Despite all evidence to the contrary, there really is good news this election year.
It's almost over.
And come the closing of the final polling place in the country, regardless of outcome, the re-capping and re-re-capping of the whole experience will burst forth in a flood that will make perfect storm Sandy look like a spring shower and shine.
Personally, I think the inevitable will be unneccessary.
Because I think that for many, if not most, of us, the entire political process that history will call the presidential campaign of 2012 can be summed up in ten seconds or less.
Us, too, Forrest.
Us, too.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
"...And In The Director's Cut, They Take Mourdock and Sununu Along..."
I don't know about Donald Trump, but I know how I'm going to make my next million.
Or first million, as the case may be.
Details coming up.
First, though, a little combo news/back story.
(Access Hollywood/Yahoo) Where others might cut and run, Donald Trump doubles down.
Fresh off his offer to donate $5 million to charity if President Barack Obama releases his college and passport records, The Donald sat down with Access Hollywood's Billy Bush to explain his motives.
After a feisty appearance on the "Late Show with David Letterman" Thursday night, the business mogul entered our interview carrying ratings ammunition -- claiming the media tide is turning his way from the backlash caused by his challenge.
"Are you at all bummed out that it's become fodder?" Billy asked.
"It hasn't become fodder at all," Donald replied. "Last night on David Letterman, the audience stood up and gave me a crazy applause... I'll tell you, the big ratings last night on Letterman helped swing the tide."
The President reacted to Trump's challenge during a late-night appearance of his own, telling Jay Leno that his feud with Donald "dates back to when we were growing up together in Kenya."
Donald told Billy he's not impressed by Obama's dodging of the question at hand.
"[That was] just a conman answer," he told Billy, adding that he is "absolutely" willing to provide proof that he himself is not Kenyan.
Trump may think the media tide is turning -- but he's still battling his friends over the political challenge, including Barbara Walters and Donny Deutsch, who said Trump's announcement would "not be good for him."
"I couldn't care less about my friendship with Donny Deutsch," Donald retorted. "You know they all go on 'The Apprentice,' they kiss my a**, and then they come out negatively."
Adding, "Whatever he wants to say... Donny wants to be a star, it's not working!"
As for Matt Lauer's comments on Access Hollywood Live on Friday (he said Trump is a "provocateur"), The Donald said his record states otherwise.
"You know what? I built a great, great business, I'm worth more than 8 billion dollars, starting with very little," he said. "Let me tell you something, Billy, that's not a provocateur, that's a serious business person."
And what does Donald's wife Melania think of his challenge?
"She thought it was great," he said. "Millions of people think it is great. What does [Obama] have to lose? Unless he's hiding something."
As for whether Donald ran his challenge by Presidential nominee Mitt Romney? "The Apprentice" guru kept his lips sealed.
"I don't want to say. Why should I say?" Donald said. "What difference does it make?"
"Because if Mitt Romney told you it was a good idea... did you tell him you were going to do this?" Billy countered.
"I did not discuss it with him, no," Trump answered.
Re' that million bucks I mentioned earlier...
I think I have a movie idea that Hollywood will jump on like Honey Boo Boo's mama goes after pork rinds.
A hard hitting, true to the facts, as we know them, re-creation of the ill fated flight of Amelia Earheart.
With the legendary avatrix portrayed by Ann Coulter.
Her trusty, and equally ill fated, co-pilot, Fred Noonan, played by, of course, The Donald.
And what makes this version of this oft done story unique?
In this version, the actors actually fly off into the sunset.
And we never hear from either one of them again.
Is......that.....the sound....of......OSCAR?..........
Saturday, October 27, 2012
"...I Keep Waiting For Coulter To Rip Off The Mask, Mission Impossible Style, To Reveal A Box Of Rocks..."
Ann Coulter is dead wrong.
But, so is John Franklin Stephens.
Pudding free proof in a moment.
(CNN) - Conservative commentator Ann Coulter stood by her decision to call President Barack Obama the "r word" in a tweet, and questioned whether the word is indeed offensive.
