pakistani sovereignty and not fire the shot if Bin Laden was moonwalking just across that line (doubtful), or he and Obama believe the exact same thing—the only difference is that McCain refuses to say it out loud.
What's that shit painted on the side of his bus again?? "Straight Talk Express"?
Now, I don't know what the answer is. Personally, it makes me nervous to just Tweety Bird it and use "I tawt I taw a terrorist" as justification for pretty much anything. But I do know is that if McCain is going to cling to the political equivalent of "I KEEP IT REAL" then he damn sure better, otherwise he risks alienating people who are actually hoping for straight talk.
Rant #2) This is why I cannot read commentaries by Glenn Beck; the man is a sensationalist asshole—the modern day equivalent of an op-ed Hearst— who makes a living coming up with the wildest arguments he can, no matter how illogical or foolish they may be. The commentary has been linked for your enjoyment, but I will sum it up to save you time:
Mr. Beck is upset about claims of racial undertones from liberal groups/individuals. He points to certain moments on the campaign trail—the quickly infamous "that one", of course, and the "Joe six-pack" images being thrown around by Governor Palin. He claims that the subtext people read into such comments—that they are racially charged attempts to "otherize" Senator Obama and make him seem distant and foreign—are ridiculous, unfounded, and irresponsible. Fine, that is a fair argument. Yet mere sentences later, Mr. Beck basically says 'the subtext of all of this is clear— if you vote against Obama, you are a racist.' Now how in the hell can you decry the use of subtext as irresponsible in one case, then draw imaginary parallels between "please don't call our candidate 'uppity'" (as did Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia) and "Vote for change, or join the KKK."?
Rant #3) Speaking of that particular organization, this Bill Ayers business is K-K-KILLING me.
Let me get this straight, and stop me if I hit a snag: Bill Ayers helped found the Weather Underground. Check.
Weather Underground did some bad shit, some of which Ayers was a part of. Check.
Ayers never faced charges due to prosecutorial misconduct, yet voluntarily turned himself in to authorities in 1980. Check.
30 years later, Bill Ayers is a university professor and former 'Chicago Citizen Of The Year' for his championing of Elementary Education and the writing of a massive grant to benefit under-funded schools. Check.
Barack Obama sat on a Board of Directors with Ayers and, at one point, lived a few streets away. Check.
Obama is "palling around with terrorists". Wait, what the fuck?
Not only is this connection retardedly tenuous and stupidly inflammatory, something else is bothering me. Let's get some other things straight:
John McCain has served nearly 30 years in the US Senate alongside Robert Byrd. Check.
Robert Byrd is an admitted former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Check.
The KKK is considered a domestic terror organization. Check.
So how in the crap is John McCain not "palling around" with a "terrorist who targeted his own country"? EPIC FAIL, McCain campaign— your accusations are saturated with liquid FAIL and country-fried hypocrisy. If Obama is unfit to serve as President because of this, then so is John McCain; let's all write in Ron Paul and get this country back on track.
Sadly, however, most people aren't concerned about this apparent hypocritical stance—I spent an hour and a half in the Foxnews Forums yesterday, trying to get an answer to my question, and in 16,000 replies to "Does Obama-Ayers Connection Matter?" not a single person even attempted to explain to me why dispersing grant money with a former anarchist is magically different from writing legislation with a former Klan member. Instead, I was told that I must be a "comunist" (sic) and love "the Curan" (sadly, sadly sic).
Rant #4) It pisses me off that age has become an issue in this campaign, for either side. Health, certainly. Computer literacy, absolutely. Age, who gives a shit? My grandmother is roughly the same age as John McCain and she has been slamming death's door with her walker for quite a while now. Chuck Norris is almost as old McCain, but he would roundhouse-kick his way through every cabinet meeting for 8 years and still never need to sleep. Age does not matter. Period. McCain is in good health, and has released (to his credit) over 1,000 pages of medical documents for the press to look over, which is way more than Obama has done. He's healthy—who cares if he is 40 or 80? 'Is he the best thing for America?' is the only question I care about.
Another thing I care about is not running shady campaigns. One thing you will never hear in this election cycle is the Obama campaign using McCain's middle name (Sydney) with a strange emphasis, yet members of McCain's campaign constantly refer to Senator Obama as "Barack Hussein". Come on—are you seriously trying to claim that you have no idea what you are doing? That you have no idea what the name 'Hussein' means to some Americans, and that you are not using an accident of birth to diminish Senator Obama's character, reputation, and qualifications by making that association? Give me a fucking break! Hey, Glenn Beck, where was that example in your ramblings? Even you know that is some bullshit.
I will also stab the next asshat who says Sarah Palin should not be President because she needs to be spending time with her kids. You would never hear someone say that Bill Clinton should not have run because he needed to spend time with Chelsea. Quit elevating motherhood over fatherhood in a lame attempt to keep America male-dominated— it shows a tremendous lack of class and a very poor understanding of Western history (I or Brandon can explain this in detail if anyone would like).
The funny thing about any discriminatory 'ism' is that it works both ways: Republicans, you can't say being old is not a handicap then say being young is. Democrats, you can't suggest that women shouldn't run for office because of their children then say men should. Barack Obama, you can't deride President Bush for making specious Al Qaeda-Iraq connections and then connect John McCain to Rush Limbaugh in Spanish-language ads. And John McCain, you can't claim to keep a clean campaign while your supporters chant "TERRORIST, TERRORIST" at your rallies and you do absolutely nothing to stop them; that is deeply and unspeakably shameful. It reflects horribly on your character, Senator McCain, and though I wish you had won the Republican nomination in 2000, I can't in good conscience support a man who would allow such an unbelievably callow thing to occur— you are a war-hero, a dignified politician and a so-called 'maverick': have some fucking self-respect.
Rant # 5) You know what, I don't even need to rant on this one… it pretty much speaks for itself.
A quote from Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP of the NRA. "We will encourage gun owners, hunters and anyone who values freedom to vote McCain-Palin on November 4."
Sigh.
For fuck's sake, someone get this election over with—I can't clear enough head space to write about anything but politics, and it's killing my fiction output.
--Adam
ed. note: in recent days, Senator McCain has actually gotten vocal about his supporters not disrespecting Senator Obama at rallies, for which the author is quite pleased. However, the author maintains his view that John McCain bears a striking resemblance to one Franklin The Turtle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)