correction

In my last post, I meant that they can teach creationism, not evolution. Ooops, I guess I'm the retard afterall.

Babies and Homos

This election wasn't about national security, the war on terrorism, Iraq, or the economy. It was about two things: babies and homos. All the political pundits proved their appalling ignorance of the culture of the midwest. Too much time in D.C., New York, and L.A. I should've known better, cause I've lived here my whole life and I spent many of my formative years balls-deep in evangelical Christian fundamentalism. But it's not just Christians who hate homos. All the piece of shit white-trash-put-your-truck-on-a-lift-kit-nascar-watching-rednecks also hate homos, and lots of otherwise normal people over the age of 50 too. I say fuck-em. Let the republicans give them a 300 hundred dollar tax cut while they cut their food stamps. Let them dessicate their education funding. Who care's if they get condoms in school or not? Half of them won't go to school anyway, and the other half are too stupid to use condoms even if they could get em. Let them have their assault rifles. Too bad they can't eat them. I'm sick of advocating for the poor people in this country when the truth is that I don't like the sons-o-bitches anyway. I'll be fine. I'm white, and once I finish school, I'll be squarely in the middle-class, so I'll be alright if they cut medicaid, or medicare. I'll probably even be ok if they privatize social security, cause I'll have time to invest. Let the old people, the Christians, and the red necks fall on their own sword. Let them teach evolution in school. When India, China, and Japan fly past us on scientific research, I'll just sit back and laugh. Let them ban gay marriage. The midwest will conitinue to suffer the extremes of Brain Drain as the smart homos and those who support them move to the coasts. Let them have God's Country. I'll sit back and laugh as it turns to shit.

93%

Thats the percentage of provisional ballots that John Kerry must win to win Ohio assuming 90% are valid. Possible? Sure. Probable? Nope. Is it really worth putting the country through this again with a .001% chance of winning? Do you think if Bush was in the situation he'd do this? Nixon and Ford sure didn't and their chances were a hell of a lot better.

How did the left get so extreme?

Here’s a pretty good reaction to the recent Osama tape and the increasing severity of mainstream leftist rhetoric:

Is there any doubt that some bootleg DVD or videotape of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" made it to a remote mountain village somewhere near the Afghan-Pakistan border?
Now we hear Osama saying, "It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important."

Was the story of Bush's seven minutes in the schoolhouse really well known or a hot topic of discussion before Moore's movie came out? Is there any doubt that if not Osama, then one of his flunkies watched that movie and excitedly repeated the story to his spiritual leader, bubbling with excitement that even American filmmakers were exposing the foolishness of the Crusader Bush?

Last night, I heard secondhand that a left-of-center friend said, during a discussion about the tape, “Well, now I actually agree with bin Laden, I mean, the stuff he said about Bush.”
It was probably meant as a joke, or as a statement of irony. I wasn’t there, so I don’t want to draw conclusions about the statement’s meaning, and apparently the topic of conversation shifted so that no one could really analyze what that speaker meant.
But I have little doubt that in some other corners of our country, a statement like that was probably said and wasn’t a joke, or wasn’t ironic.

There was an old saying about politics stopping at the water’s edge. Over the last three years or so, we have seen that concept obliterated. We’ve seen a truly unparalleled deluge of criticism of the president that well beyond policy differences. He is tarred as a war criminal, a fool, an idiot, a warmonger, a man who trades blood for oil, a mass murderer of innocent civilians, a stooge of sinister corporate interests, a puppet of Cheney, a terrorist himself, the anti-Christ, the second coming of Hitler, a slave to Ariel Sharon, an anti-Muslim hatemonger… and I’m sure I’ve left out plenty.

The far left hates George W. Bush with a raging fury. So does al-Qaeda. Was it really so shocking that the rhetoric of the former would eventually be taken up by the latter?
This tape should cause many on the left to stare into the mirror for a long time and ask, “What have I turned into? How did I become so reflexively partisan, so blinded by rage, so intemperate in my rhetoric that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?”

“How the hell did I reach the point where I agree with Osama bin Laden on Bush?”