Coulter was addressing a tweet she sent following the third presidential debate between Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
"I highly approve of Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard," she posted to the social networking site.
She said in the interview she chose the word "because it's a synonym for 'loser.' " She professed to have used the word since.
Among the reaction to her post was a slew of critical tweets, as well as a blog post addressed to her by Special Olympic athlete John Franklin Stephens that went viral.
"Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren't dumb and you aren't shallow. So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?" he wrote in the letter. "I'm a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public's perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow. I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you. In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night."
Stephens appeared separately on "Piers Morgan Tonight" Friday.
"The word retard is offensive, and that I should not be a symbol for someone who is dumb and shallow," he said. "If they wanted to use me as a symbol, use me as a symbol for someone who fights adversity."
Coulter said "language police" were dictating what words should and should not be used, and denied the term was offensive at all.
"It's offensive according to whom? Moron, idiot, cretin, imbecile, these were exactly like retard, once technical terms to describe people with mental disabilities," she said. "Changing the word doesn't change the definition. I was not referring to someone with down syndrome. I was referring to the president of the United States."
In addition, those who are offended by the word have little ground, she suggested.
"No disabled people are saying it, the spokesmen for the disabled," she said.
Pressed on whether the word bore a stigma similar to another offensive word - the n word - she said, "I wouldn't use the n word because it's a curse word."
Ann Coulter is, to any one with anything resembling a micro shard of common sense, dead wrong.
For the obvious reason(s).
That said, though, it must, in fairness, be pointed out that John Franklin Stephens is dead wrong, as well.
Ann Coulter is, in fact, both dumb and shallow.
And while the use of the word "retard" is not only inappropriate but, if nothing else, simply discourteous, were it, for any reason, ever to be welcomed back into the daily vocabulary, it could easily be explained to those unclear on the definition.
One need only provide them with anything written, or spoken, by Ann Coulter.
Friday, October 26, 2012
"...The Scary Part Is The Size Of The Fan Club..."
I have seen and heard a lot.
And being, by nature, a cynic, I've reached a point in life where I've long believed, given the absurd things that human beings are capable of doing, saying, et al, that I cannot be stunned.
Ann Coulter stuns me.
Or, more to the point, that anyone could, for a second, consider giving Ann Coulter credit for being anything other than a sad, needy, neurotic caricature of an "advocate" stuns me.
Listen.
Stunning.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
"...Come Novmber 7, We Should Be Singing 'God Bless America'...Not, 'Thank God, It's Over'..."
And there's a chance this might be the last piece this blog will offer before that.
A miniscule chance, to be sure, but a chance.
That said...
Good luck and best wishes to both of the major party candidates for President Of The United States and I sincerely hope that regardless of who is given the chance to serve, they will serve with purpose and vision, integrity and dignity, energy and passion and bring honor to the office they hold and the nation they lead.
That said...
From the flimsy excuses for positions and platforms, to the distractions of superfluous flotsam and jetsom in place of committed and visionary agendas for the future, to the bitter bickering, cheap shot name calling, lack of substantive discussion on the issues that matter to every single voter, to the establishment of a vitriolic tone that resulted in vicious, acidic, damaging conflict between friend and friend, neighbor and neighbor, families and familes, to the absurd circus of clowns including, but not limited to, Bachmann, Coulter, Trump, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Maddow, Morgan, Biden, Ryan and, yes, even Obama and Romney, I'm confident, and disappointed, that this particular election can rightly, and fairly, be described as an embarrassment to almost every single principle of the election process the Founders worked long, hard and diligently to provide us.
To voters of every belief, philosophy and/or party stripe, God bless you...and good luck to you.
To all the pundits, political participants and politicans, God bless you...and shame on you.
The arrival of Election Day in America should come as joyful noise.
Not a whimper of exhausted relief.
No matter, who we get...
...we deserved better.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
"...Hey, Ann...Next Time Try This...."Obama Is Habitually Late...So, He's Not Only Tardy, He's Re-Tardy"...."
She's not much of a sailor herself, though, cause she really missed the boat on this one.
