Paralysis of the Mind

Well, it's been done... I'm now converted.

I didn't find Jesus through Billy Graham, and uh, I'm not going through any "step" programs, and I definitely did NOT talk to those well-dressed Jehovah's Witnesses who like to stalk your front door from time to time.

Actually, I finally found a Bible worth reading. Or, I should say, looking at.

A Bible so amazing that you yourself must go bask in its glory. Perhaps you're a stronger person than I am, and you won't immediately convert. I would call you crazy. But click on that link and bask away. And when you're done looking at it, consider how much free time some people have in this world.

Okayokayokay, I'm not really converted. But I am starting to catch a cold which makes me cranky and irritable to the touch. Being sick isn't really all that bad, actually, but it's mostly just a front to be cranky and irritable. People tend to put up with you if they know you're sick, and I fully plan on exploring the studio space on that one.

I have to say, this week just reeks of that awful stench of weirdness. We have Martha Stewart going to jail, Phil Spector going to trial for murder, people flying planes into space and today the publisher of my paper was fired for apparently no reason. Of itself, this isn't a bad thing (any practicing journalist can tell you that all publishers are evil), but less than a week ago, this same publisher had gotten a nice promotion and raise.

A week! Sweet creeping Trey, that isn't right! This IS a bad time to get sick after all.

*makes surly face*
GO READ SOMEWHERE ELSE, PUNK! I'M SICK OF LOOKIN' AT YOUR UGLY GRILL!

"Teenagers claim they want to be cool, but they mostly just want to avoid being uncool."
-- Chuck Klosterman

Klosterman, if you don't know him, is a noted pop-culture guru, who writes for Spin magazine and also wrote an interesting book called "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs." The Cocoa Puffs bit is where that quote comes from, as Klosterman explains the idea of cool through how sugary cereals are advertised to kids.

I think the quote can explain a lot more, though.

Our country, in general, is a pretty hip lot. We lead the world in creativity exported (I guess you can call "Baywatch" creative) and as a country, have always been in the thick of creation and generation of new ideas. Jazz happens to be one of my favorite forms of music, and it's easily identifible as an American baby. Jazz was the coolest thing going for a long time.

In that sense, yes, Americans can be pretty cool. But when it comes to thinking, Americans instinctively realize that being smart or preachy isn't cool at all. So we've adopted a catchier, cooler style. We like our messages short and catchy (I Like Ike), we like our politicians wacky (Clinton, Ahnold, Jesse Ventura), and we love having the option not to vote in droves. This is our right, this is our "cool."

But, really, I think the amicable anti-intellectual streak of America isn't a straight "smart isn't cool" but it all comes back to the idea of avoiding being uncool. Or, as they'd say in the heartland: "What would the neighbors think?"

Take homosexuality. In general, our nation is pretty accepting. We, surprisingly, have a decent record of human rights and at least some anti-racism in our history. Yet we tip-toe around gays as though they either don't exist or are some seperate form of life. I don't think a lot of people hate homosexuals, I really don't. It's just that very few people are willing to stand up and say it. Because again, you don't want to be preachy, and goodness gracious, what WOULD the neighbors think? Maybe they'd be cool with it. But, horror of horrors, maybe they'd think you were uncool. And while people like to remark about how life isn't like high school, the fact is life IS like high school, and although people are loathe to admit it, most everyone still acts like a popularity contest is going to break out any minute and they don't want to be the last one picked in gym class either.

Eventually, people settle for being uncool enough to be mostly themselves. But it's hard to break a lifetime of conditioning in the other direction. I once offered a John Kerry bumper-sticker to an older friend of mine who I know is horrified by Bush and is currently working hard as a volunteer for Kerry's campaign. She was almost shocked, and frankly horrified by the thought that she would be making such a public show of her opinion, and didn't want to "make any waves." I can respect her decision, and didn't push it, but inside, it was just like watching a building implode. A poof, a flash, and then crumbling into nothing, with only a cloud of dust remaining.

It isn't easy to be outspoken, because you'll always make enemies and be made fun of behind your back. The upside is great, though: you will be yourself, and you will have a personality that isn't a fabrication or an amalgamation of other people's projections of you. I suppose that's pretty cool.

Just don't tell the neighbors anything.

Never really cared for my first name much.

So after some thought and some work from Playerappreciation.com we're looking at some new names for me. Let me know what you think:

Suede T. Flava
Papa Kehoe Slither
Sweet Chocolate T. Slim
Macktastic T. Dazzle

If none of those tickle you, go forth and create your own name and report back what you may find. Also, in case anyone was shocked/dismayed/fruffled to find that I'm not dissertating (not a word, but I like it) on politics, I'm officially on an "outrage break" until post-debate time on Thursday night/Friday morning. I suspect there will be enough outrage from the debate to put me right back into red alert/high-blood pressure outrage mode. Instead, I will deviate to the friendly world of TOTP (topics other than politics). No thoughts of hiatus, either. I appreciate my fans, unlike say, Barry Bonds. Or that noted ear-pisser Trey Anastascio.