Once again, Frontline rules

Frontline, one of my favorite t.v. news magazine type shows, just premiered "Rumsfeld's War." It was a really fascinating disection of the inner workings and political maneuverings of the Pentagon and Bush's cabinet. Basically, it showed how Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and others in the "Vulcan," neo-con intelligentsia and bureacracy systematically dismantled and replaced the military establishment, which by and large rejected their small, fast army and their "they'll greet us as liberators, democracy will flourish" utiopianism. It also showed how Rumsfeld outmaneuvered Powell in the battle for Bush's ear and in the battle for control over "post-war" Iraq. It was really, really cool. They have Wolfowitz on camera stating (paraphrase), in response to Gen. Sinzecki's contention that reconstruction in Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops, that "it's hard to believe that the reconstruction will require more man-power than the war." But, in fact, that's exactly what most military people thought! It shows how the neo-con naivete has hijacked the power structure in this country.
In other news, I'm coming to Boston soon, so Bostonians, prepare for your enema.

Please don't vote for Dummy

For the last 4 years I've tried in vain to convince people that Bush is not a moron and in fact is probably more academically accomplished and intelligent than John Kerry. I then stumbled across this blog which analyzes all available academic and military records for both candidates and concludes that Bush probably has a higher IQ than Kerry. His analysis was apparently convincing enough that the NYTimes decided to run an article based on it. The money quote:

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.

This is yet another example where the real John Kerry isn't as impressive as the manufactured educated, nuanced war hero image he'd like us to accept. Do we really want a president who finds it necessary to regularly make himself appear more impressive than he really is? Can the world handle 4 years of bad Robert Frost knock off poetry written to impress us? Enjoy:

"I had a talk with a deer today/we met upon the road some way … between his frequent snorts/He asked me if I sought his pelt/cause if I did he said he felt/quite out of sorts!"

Poll “Analysis” Shenanigans

UPDATE: Newsweek continues to lead with whatever data most favors Kerry. Like the previous post debate poll analysis piece they've decided to use registered voters without Nader this time referring to it euphamistically as the "national horse race". While the gap in likely voters has narrowed in this poll, characterizing this race as "getting even closer" when Bush leads or is tied in every other poll is a bit of a stretch.

UPDATE: CNN's decided to follow Newsweek's lead and fudge the numbers. In today's poll analyis piece they're calling the race "still tight" despite there being an 8 point gap in likely voters. This is because today, like the Newsweek piece mentioned below, they've sneakily decided to use "all voters" because this measure has Kerry closer. Compare this to their previous poll piece where they call the poll for Kerry despite only having a 1 point lead among likely voters. Apparently likely voters are good enough for Kerry, if they show him ahead.

UPDATE: Regression Analysis of polling data and an interesting interpretation.



UPDATE: Kaus and Patio Pundit also noticed Newsweek's curious poll analysis.

Even though it was anticipated weeks in advance of the debates, for the last few days even I, who was convinced the race was over after the CBS fiasco, was beginning to buy into the “Comeback Kerry” storyline actively forwarded by the mainstream media. Every news story I read before and after the debates had the same message that Kerry had closed the gap on Bush and had the “Big Mo” to eventually take the lead. Then I saw these charts HERE and HERE which hardly support the media’s conclusions. While polls are not perfect, the data doesn’t lie. Today I happened to come across the headline on Drudge that reports that the most recent Newsweek poll has Bush up 6 among likely voters – the measure universally accepted as the most accurate reflection of future voter turnout. Then I went to Newsweek and came across this headline “Too Close to Call: With the debates behind them, the contenders in the race for the White House remain locked in a dead heat in the latest NEWSWEEK poll”. Now it’s been a few years since I took stats, but with a margin of error of +/-4, 6 points is hardly “too close to call”.

What’s going on here?

Newsweek based the article on a measure “of all voters” instead of the more accurate likely voters that has the margin between Bush and Kerry 4 points closer. Why are they now using the “all voters” measure when it is less accurate, not emphasized by other news organization polls, and not used in every previous Newsweek poll analysis? The most innocent explanation is that the news media wants every election to be a close race to the finish and will report data that supports this. If both sides believe they have a chance of winning, they have an engaged audience on both sides. While this is probably a factor in this election as well, how likely is it that Newsweek and other mainstream media sources would be concerned about reporting it as a close race if Kerry was up 6 among likely voters? Not very.

Why is this a big deal?