(CNN) -- Parents of children with special needs are demanding an apology from conservative political pundit Ann Coulter for tweeting after Tuesday's foreign policy debate that she approved of "Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard."
It appeared to be a response to critiques of Mitt Romney's debate performance, but it wasn't the first time Coulter used the "the r-word" during this election season. And, it's not the first time blogger Ellen Seidman has called her out on it.
"At this point, I'm thinking the woman must surely be aware that the word is offensive, and she chooses not to care. That's pretty vile and heartless," said Seidman, the mother of a special needs child who shares her world on the blog "Love that Max."
"You want to slam the president, go ahead. But you can't think of any other word to use? Come on."
The word "retard" demeans Max and millions more with intellectual disabilities, Seidman tweeted at Coulter. Still, the comment was favorited 1,215 times and earned 2,993 retweets as of this writing, presumably by a number of people who didn't find it offensive. But sentiments from those who chose to respond to Coulter on Twitter ranged from disappointment to outrage.
"You disgust me. That man is the president of this country. (& I'm sure all of the disabled children in America appreciate you.)," actor Sophia Bush tweeted.
"Politics aside, this tweet from @anncoulter was offensive & disgusting. ANY use of the "R" word is unacceptable," @amurphy217 said.
The Special Olympics also condemned her use of the word, saying that it was "sad to see @AnnCoulter continue her use of hateful language by using the #Rword in her discourse."
In an open letter directed at Coulter posted Tuesday on the Special Olympics blog, John Franklin Stephens, a 30-year-old Special Olympian with Down syndrome, described what the word meant to him: "I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.
"Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next. ... Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor. No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much."
Even people known for their sense of humor came out against it. Comedian and Twitter personality @UncleDynamite resurfaced a 2-year-old post from his tumblr in which he explained why he would no longer follow anyone he saw using "the r-word."
He re-posted it after seeing people retweeting and favoriting the tweet, which he found disturbing coming from a a "well-educated, self-described Christian with such a huge public presence."
He hopes she'll read it and maybe have a change of heart, but he's not necessarily counting on it.
"Based upon Ann's tweets today, I'd say she's dug in and unrepentant," he said Tuesday in an e-mail.
"She must not know, love or respect anyone with an intellectual disability, then, and more's the pity.
I'd like to see her after a great day of volunteering at a Special Olympics or Best Buddies event. I'd lay odds she'd never think or say the r-word word ever again, and she'd probably be quick to anger if someone she heard did so."
Others observing the controversy surmised that Coulter used the word solely to draw attention.
"Guys. Ann Coulter is trolling you. Always. Outrage gives her strength. The only thing that will kill her? Complete & utter indifference," @PaprbakPrincess tweeted.
Congress banned the use of the words "retard" and "retardation" in 2010 in federal health, education and labor laws in favor of using the words "intellectual disability." The American Psychiatric Association also plans to replace the term "mental retardation" with "intellectual development disorder" in the fifth version of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, to be published by in 2013.
Then why do people cling to the word, Seidman and people like her wonder. She has posed the question before in her blog, which is probably why she woke this morning to find a slew of tweets and e-mails asking her to call out Coulter again for repeatedly using "the r-word" to describe President Obama.
The last time was just a few weeks ago in a blog post called "Let's talk about people who cling to the word 'retard.' " In the post, she recounted a series of recent examples of the word being used: in a New York Times article, in the comments of a YouTube video she made for the Special Olympics' annual campaign to end the use of the word, in the comments section of a CNN.com article.
She also included Coulter's last tweet about a video the president made for the National Forum on Disability Issues: "Been busy, but is Obama STILL talking about that video? I had no idea how crucial the retarded vote is in this election."
"Many people think that using the word 'retard' to slam someone is fine—as long as it's not actually directed at a person with disability. I've had plenty of people argue with me over that distinction.
What people don't understand is that every time someone uses the word 'retard,' they perpetuate the idea that people with intellectual disability, like my son, Max, are stupid or losers," Seidman said in an e-mail Tuesday.
"As I've said before, my son shouldn't be defined by ghosts of stereotypes past. He has enough to contend with in this world. Use. Another. Word."