Imagine if you were shipwrecked on a tropical island.

High in the trees is fruit, fruit you can see and have tasted in the past. You have no way to reach the fruit, though, although you have enough rope and tree branches to make a rudimentary ladder and get to the fruit.

All you have left to eat is what you could scavenge from the wreckage of the boat upon which you were only taking a three-hour cruise. You have enough now, but it doesn't appear as though it will last forever.

Would you build the ladder?

Now, there's more food available on the island. Unfortunately, it's on the other coast line, and far from your comfortably built treehouse with monkey butlers. Furthremore, it's guarded by strange island natives who barely speak your language and regard you as inferior yet fear you. You have, thus far, been able to conduct trade with them for some of the things you had extras of that they couldn't make themselves (flashlight, scrap metal, etc) but you're well aware that they aren't happy with sharing the island with you and occasionally refuse to give you food no matter what you try to trade. And while you continually try to "make nice" with the locals, all your efforts seem to do is frusterate the natives nearly to the point of revolt.

Would you stop dealing with them?

Imagine further. You're not the only person shipwrecked. A crewmate on the vessel survived and while he seems friendly enough, says awful things about the native people, and often spends time building primitive weapons and considering strategies to find a way to take their food. Furthermore, he continually tells you that the fruit in the trees is unreachable, the food you and he took from the boat will last long enough, and if not, there's always ways to take food from the natives.

Would you believe him?

Now imagine you ran the largest nation on Earth.

Research might be able to remove your dependence on oil, of which there is a finite amount left. You have the technology, you have the money, but you lack the will to change your ways.

Would you do the research?

There's more oil available, for the moment. Of course, it's across the world and guarded by OPEC, not to mention all the Islams who consider your country the "Great Satan" NOR to mention the already contentious terrorist issue. Thus far, you've been able to trade with them, giving them enormous sums of money and weapons, but you know that trade could end at any time should more fundamentalist groups gain any stake in OPEC. And while we try to "make nice" we also go ahead and invade nearby nations for specious reasons, thus inflaming hatred of our country in the area.

Would you make the break?

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the other bloated oil-rich plutocrats spend their time disavowing global warming and avowing renewable energy, while building weapons and making shaky treaties with Arab nations that backfire 10-15 years down the line (who doesn't see Pakistan being the next Iraq in about 20 years?) to make sure there's enough oil for today. But not tomorrow. And of course, they promise the oil will be there, but without a doubt, it WILL run out within the next 100 years.

Would you believe them?

And if so... why?

(credit to Atrios for posting both pics)

So yes, this is the face of the Republican party in the south. I guess the only thing that would be worse would be say, putting a scary minority (black or brown would suffice, I imagine) with a knife or a bomb on the cover, eh?

Oh, and the RNC (shockingly) owned up, saying yeah, you caught us and admitted to sending out the mailings in Arkansas and West Virginia.

Here's a favorite quote of mine from that article:

"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' RNC Spokeswoman Christine Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."

Now, a few things. Firstly, the angry liberal in me shrieked something along the lines of STFU. But the calm reasonable liberal in me actually considered it, chugged it over, and thought, "If they need this, they must be in bigger trouble than they look."

And then I read from my good friend Echidine that Jerry Fallwell has been running his mouth about the Republican chances without the extra-chromosome Christian fundie crowd.

"The Republican Party does not have the head count to elect a president without the support of religious conservatives," Falwell said at an election training conference of the Christian Coalition.

Fascinating stuff. Of course Falwell's clan has little control over the President (they vote but don't donate), but if the Republicans are concerned that enough rapture nuts and extra-special Christians aren't going to the polls in the south, then they've already lost -- and lost hard. The media continues to play the "the race is too close to call" but it's hard not to think that all this posturing to what SHOULD be Bush's core base (Rapture nuts, homophobes, Southerners) is going to turn a few moderate stomachs. After all, we don't see John Kerry making a big play for the American Communist vote, now do we?

Of course, I may be wrong. A little red meat to stir up the base never hurt. But such an obviously stupid ploy is just a teensie-weensie bit insulting to anyone who, say, can think even slightly for themselves. And the fact that they admitted such a mailing... pride in stupidity?

So remember, if you don't want two well-dressed men to talk to each other on front porches, and the Bible to not be banned... you know what to do...

So, Kitty Kelley did it again.