Kerry’s base is substantially less committed to Kerry than Bush’s supporters are to him. Overwhelmingly, their vote is more an act of opposition to Bush than support of Kerry. This makes Kerry’s base particularly vulnerable to disinvestment. If at some point it became clear that a Kerry presidency was highly unlikely, voter turnout for Kerry would be extremely depressed. This appears to be CW within the mainstream media and they appear determined to do their part to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Bob Schieffer: Worst Moderator Ever

I watched the debate on CNN and in the analysis afterwards the leitmotif was that this was the least satisfying debate of the three. Naturally they blamed the candidates, but I blame Bob Schieffer. While his questions, overall were particularly unchallenging to both candidates, they were particularly so to Sen. Kerry. Over and over they seemed to be invitations to tee up on Bush penned by Mary Beth Cahill. My favorites: “Is there a ‘backdoor draft’ on National Guard and Reservists?” or “Pres. Bush, repeating a statement Sen. Kerry said, would you overturn Roe Vs. Wade?”. (I would love to hear if any of you could identify a question asked of Kerry that gave Bush equal opportunity) Personally I think after the 15min mark Bush took Kerry to town, but if the CW is that Kerry won this debate I think he’ll have Bob to thank for it.

UPDATE: Heres a better critique.

Kerry passed this up.

Errol Morris, director of The Fog of War and The Thin Blue Line, interviewed several folks who voted for Bush in 2000 but are supporting Kerry this year. In an interview with the Boston Phoenix, Morris said,

"I was in favor of creating nontraditional political ads. I think that a lot of the ads are so pro forma — they’re so expected that they are not terribly effective. You have to come up with new approaches. Everybody talks about the "Daisy" ad in the 1964 presidential campaign [a Lyndon Johnson spot that graphically depicted a nuclear attack]. Everybody knows what perfunctory advertising is, and people know what innovative and cutting-edge advertising is, and there’s no reason why advertising in a political campaign has to be the way it is.

Q: Where would you file the windsurfing ad the GOP did?

A: The GOP is very good at a certain kind of food-throwing ad. They go for innuendo. But they’re ads! To me, you want to create ads that make people think — that don’t necessarily just say the expected in the expected way. There was an essay by Schopenhauer that I’m very fond of, called "The Art of Controversy," in which he talks about how to win an argument. He says [that] there’s two ways to win an argument: there’s logic and dialectic. Now, anybody knows you can’t win an argument through logic, so let’s pass on quickly to dialectic. And then he proceeds to give you some 30-plus ways to win an argument any way you can. For example, after someone has completely discredited your argument and shown you to be a fool, you look directly into their eyes and say, "You know, I’m really glad you’ve come around to my way of thinking." [Laughs] The idea is that in any kind of persuasion, logic is not necessarily the strongest tool in your arsenal.

Q: And President Bush is a mass persuader who doesn’t really traffic in logic or convincing facts.

A: Yes. And to me, you’re trying to create ideas in the strongest possible way you can. What’s strong about these real-people ads is not necessarily the logical arguments that they’re providing, although in some instances they are logical arguments. What’s interesting to me is that they are real Americans, and they’re actually thinking about stuff. For people who want to say that we have an electorate that doesn’t think, this is an answer to that. This is an electorate that does think, and is concerned. And it’s valuable to hear these people express themselves. Not because they’re involved in some meaningless theatrics or performance — they actually feel this stuff."

I don't find it terribly surprising that Kerry passed these up. They are described as non-traditional by their author, so it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch to say Kerry saw them in those terms and similarly as a risk, if he considered them at all. However, take a look at the ads, now sponsored on the web by Moveonpac.org (a group I don't much care for, but don't let their baggage, or mine, stop you from making up your own mind), the style and content reflect well on Morris and would reflect well on Kerry, if he'd let it.

Christopher Reeve died last night

Harry Knowles from Ain't it Cool News has a pretty touching note on his passing. Also here's this from the AP.

insight-less:

The “B” is for Bias

If you’ve recently visited Drudge you’ve probably seen this memo from ABCNews’ political director essentially saying that it will essentially be ABCNews’ official policy not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" because "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done…". This pretty much confirms what I’ve been saying for the last 10 months, that the MSM has decided that Kerry’s going to get a pass and that the media’s critical eye will be unblinkingly fixed to the Bush administration. From Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek admitting “the media wants Kerry to win and so they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic” in July to the CBS memo controversy we’ve seen an unprecedented decline in the editorial integrity of mainstream news sources. It’s incredibly frustrating to me that the news most people receive is becoming a less accurate portrayal of reality and more a reflection of the desires of poorly educated, idealistic journalism majors from the 60’s.