Avenging Annie is notorious for her set in stone, take no prisoners approach to politics.
And not known to waste any of life's precious moments bothering to hear anyone else's point of view.
So, I don't fool myself for a second thinking that there's anything I could say that would enlighten her as to where she's gone wrong here.
But, then, my giving it a shot is unnecessary.
Kirk Lazarus already paved that road and much more articulately that I could have ever attempted.
Annie, Annie, Annie....
If your pathology insists that you keep name calling in your bag, then, at least, have the good sense to
keep it simple....Jack.
Or even stupid.
But not retarded.
Cause even the white guy playing an Australian guy playing a black guy knows....
You never go full retard.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
"...It's Like A Riddle, Wrapped In An Enigma, Inside A Luxury RV Dressing Room...."
Present company included.
I figured one out this morning and am pretty impressed with myself.
If I do say so myself.
First, our story.....
I came across the following article online regarding "undecided voters" as of this date in the 2012 campaign.
Polling in the presidential race is neck and neck, with just 19 days to go until the election.
Each side has consolidated a strong base but neither has enough support to push them over into a majority yet.
The election, then, will come down to an enigmatic group of undecided voters that are alternatively pandered to and mocked in political circles.
So who are these people?
The composite for a prototypical undecided voter is:
- Female
- Single
- White
- Employed
- 18-to-29 years old
- Didn't graduate from college
- Low income
- Union household
- Identifies as Protestant but doesn't go to church
- Skipped the debate.
The most recent poll, taken Oct. 7-11 found that 8% of people are unsure about who they would support on election day. Approached demographically, groups that have rates of uncertainty greater than 8% are more likely to be undecided than the average voter. Check this example out:
Since we know that the percent of the whole sample that was undecided was 8%, here's the conclusion we can draw from this data:
- Protestants are more likely to be undecided than the average voter.
- Baptists, "Others", and voters who are not religiously affiliated are as likely to be undecided as the average voter.
- Catholics and Pentecostal Christians are less likely to be undecided than the average voter.
The prototypical undecided voter is a white 18 to 29 year old woman who didn't graduate from college. She's employed, single, and identifies as an independent.
In elections, she typically splits tickets and considers herself a soft Democrat. She is unsure if she identifies with the Tea Party movement.
She lives in a union household, and is considered low-income. She's a Protestant, but goes to church infrequently or never.
She's not sure about who would take the country in the right direction and doesn't know who she plans to elect to congress. She did not watch the debate or any coverage of the debate.
Granted, this person is a composite and there are probably not a whole lot of people out there who are each and every one of these things.
Being every bit the fan of the N.C.I.S/C.S.I., et al, school of deduction, I was delighted, as you might imagine, when I realized, pretty much from the get go who, in fact, the undecided voter is.
And, just as the article says, they meet not all, but pretty much most, of the criteria.
Age, race, gender, education, marital status, employment status.
Check, check, check, check, check...and check.
Low income?
No, not so much.
Much to our chagrin, I imagine.
But, as for the rest of it?
Non church going, unsure who or what they stand for, unsure as to who will or will not be able to lead the country in the right direction, independant, but oblivious to any debate or coverage of any of the debates.
In short, pretty fuzzy on anything living outside their circle of life.
Son of a gun.
I nailed it from the get go.
And was able to easily answer the question posed by the writer of the piece.
"....so, who are these people?...."
Ooh. Pick me, pick me.
I know, I know.
I know who the undecided voter is.
Lindsay Lohan.
"...Ain't Gonna Be Much Of A Crop This Year...."
Who's there?
Banana.
Banana who?
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Banana.
Banana who?
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Banana.
Banana who?
Back in a minute with the answer.
When it comes to a healthier future, there are, in this election, a couple of nutritional choices.
Put simply, apples and oranges.
Whether you see Barack Obama and Mitt Romney as the apple and the orange, respectively, or vice versa is, obviously, irrelevant.
