The most obvious thing to me was the fact that Obama and McCain have completely different appeals. For starters, McCain's voice is frequently grandfatherly, sometimes bordering on patronizing (at least to the teenage mind). Obama favors a far more intellectual approach, although the level of passion he puts into his speaking can border on vitriol when he's really going. Apart from the style, McCain tends to be far more vague and repeat words (I noticed 'spending' and 'bipartisan' a lot) to emphasize his points, whereas Obama--who clearly has more formal speaking experience, judging by word variety, gestures, and emphasis--is quite specific and seems to have a clear outline of what he plans to do as President. Of course, the problem with this is that he tends to spend a lot of time answering questions, frequently digressing from the original plan, and that Americans seem to care more about sound bites than seriousness. It's disgusting how popular McCain is simply because he is great with folksy metaphors--especially at the beginning, he failed to clearly make his stance.
****Are you registered to vote? Do you need an absentee ballot? Your state's deadline might be closer than you think.... I recommend this, which represents an effort from the Democrats to encourage bipartisan voting.****
9.27.2008
9.23.2008
Heroes
Iiiit's back! And the first two episodes have srs potential...but then, even the early bit of the second season wasn't too bad. I really want to figure out is whether some of the stuff that seemed kinda obvious but was presented as revelations to certain other characters was supposed to be obvious...considering the amount of surprises, I'm thinking yes (when will I be allowed to spoil?? Highlight the next bit if you've already seen it). The thing I totally saw coming, by the way, was that Mrs. Petrelli is the original dreamer, also that Nathan is actually halluciminating. Also it's about time for the pain thing. Srsly no longer has a biological imperative. Also future Peter SUCKS! Eejit. Listen to your mommy. And Maya...why oh why could Suresh not have had the actual sample. She's still a shitty character, and losing the accent + driving Suresh to do stupid things is just...god, she's so fucking lame.
Biological contemplations: I was thinking about what could actually possible, and I've come up with two possibilities: telepathy in the form of being able to sense where neurons are firing in a person's brain; so it'd be pretty vague and you'd have to be educated--maybe the firing could also be controlled? I guess you could cause seizures in people. The other possiblity is cellular regeneration. You'd need a DNA replication system that didn't lose telomeres...plus a very very robust set of lysosomes/peroxisomes and superoxidise dismutase to allow for protein degradation and free radical removal.
On a political note, it's a little strange that they're so determined to cover up Palin's first exposure to foreigners. (Wait, so does talking to foreign people qualify her, or is that limited to geographic proximity?)<
Biological contemplations: I was thinking about what could actually possible, and I've come up with two possibilities: telepathy in the form of being able to sense where neurons are firing in a person's brain; so it'd be pretty vague and you'd have to be educated--maybe the firing could also be controlled? I guess you could cause seizures in people. The other possiblity is cellular regeneration. You'd need a DNA replication system that didn't lose telomeres...plus a very very robust set of lysosomes/peroxisomes and superoxidise dismutase to allow for protein degradation and free radical removal.
On a political note, it's a little strange that they're so determined to cover up Palin's first exposure to foreigners. (Wait, so does talking to foreign people qualify her, or is that limited to geographic proximity?)<
9.21.2008
VOTE VOTE VOTE
Guys, sitting out an election is stupid. You might not like either of the candidates, but we're going to choose between them anyway and you should pick the one you dislike the least. Seriously, it is absurd and childish of you to expect that anyone will even notice that you're protesting the platforms if you simply remain silent.
https://www.voteforchange.com/
https://www.voteforchange.com/
9.18.2008
Voters Are Stupid
There was this commercial for a blood sugar checker. The only thing the ad said to promote this product was 'Available in four vibrant colors!'
SERIOUSLY. Is this all people really need to entice them into buying things? People, this isn't an iPod, this is (potentially and with a tiny bit of exaggeration) your LIFE. America is a far more vain society than I had previously assumed if this is what people really care about.
So how does this apply to voters...? If we're going to go by just appearances on everything...America is fucked. (Okay, it's been fucked for a while, but this is a pretty big one. Seems to me like the world order is starting to move forward from its stagnation.)
People of the U.S., popularity contests were supposed to end in high school. America is a little too big for your minds to be clouded so easily with pettiness.
SERIOUSLY. Is this all people really need to entice them into buying things? People, this isn't an iPod, this is (potentially and with a tiny bit of exaggeration) your LIFE. America is a far more vain society than I had previously assumed if this is what people really care about.
So how does this apply to voters...? If we're going to go by just appearances on everything...America is fucked. (Okay, it's been fucked for a while, but this is a pretty big one. Seems to me like the world order is starting to move forward from its stagnation.)
People of the U.S., popularity contests were supposed to end in high school. America is a little too big for your minds to be clouded so easily with pettiness.
9.11.2008
To Women: Get OVER Yourselves.