Darwin and a "Higher Purpose"?

I just found this article, Planet with a Purpose, linked to from Andrew Sullivan's blog. It's an interesting piece that describes a reluctant declaration from "popular" philosopher, Daniel Dennet, stating that "life on earth shows signs of having a higher purpose." It should be noted that Dennet is (or perhaps was) an atheist and wrote an influential book in 1995 called "Darwin's Dangerous Idea."

Here's a quote from the article:

"More recently, he urged his fellow non-believers to unite and fight for their rights in a New York Times op-ed piece, depicting belief in God as contrary to a naturalist" worldview.

I have some bad news for Dennett's many atheist devotees. He recently declared that life on earth shows signs of having a higher purpose. Worse still, he did it on videotape,during an interview for my website meaningoflife.tv. (You can watch the relevant clip here, though I recommend reading a bit further first so you'll have enough background to follow the logic.) Dennett didn't volunteer this opinion enthusiastically, or for that matter volunteer it at all. He conceded it in the course of a dialogue with me—and extracting the concession was a little like pulling teeth. But his initial resistance makes his final judgment all the more important. People who see evidence of some larger purpose in the universe are often accused of arguing with their heart, not their head. That's a credibility problem Dennett doesn't face.

When you watch him validate an argument for higher purpose, you're watching that argument pass a severe test. In fact, given that he's one of the best-known philosophers in the world, it may not be too much to say that you're watching a minor intellectual milestone get erected."

UPDATE: Daniel Dennet disagrees with Wright's summation of his argument. "all I am granting [in the interview]... is that IF evolution exhibited the properties that embryogenesis [i.e., the maturation of an organism] exhibits (which it doesn't, as I've kept insisting) this would work to some extent in favor of your purpose hypothesis.” Wright replies here.

a little hate goes a long way

As I mentioned in an earlier post, my girlfriend broke up with me recently and moved out. I was pretty sad, but I was ok. Then, a few days ago, I found out that she had slept with some guy back in April and hadn't told me about it, and, apparently, wasn't going to.
That added a nice big dose of hate to my emotional stew (as a consequence, I broke a bunch of her shit that she left at my apartment and made her get the rest out immediately). But, I also felt a lot worse. Without this revelation, I could have looked back on the relationship later in life with nostalgia, some sadness, but basically good feelings. Now, I fear that I'll look back on it solely with loathing, convinced that I wasted a very important part of my life on someone who really wasn't very cool.
On the other hand, maybe the hate will help me get over it faster. Knowing that the sight of her will make me nauseous might help me put to bed any lingering desires to get back together, and it will convince me that it really was her problem, not some defect in me, that pushed her away.
Happy to spill my beans of the carpet of the internet.

Cartoon funny

Everyone should check this out as soon as possible. Homestarrunner.com has some ridiculously enjoyable stuff, especially that which features Strong Bad and his email. Props must go to Carl, the baddest mo-fo I know in the NYC, for bringing these wonders to my attention.

Acting is hard

I've been auditioning for plays the past few weeks in an attempt to get some acting experience. So far what I've found is that my ability to observe subtlety is stronger than my ability to execute it. And although I don't believe that a critic must be as masterful at the art they critique as the artist, the dwarfing effect of sucking at something you criticize so much is refreshing in a weird way.

Agnes Nutter would be proud...

Which sign of the appocalypse is this?
(Hat tip: Neil Gaiman)

Ideology isn't (necessarily) a bad word.

Regarding Andrew's sentiment on Barak Obama; I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately those of us who kind of dig a strong Democracy will have to wait on that one. The reality seems to be that the established (or is it entrenched?) members of the Democratic Party have selected a man for the presidential election (with our help of course) who cannot help but define himself negatively (i.e., he tells us he is sooo not Bush). Perhaps my armchair, pajama-style survey of presidential politics is too narrow. [I filter my news through a medley of links from what appears on the right, you tell me.] Maybe, my impression is too simply based on the sheer number of sentiments I've heard from those who find reason enough to support Mr. Kerry. I hear variants of "Bush is so overwhelmingly poor that I have little choice [but to vote against him]." Nonetheless, I can't shake the impression that Kerry has yet to craft a coherent, believable message grounded in a positive ideology.