It's pretty obvious that once you get past the snarky, backbiting, zinger filled, virtriolic name calling, head bashing and bitch slapping they like to think is a positive and productive campaign for the presidency of the United States, that these two guys share very similar views on pretty much nothing.
So, for the sake of discussion, let's say that Obama is the apple and Romney is the orange.
The differences between the two are many and varied and your preference for one or the other will, obviously, be based on a number of factors not the least of which being your personal taste, your belief in which one will make things better and/or whatever passionate media supporter of which you choose to follow.
As far as issues themselves go, there a couple hundred places online you can go to take a look.
Here's a link to just one.
My treat.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markfidelman/2012/08/14/romney-versus-obama-10-striking-visual-business-comparisons/
Meanwhile, back at the fruit bowl.
From the tone and texture of the campaign to this date, I can't help but think that both those who are convinced to a moral certainty that the country is going to go to hell unless we go apple and those who are convinced to a moral certainty that the country is going to go to hell unless we go orange are overlooking a pretty obvious, and admittedly sad, fact.
While both have their good qualites, neither one seems ready, or able, to meet all of our nutritional needs.
And they've spent almost all of the precious time available sniping back and forth at each other on why we should pick them.
Personally, when it comes to making the all important decision as to which one will provide our ailing society with the nourishment it so clearly needs, I can't help but think.....
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Apple and orange.
Apple and orange who?
Apple all is said and done, orange you sad there's no banana?
Thursday, October 18, 2012
"...Saying This Campaign Has Wandered Off The Point Is Like Saying Lady Gaga Is A Little Out Of The Ordinary..."
Presuming to speak for any one individual, let alone a group of individuals, is, by its nature, risky business.
Despite the poignancy of the poetry, walking a mile in another's shoes requires having another's feet.
Metaphorically powerful, physically impossible.
All of that said, here's some politics in plain English.
People don't care how long it took for Barack Obama to use the term "act of terror" when describing the killings in Libya.
For that matter, they don't care if he ever said it at all.
People don't care if or why Mitt Romney misspoke when he referred to his binders full of women.
Okay, some people say they care. But some people are always looking for something/anything to bitch about at any given time.
Most people understand, by now, that it was a poorly chosen expression describing what appears to be a pretty pro-active approach to the inclusion of women in government.
People don't care whether or not Candy Crowley interrupted either Obama or Romney inappropriately.
People care about the price of gasoline.
People care about the safety of their children.,
People care about being able to find and keep a good job.
People care about the education of their children.
People care about finding affordable and easy to understand health care.
The reason Bill Clinton's popularity is at an all time high is that he understands what people care about.
The reason Obama and Romney are in a statistical dead heat, at this moment, is that neither one has found a way to prove that they understand what people care about.
The reason this campaign seems rudderless is that it is being steered by media.
And instead of stirring our emotions as they work to impress and inspire us, the two candidates and the media can only manage to stir the shit.
I'm sure if that could be conveyed to either or both candidates, they would have ready made, staff approved sound byte length, zinger ready responses.
People don't care.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
"...If You Would Be So Kind To Allow Me, May I Please Point Out The Blemish On Your Considerably Well Thought Out Suggestion..."
Since the VP debate, I've read the analysis (plural), watched the video(s), listened to the pundits and tried to absorb as much of the audio as possible.
And I wasn't really ready to offer some plain English about the "tone" of the debate.
Or put in two cents on the question "Was Joe Biden's aggressive behavior inappropriate?"
I'm ready now.
Many of those who take pride in being hard core, red state, right wing, conservative Americans also, in large measure, take pride in enjoying, supporting and endorsing professional wrestling, professional football, professional basketball, professional baseball and, of course, let's not forget the offical sport of red state America...
NASCAR.
I find it terribly amusing, and not just a little silly, that the very same people whose noses are out of joint because Biden did some bitchslappin' don't expect anything less than full throttle ass kicking from their various sports heroes and/or heroines.
And here's a little politics in plain English....
Politics, especially politics at the presidential level, is not backgammon played with finesse, genteelness, gracious etiquette and tea drinking pinky appropriately and respectfully extended.
It is a full contact sport played with the intention of beating the other guy or guys.