This one goes out to all those disaffected Hillary supporters who have latched on to either McCain because he is not Obama or to Palin because they feel like she is being discriminated against because she is a woman.
To the former: does platform have no meaning to you? Granted, McCain wasn't such a bad option when Hillary and Obama were going at it--if Hillary had won, I definitely would have thought long and hard about making my first vote ever Republican--but look at his platform now, please.
To the latter: get the fuck over yourselves. It is impossible to present a completely unbiased coverage of the election; I've said this before, but I think the main reason racism hasn't come up is because it's too embarrassing for America to deal with and no one wants to open that specific Pandora's box just yet.
Also, Palin herself has introduced sexism into her own arguments. She loves talking about being a hockey mom--which has many specific connotations, although we in the U.S. like to call that a 'soccer mom' (I guess I can't expect Palin to have known that one). She also brags about how having a child with special needs makes her an expert and an advocate of all those parents raising children with special needs (although--going from her actual record--being a mother to a teen mom doesn't make her care more about that subset).
None of the men in this election will be able to claim that they are devoted fathers the way that Palin has been slinging around her baby. Consider the bullshit about Obama wanting "sex ed" for kindergartners--he's a father to fairly young children; but I bet that if he'd said something about that, people would have pointed out that he wasn't the primary caretaker of his children.
There are sex differences and there will be moments of actual sexism. Using the word "lipstick" in a phrase heard on both sides of the party line is not one of them. If you're going to do that, you might as well claim that the Dems are sexist for using words like 'and' and 'if', because Palin has used them too.
What matters in the end is how politicians actually deal with media coverage. Do they constantly take advantage of their uniqueness to accuse the media of a bias, or do they show some real grace and respond to the criticism as if they were anyone else?
Additional thoughts: if you're going to talk about "union"...Obama has support in 22 other countries. Normally this would be irrelevant, but Americans are still parading their leader as the "leader of the free world".
To the former: does platform have no meaning to you? Granted, McCain wasn't such a bad option when Hillary and Obama were going at it--if Hillary had won, I definitely would have thought long and hard about making my first vote ever Republican--but look at his platform now, please.
To the latter: get the fuck over yourselves. It is impossible to present a completely unbiased coverage of the election; I've said this before, but I think the main reason racism hasn't come up is because it's too embarrassing for America to deal with and no one wants to open that specific Pandora's box just yet.
Also, Palin herself has introduced sexism into her own arguments. She loves talking about being a hockey mom--which has many specific connotations, although we in the U.S. like to call that a 'soccer mom' (I guess I can't expect Palin to have known that one). She also brags about how having a child with special needs makes her an expert and an advocate of all those parents raising children with special needs (although--going from her actual record--being a mother to a teen mom doesn't make her care more about that subset).
None of the men in this election will be able to claim that they are devoted fathers the way that Palin has been slinging around her baby. Consider the bullshit about Obama wanting "sex ed" for kindergartners--he's a father to fairly young children; but I bet that if he'd said something about that, people would have pointed out that he wasn't the primary caretaker of his children.
There are sex differences and there will be moments of actual sexism. Using the word "lipstick" in a phrase heard on both sides of the party line is not one of them. If you're going to do that, you might as well claim that the Dems are sexist for using words like 'and' and 'if', because Palin has used them too.
What matters in the end is how politicians actually deal with media coverage. Do they constantly take advantage of their uniqueness to accuse the media of a bias, or do they show some real grace and respond to the criticism as if they were anyone else?
Additional thoughts: if you're going to talk about "union"...Obama has support in 22 other countries. Normally this would be irrelevant, but Americans are still parading their leader as the "leader of the free world".
Can I Stop Pretending to Care Yet?
Seriously. The war and civilian casualities caused by Dubya's genius preemptive strike have long since trumped the number of people killed today 7 years ago. And I think it's about time that this holiday became more personal--sort of like how Veterans Day is really only properly observed by people who know people who've been or are in the service.
Anyway, I note that Yahoo! has a musical tribute thingy on its music front page. This is sort of amusing; I don't know how many of you remember this, but in 2001, all songs that made even vague references to any key phrases were banned from the radio, the most notable being a song that had the word 'Tuesday' in it somewhere in the South.
At least the stores haven't started 'Patriot Day' (bleeeeargh) sales yet.
Anyway, I note that Yahoo! has a musical tribute thingy on its music front page. This is sort of amusing; I don't know how many of you remember this, but in 2001, all songs that made even vague references to any key phrases were banned from the radio, the most notable being a song that had the word 'Tuesday' in it somewhere in the South.
At least the stores haven't started 'Patriot Day' (bleeeeargh) sales yet.
9.05.2008
Elephant (and Donkey) in the Room
Palin is a woman. Obama is half-black. Minorities are running for office--and it's particularly interesting to see how they are taking advantage of that.