Mr. Obama has (I think wisely) already begun crafting an active, positive position in this arena, by defining the war on terror. Sure it’s only a start, but a worthy and straightforward one on a complex, divisive issue. If Democrats are to compete with Republicans in the political marketplace of ideas it will be by creating a position, however flawed, that represents a vision for the future.

If I were to guess, I'd say it will come from reflection (after losing this Presidency) and be preceded by something like this...

"What a tragedy for the left-the worldwide left, this left of ours which, in failing to play much of a role in the antifascism of our own era, is right now committing a gigantic historic error. Not for the first time, my friend! And yet, if the left all over the world took up this particular struggle as its own, the whole nature of events in Iraq and throughout the region could be influenced
in a very useful way, and Bush's many blunders could be rectified, and the struggle could be advanced.

"My friend's eyes widened, maybe in astonishment, maybe in pity. He said, "And so, the United Nations and international law mean nothing to you, not a thing? You think it's all right for America to go do whatever it wants, and ignore the rest of the world?"

I answered, "The United Nations and international law are fine by me, and more than fine. I am their supporter. Or, rather, would like to support them. It would be better to fight an antifascist war with more than a begrudging UN approval. It would be better to fight with the approving sanction of international law-better in a million ways. Better politically, therefore militarily. Better for the precedents that would be set. Better for the purpose of expressing the liberal principles at stake.

If I had my druthers, that is how we would have gone about fighting the war. But my druthers don't count for much. We have had to choose between supporting the war, or opposing it-supporting the war in the name of antifascism, or opposing it in the name of some kind of concept of international law. Antifascism without international law; or international law without
antifascism. A miserable choice-but one does have to choose, unfortunately."

My friend said, "I'm for the UN and international law, and I think you've become a traitor to the left. A neocon!"

I said, "I'm for overthrowing tyrants, and since when did overthrowing fascism become treason to the left?"

"But isn't George Bush himself a fascist, more or less? I mean-admit it!"

My own eyes widened. "You haven't the foggiest idea what fascism is," I said. "I always figured that a keen awareness of extreme oppression was the deepest trait of a left-wing heart. Mass graves, three hundred thousand missing Iraqis, a population crushed by thirty-five years of Baathist boots stomping on their faces-that is what fascism means! And you think that a few corrupt insider contracts with Bush's cronies at Halliburton and a bit of retrograde Bible-thumping and Bush's ridiculous tax cuts and his bonanzas for the super-rich are indistinguishable from that?-indistinguishable from fascism? From a politics of slaughter? Leftism is supposed to be a reality principle. Leftism is supposed to embody an ability to take in the big picture. The traitor to the left is you, my friend . . ."

But this already happened. This was from "A Friendly Drink in a Time of War," and was written by Paul Berman. Paul Berman is an angry liberal. Read the rest of it here.

In pieces from him and those like him, you'll likely see a serious critique of the "left" from the "left" but also a positive vision. Similarly, it may likely be too late to have much effect on this election, and while that in and of itself is (in the long run) perhaps a good thing, it seems time to start vetting these kinds of ideas, however flawed, and start getting their party's ideas up to snuff.

Shock or denial?

After a hiatus of a year and a half, I have rejoined the ranks of the romantically unattached. By all rights, I should be a blubbering ball of despair and self-pity, but some miraculous force has kept me from feeling too bad about my breakup. This might mean that I have unwillingly and subconsciously adopted the modern religion of the "healthy personality," where any real emotional connection to another human being is derided as "co-dependency," or it could mean that I'm in shock and denial, or it could mean that I'm relieved because somewhere deep down, I know that my relationship sucked.

In other news, I saw Terri Gross speak in Oxford, Ohio today as part of her book tour. She didn't look like I thought she would. It didn't do much for me, although I like her radio show.

Dump Kerry. Nominate This Guy...

Why would it be so hard for Kerry to say something like this:

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs. . . .

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.

ebreathmints to come...

I heard about this new cell phone on npr and half thought it was a joke. Developed by a german company, it supposedly can sense users bad breath. I'm just waiting for the technology that would allow the person on the other end to experience the caller's smell. I'm imagining that, unless you have activated smellblock on your phone, your parents could call home during work and tell if your smoking "the pot." Being a closet conspiracy theorist, I think homeland security somehow has a hand in this. If you have my number, don't call me tonight. I'm surviving the wrath of hummus-aftermath.