This ain't the Lawn Tennis Association, Nancy.
It's the NFL.
And all that "curtsy and reply respectfully" malarkey (yes, he used the word malarkey) is just crusty residue from our years as subjects of the Queen.
We don't curtsy around these parts, pal.
Frankly, I think Joe has the right idea.
Let's get past all the "my esteemed collegue" crap and have a real elbow throwing, pass interference, forced error grudge match.
We would, of course, draw the line at mud wrestling, jello wrestling or wet t shirt contests, of course.
This is, after all, the sacred and hallowed process of electing a President, for heaven's sake.
Other than that, let slip the dogs of war, baby.
We might get our doilies a little crumpled, but at least we'll find out exactly where the players stand.
And how much they can stand.
And just so there's no misunderstanding, this isn't an apology for Joe Biden.
This is a double dog dare ya for Mitt and Paul and, yes, Barack.
Gentlemen, start your damn engines.
Friday, October 12, 2012
"...Politics and Poppycock...."
Today, it might be more appropriate to sing "Increase The Word Power Of The People".
(by Vera HC Chan-The Ticket)
What's with the malarkey?
Say what you will about the American electorate, when they hear a folksy word they don't understand, they'll look it up. Searches on Yahoo! for "marlarkey," "malarkey definition" and "what is malarkey" scored off the charts during and after the vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican challenger Paul Ryan.
"Marlarkey," as Merriam-Webster defines it, is "insincere or foolish talk." It's a dismissive word to use, with avuncular overtones, and you'd use it to deem something as silliness, bunkum, hogwash—verging on nonsense, you (and a thesaurus) might even say. The New York Daily News dug up a Grammarphobia 2007 entry, which traces the etymology of "malarkey" perhaps to the word for strong boy or ruffian ("mullachan"), a *Malarkey family name, or the Greek word for worthlessness ("malakia").
But it's been generally perceived as an Irish word, points out Sharyn O'Halloran, a political science professor at Columbia University. "I'm Irish," O'Halloran tells Yahoo News. "When you ask the Irish for directions, they say it's 'down the road apiece.'" That "apiece" could involve 12 right turns and a roundabout. With that loaded "malarkey" comes a warning, and served as Biden's coded message to an older generation about trusting Ryan.
"It's not an outright lie, but [Ryan's] telling you a tale. He's painting a picture for you, and it may not be accurate," O'Halloran explains. "That's why [Biden] did the overexaggerated laugh and the overexaggerated hands. ... What he's saying is: 'It's not true, it's not right, and the people who know, know that what [Ryan's] saying, it's not right. You cannot let him keep going on.'"
The message may have been aimed for seniors, but some younger folk (ages 13-54) were intrigued by the code. (Indeed, 7 percent of "malarkey" lookups hails from kids under 18.) Among the areas most curious about "malarkey"—Los Angeles led the top five regions in lookups on Yahoo! Search, followed by D.C., Houston, Boston and Philadelphia. Among the states, Californians were scratching their heads and tapping the keyboards the most, followed by residents of Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia and Massachusetts.
Truth be told, the whole episode confused me a little, too.
But not because I didn't know what Biden meant when he said "malarkey".
Because so many people seemed to not know what Biden meant when he said "malarkey".
Personally, I've known that word for years.
But, then, I read a lot, so go figure.
Even if I wasn't voracious (ladies and gentlemen, start your Google), I'm still a little skeptical about the "mystery".
This was a poltical debate, after all.
And given the context of what was being said, I'd think you'd have to be pretty obtuse (see "The Shawshank Redemption") not to be pretty crystal about the smoke signal Biden puffed out there.
I mean, seriously, saying you didn't know exactly what he meant, regardless of how he expressed it, is bullshit.
Ooops.
Sorry.
I meant malarkey.
"...Everybody's Talkin At Me...I Don't Hear A Word They're Sayin...Must Be The Op/Ed Page..."
Somewhere, ever so slightly visible in the sandstorm of say so, is the pretty obvious consensus that, at least in terms of a winner and/or loser, the match was a draw.