(I feel like some comparison should be drawn between Biden and Palin, but it's so hard. Comparing McCain and Biden would be easier.)
Palin--and the Republicans--are already complaining about a 'sexist' bias in the media. How low will they stoop? First it was the 'liberal' media (which, by the way, lambasted Gore more than Bush in 2000)--even though they have all the radio hosts, and a major "news" station (I really, really don't think the amount of B.S. on Fox legitimizes it)--and the media, as a whole, has a conservative bias because even though editors tend to be conservative and they're the ones actually controlling the output--now, it's sex.
How are we supposed to scrutinize Palin if everything negative said about her is transformed into a 'sexist' remark? She's never been vetted by the American media, and at this rate, she never will be. Sort of funny, that kind of double standard. I can't believe McCain thought that Hillary voters would want the kind of woman who is not only willing to cut funding for pregnant teens & suchlike while she had a budget surplus, but who is also willing to take advantage of her sex to set up a double standard. It's women like Palin that undercut egalitarianism (no, I do not consider myself a feminist; equal rights go both ways). Once again, way to lose the independent vote--if it really is worth more than the social conservative vote.
(I think we're pretty much going to have to scare independents into voting: imagine a future with Palin/Obama as President: abstinence-only sex education! destruction of national resources! no abortion! ignored minorities!/increased taxes! socialist healthcare! undermining of the war effort!)
As for Obama...race hasn't really come up in this election although he has strong support from the South Side community he helped (or is that not relevant enough for y'all?). Should it even come up? Race is such an inflammatory in the U.S. that I don't think we're still capable of having an honest discussion on how race biases our views--because we have grown up unable to say things like 'I don't trust Hispanics/blacks/whites/Indians/Chinese/whatever'. This is going to erupt someday, but for now...maybe we can make being colorblind work.
I have to add, I'm very impressed at the way Obama has chosen to handle Palin's reaction to liberal attacks on her inability to keep morality in her own family. He doesn't see the point of responding on her level of petty remarks; he wants accountability. Will this be a problem in November if Palin is able to keep playing the sexism card? I wonder.
(I feel like some comparison should be drawn between Biden and Palin, but it's so hard. Comparing McCain and Biden would be easier.)
Palin--and the Republicans--are already complaining about a 'sexist' bias in the media. How low will they stoop? First it was the 'liberal' media (which, by the way, lambasted Gore more than Bush in 2000)--even though they have all the radio hosts, and a major "news" station (I really, really don't think the amount of B.S. on Fox legitimizes it)--and the media, as a whole, has a conservative bias because even though editors tend to be conservative and they're the ones actually controlling the output--now, it's sex.
How are we supposed to scrutinize Palin if everything negative said about her is transformed into a 'sexist' remark? She's never been vetted by the American media, and at this rate, she never will be. Sort of funny, that kind of double standard. I can't believe McCain thought that Hillary voters would want the kind of woman who is not only willing to cut funding for pregnant teens & suchlike while she had a budget surplus, but who is also willing to take advantage of her sex to set up a double standard. It's women like Palin that undercut egalitarianism (no, I do not consider myself a feminist; equal rights go both ways). Once again, way to lose the independent vote--if it really is worth more than the social conservative vote.
(I think we're pretty much going to have to scare independents into voting: imagine a future with Palin/Obama as President: abstinence-only sex education! destruction of national resources! no abortion! ignored minorities!/increased taxes! socialist healthcare! undermining of the war effort!)
As for Obama...race hasn't really come up in this election although he has strong support from the South Side community he helped (or is that not relevant enough for y'all?). Should it even come up? Race is such an inflammatory in the U.S. that I don't think we're still capable of having an honest discussion on how race biases our views--because we have grown up unable to say things like 'I don't trust Hispanics/blacks/whites/Indians/Chinese/whatever'. This is going to erupt someday, but for now...maybe we can make being colorblind work.
I have to add, I'm very impressed at the way Obama has chosen to handle Palin's reaction to liberal attacks on her inability to keep morality in her own family. He doesn't see the point of responding on her level of petty remarks; he wants accountability. Will this be a problem in November if Palin is able to keep playing the sexism card? I wonder.
What is McCain DOING?
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/transcripts/20080904_MCCAIN_SPEECH.html
What the fucking hell is this guy doing with Palin as a running mate?
On the other hand, if he had gotten Lieberman, his chances of winning would be a lot better, and I want to see someone who knows what a "middle class" is in office. It's one thing to meet a bunch of ruralites under controlled conditions--it's completely another different thing to live in the South Side.
No matter how wealthy you are, you'll end up walking around here. And you'll see poor people waiting for the bus; you'll walk by dilapidated apartments with no real backyards and then pass some of the largest houses you've ever seen--Hyde Park contrasts poverty and privilege. It is a great place to understand how to heal the cities.