Not that it matters.
Because it really doesn't.
We don't vote for VP.
We vote for P.
And unless it turns out that either Biden or Ryan spent some time helping Jerry Sandusky out in the showers, the election is not going to be swayed one way or the other by one running mate or the other.
That said, it occured to me as I ploughed through the op/eds from both sides of the spectrum, that there is actually a pretty easy way to keep from wasting time reading opinions, editorials and/or manifestos that are, well, a waste of your time.
Here's what you do.
Rather than read the whole piece, simply give it a quick scan. Even just doing that, you should be able to get a reasonable idea as to whether the writer is, for example, pro Obama or pro Romney or whatever.
Now, glance either up or down (depending on where you need to glance) at the "writer info", that is, the little bio information about the writer of the piece you just scanned.
Okay.
If the quick glance tells you, for example, that the writer is pro Obama and you see from a glance that the writer is a Democrat, then reading the whole article is a waste of your time.
For the obvious reason.
Same thing, just as obviously, goes for an article that is pro Romney written by a Republican.
For the same obvious reason.
If, however, you should stumble across the occasional, and startling, shiny nugget in the stream, an article by a writer of either loyalty that seems to be attempting, even if not achieving, a reasonable and balanced look at one or both of the candidates positions, then read that thing from cover to cover and share it with as many friends as humanly possible.
In fact, take it to Kinko's, print up copies and hand them out to everybody you meet between now and election day.
Because that article will be a one in a million, once in a lifetime shining example of journalistic integrity, fair and balanced reporting and a testament to the bright red, white and blue principles of open mind and heart.
Oh...afraid that many copies will bankrupt you?
Not to worry.
Two chances Kinko's will be greeting you anytime soon.
Slim and none.
"...Deep Down, We Want It To Be Complex....But It's Really Not..."
I had to work this morning, though, so here's my "afternoon after" say.
The "experts" are pretty much predictably divided on who "won" the VP debate.
Those who think Romney is the anti-Christ are sure that Biden took it.
Those who think Obama is the anti-Christ are sure that Ryan took it.
At this point, I don't think either Obama or Romney are the anti-Christ and here's what I'm sure of.
Those who think Romney is the anti-Christ still think Romney is the anti-Christ.
Those who think Obama is the anti-Christ still think Obama is the anti-Christ.
And none of the above give a shit what the "experts" think.
Present company included.
And present company included.
"...Please Support...Oh, Wait, Not You....Our Candidate..."
Old joke.
New punchline.
Back with both in a moment.
The celebrity vote for Mitt Romney has a potential new member: Lindsay Lohan.
"I just think employment is really important right now," Lohan told press on the red carpet. The issue doesn't appear to be a major issue for the news-making star, seeing that she's appearing in Bret Easton Ellis' "The Canyons," the Lifetime movie "Liz & Dick," as well as "Scary Movie 5."
Nonetheless, her concern means that, at the moment, she's going with "Mitt Romney," Lohan said. "As of now."
If Obama's campaign is disappointed over losing the LiLo vote, however temporary it may be, perhaps they still have time to change her mind. For those who may be surprised by her stance, Lohan explained, "It's a long story."
Old joke.
The definition of mixed feelings is watching your mother-in-law drive off a cliff...
...in your brand new Lexus.
New punchline.
And I suspect some of my hard core Republican friends are writing it just about now.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
"...Better Into The Sunset Than Off The Cliff..."
Wednesday night wasn't about the book of politics.
As it was about the book of Ecclesiastes.
It was a rough night for President Barack Obama and Big Bird at the first of three presidential debates. It was even worse for Jim Lehrer.
The 78-year-old moderator, who is executive editor and former anchor of "PBS NewsHour," was torn apart by critics who said he lost control of the debate, held at the University of Denver, as the two candidates talked over him throughout the 90-minute exchange.
The trouble began early, when Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney interrupted Lehrer—moderating his 12th presidential debate—as he tried to change topics.
"I get the last word of this segment," Romney said.
"Romney just ran right over Lehrer," tweeted Dana Loesch, the conservative radio talk show host.
The New York Times' Ashley Parker described it as a steamroll.
Some compared Lehrer, who came out of semiretirement to moderate Wednesday's debate, to NFL replacement officials. Others said he was like a rug or, worse, an empty chair.
"Lehrer has completely lost it," Reuters' Felix Salmon wrote.
"I feel badly for Jim Lehrer tonight," The Washington Post's Ezra Klein tweeted.
It wasn't long before "Poor Jim" began trending on Twitter.
"Regardless of who you think is winning," ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams wrote on Twitter, "Jim Lehrer is losing."
"New drinking game," he added. "When Jim Lehrer is ignored ... DRINK!"
BuzzFeed promptly produced a sizzle reel of Lehrer's pummeling.
Lehrer's "open-ended questions frequently lacked sharpness," Associated Press television critic David Bauder wrote, noting that at one point Lehrer asked Romney, "Would you have a question you'd like to ask the president about what he just said?"
"I wondered if we needed a moderator since we had Mitt Romney," Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said on CNN.
"It's likely that he knew most of his efforts to move the candidates off their talking points were going to fail," USA Today's Robert Bianco wrote. "Which might be why, fairly quickly in, he seemed to give up."
CNN contributor Erick Erickson tweeted: "I think it is safe to say last night was the last debate Jim Lehrer will moderate."
We are taught, from early on, to respect our elders.
As well we should.
But Scripture kicks in here.
"to everything there is a season".
Time to write books and offer life wisdom from a well earned comfortable back seat, Jim.
And let somebody else drive.
Friday, October 5, 2012
"...In For A Penny...."
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The big drop in the unemployment rate a month before the presidential election brought cries of disbelief and conspiracy theories from Jack Welch and other critics of the Obama administration Friday. But the Labor Department was quick to dismiss such claims.
"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," tweeted Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE, Fortune 500). Welch did not respond to a request for further comment on his tweet. But in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Welch said "I wasn't kidding" about his accusations.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis criticized the conspiracy theories Friday.
"This is a methodology that's been used for decades. And it is insulting when you hear people just cavalierly say that somehow we're manipulating numbers," Solis told CNN's Richard Quest.
Might as well get it all out in the open.
Barack Obama kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
Barack Obama planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Barack Obama was on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November, 22, 1963.
Barack Obama killed Jimmy Hoffa and buried him in the Rose Garden.
Barack Obama killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and framed O.J. Simpson for the other crime that put him behind bars.
Barack Obama shot J.R.
Barack Obama impersonated Dr. Conrad Murray and slipped Michael Jackson a fatal dose of Propofol.
Barack Obama is actually Bruce Wayne who is actually Batman.
And Barack Obama actually fathered that child that made Maria Shriver kick Arnold Schwarzenegger's ass to the curb.
Honesty is what elections should be about.
Truth will out.
So, there you have it.
Oh, one more.
In the spirit of blunt truth and uncompromised honesty.
Jack Welch and his like minded "critics of the Obama adminstration" are fucking morons.
Truth ain't truth unless it's the whole truth and nothing but.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
"...All The World's A Stage...And Both Major Party Standard Bearers Merely Players...."
In this instant news culture, that translates to this:
Almost everything and/or anything new that can be said about the performance of the two candidates has already been said.
So, here's politics in plain english.
The consensus seems to be that Mitt Romney outperformed Barack Obama.
And that Obama's performance was surprisingly lackluster, unfocused and, essentially, disappointing.
As to who "won"?
Awarding of that recognition to either candidate is academic.
Because those who supported Romney going in still support him.
Those who supported Obama going in still support him.
But in a culture that measures almost everything in terms of style as opposed to substance, the inferior performance always inevitably must concede "defeat" to the superior.
And though it was most surely not his intention, Barack Obama proved something last night that has been lurking around the edges of conventional wisdom since at least the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, just waiting for the right time to be accepted into the mainstream.
The art of politics has been forever replaced.
By the art of performance.
And candidates will no longer be required to sell us on their ability to do the job.
But simply their ability to play the part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)