What the fucking hell is this guy doing with Palin as a running mate?
On the other hand, if he had gotten Lieberman, his chances of winning would be a lot better, and I want to see someone who knows what a "middle class" is in office. It's one thing to meet a bunch of ruralites under controlled conditions--it's completely another different thing to live in the South Side.
No matter how wealthy you are, you'll end up walking around here. And you'll see poor people waiting for the bus; you'll walk by dilapidated apartments with no real backyards and then pass some of the largest houses you've ever seen--Hyde Park contrasts poverty and privilege. It is a great place to understand how to heal the cities.
9.02.2008
Does the Independent Vote Matter?
Based upon McCain's choice (admittedly, not his preference) of running mate, it seems like the independent vote has been cast aside, at least by the Republican Party. I find this particularly interesting because, following Hillary's campaign, it became apparent that there were 18 million independent voters out there who were looking for the most middle-of-the-line candidate. Interestingly, pre-running McCain has followed a relatively liberal trend; he was not pro-life, was anti-offshore drilling, etc. So when he was choosing a VP, he had two options: pick a conservative candidate to mollify the more extreme members of the Republican Party; or he could have gone with someone to appeal to the independents (such as Lieberman; however, it's really hard to imagine Lieberman agreeing to stand with the Republican Party, even considering his estrangement from the Democrats).
Anyway, to myself and other liberals who actually held McCain in some regard--especially when it seemed like Hillary might still have a chance--it seems shockingly, fuckingly stupid for McCain to have gone with strongly right-wing, inexperienced (ha!), previously unexposed to the insane scrutiny of the media, Palin. I won't go into all the ways that that by itself was a colossal fuckup; anyone who's read the news in the past two days can see how well she's applied her conservative policies to her own family, and her interest in--as my coworker described it--environmentally raping her state makes one wonder how able she is to consider the minority opinion; I highly doubt the natives of Alaska appreciate her oil hunger.
But here's the thing: McCain is now guaranteed the vote of the social conservatives (especially if they're able to spin this pregnancy thing; but that's a toss-up, considering how much worse the Republicans are at lying). He's gained this at the loss of the independent vote.
Is this such a bad trade-off?
Independent voters are notoriously flaky. Considering that the majority of Americans claim to be independents, and then looking at how low the voter turnout is--the truth is, independents have other things on their mind, nor are they as fired up about issues as members of a party. Social conservatives, on the other hand, have great voter turnout; and I'm sure they will do what they can to prevent liberal abortion supporters from being elected.
So here's what I'm wondering: has McCain really lost so much by choosing the social conservative vote over the independent one?
--------------------
Thought: if conservatives wish to bring morality into the judgment of whether or not abortion* should be allowed, then liberals should be allowed to force gay marriage. Church and state, state and church.
*I'm against abortion, actually. I don't think it should be banned, but I don't think that minors should simply be able to get them--if you aren't willing to use birth control and you can't keep your pants zipped, that is incredibly irresponsible. But under no circumstances should partial birth abortions be allowed because those are SICK. First trimester, people. If you're that worried, risk amniocentesis.
Anyway, to myself and other liberals who actually held McCain in some regard--especially when it seemed like Hillary might still have a chance--it seems shockingly, fuckingly stupid for McCain to have gone with strongly right-wing, inexperienced (ha!), previously unexposed to the insane scrutiny of the media, Palin. I won't go into all the ways that that by itself was a colossal fuckup; anyone who's read the news in the past two days can see how well she's applied her conservative policies to her own family, and her interest in--as my coworker described it--environmentally raping her state makes one wonder how able she is to consider the minority opinion; I highly doubt the natives of Alaska appreciate her oil hunger.
But here's the thing: McCain is now guaranteed the vote of the social conservatives (especially if they're able to spin this pregnancy thing; but that's a toss-up, considering how much worse the Republicans are at lying). He's gained this at the loss of the independent vote.
Is this such a bad trade-off?
Independent voters are notoriously flaky. Considering that the majority of Americans claim to be independents, and then looking at how low the voter turnout is--the truth is, independents have other things on their mind, nor are they as fired up about issues as members of a party. Social conservatives, on the other hand, have great voter turnout; and I'm sure they will do what they can to prevent liberal abortion supporters from being elected.
So here's what I'm wondering: has McCain really lost so much by choosing the social conservative vote over the independent one?
--------------------
Thought: if conservatives wish to bring morality into the judgment of whether or not abortion* should be allowed, then liberals should be allowed to force gay marriage. Church and state, state and church.
*I'm against abortion, actually. I don't think it should be banned, but I don't think that minors should simply be able to get them--if you aren't willing to use birth control and you can't keep your pants zipped, that is incredibly irresponsible. But under no circumstances should partial birth abortions be allowed because those are SICK. First trimester, people. If you're that worried, risk amniocentesis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)