Let's work backward. To start, all the "W" stories are nothing that any newshound didn't know to begin with, including:

— Laura Bush ran a stop sign, killing a boy she'd dated, when she was 20
— the possibility of W having his ex-fiancee get an abortion when she was in college (Kelley didn't outright say this, she mentioned that Larry Flynt had dug up the information but didn't get into specifics)
— discussed Bush's Guard status (and the possibility that he was forced to go into a rehab/community service program for a positive drug test)
— Bush's drug use and DUI history
— Bush's shady Harken and Arbusto deals (although, Michael Moore did a lot more about it in F911)
— Bush's possible affairs

That's a pretty good laundry list of stuff. His father was apparently not a lot better off — the original flip-flopper if I may — and also carried on with numerous affairs. Yet carrying back to ole Prescott Bush, Dub's grand-daddy, you find a conservative with *gasp* a social conscience and a work-ethic. Okay, so he had a bit of a mistress problem himself, but the point is NOT that Baby Bush comes from a bad line, but that Bush truly is the most terrifying aristocratic ruler: a life-long failure, a disappointment to his family (up until VERY recently), and granted the position of President entirely on his family's name...

Ho ho, it's the American Dream!

Biting sarcasm aside, interesting things about the Bush lineage come out. For example, you did NOT know that old Prescott Bush supported Margaret Sanger strongly in her efforts. Oh, yeah, because you KNOW who Miss Sanger was... well, suffice to say, Prescott Bush put down a considerable stake in an organization that would later become Planned Parenthood. Shocking, right? Turns out Prescott was pro-choice before pro-choice was an option, and only changed his tune when trying to be elected to the Senate from Conn. (a 50% Catholic state turned him pro-life faster than you can say "condom"). Indeed, HW was probably pro-choice before becoming a major political player himself.

Dubya, of course, believes the Rapture is slowed by abortionists.

I make an example out of abortion, but really, the theme of the book is three-fold. Firstly, that the Bush's crave secrecy and demand loyalty from anyone they come in contact with -- and also cover up anything which might be considered bad for the family name (which in this day and age would be a Bush for abortion and helping fund Planned Parenthood). Secondly, the fact that the family earned a lot of their money the American way: good investments, hard work, and over time have come to be rich. A shorter way of saying it would be that Prescott knew the value of a dollar, H.W. was brought up in that stretch and W... well, he made it on his name. Entirely on his name.

Which brings us to the third major point of the book, and basically, as friend after friend of the elder Bushes steps forward to condemn Junior (George W.) as being nothing like the principled Prescott, or the hard-working George HW Bush, the point gets hammered over and over again. Junior made it on his name. Junior thinks he's deserving but never earned anything. Junior has ridden the coattails of hard work to his station in life.

Of the accusations in the book, this is truly the one that must sting most to Bush. (That is, if he can read. Or felt human emotion.) He does his best to be a "strong" leader, but deep in his soul he surely knows that he would be absolutely nothing in this world without the name "Bush" following his given name. And this book does a fine job of showing that's exactly the whole point.

Say what you want about Ronald Reagan. His Middle Eastern policies were short-sighted. He dealt with terrorists to win his election in 1980. He cheated the taxpayers and illegally sent money to the Contras (terrorists in their own right). His handling of the AIDS crisis was ghastly. And, yes, he wasn't much of a family man either. But for all of that, it's understandable why the Right loves him so much: he truly was a self-made man. He wasn't running on his families name, he was in business for himself and made it happen. There are many comparisons in the book made between Reagan (a subject Kelley knew pretty well) and the elder Bush, and in all of them, Bush comes off looking bad.

In the same vein, the younger Bush comes off looking worse. Strangely, in a country founded in the hopes of freedom and equality, the self-interested aristocracy has convinced the poor and ignorant to flock to its banner. But in the end, that's all George W. Bush is, an empty but famous name built on old-money and shady dealings. Perhaps that simply shows that we, as a people, haven't gotten over the issues of the past.

Kelley, though, will leave that to the voters. She runs through Junior's administration in a clipped tone, suggesting that there isn't really a lot there to read about. And, truly, there isn't. It begs the question, though. Considering how far Junior is from the dignified Prescott, dare we imagine a Jenna campaign...??

The horrors of the future still await us.

This cartoon sums up this election cycle too perfectly to be left alone. Thanks to Get Your War On (click the link to the right, but the book, support the guy behind this)...

Tonight, I'm too lazy to blog but too awake to sleep. In the spirit of compromise (I know, how truly un-American of me), I'll use other people's words and pictures to fill space! Every journalist's dream. :)

"Black folks voting for the Republican Party is like a bunch of chickens voting for Col. Sanders!" - father of former Republican senator JC Watts

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

And Kerry prior to going on David Letterman today, in a classic baby-eating campaign moment:


(big thanks to dirtgirl from dKos)

"If I had the choice, I'd fire Halliburton tomorrow" - Sen. John Kerry (on Letterman)

And finally, to the naysayers I keep hearing and reading:

"The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, "Oh, it's all over! We are finished! Bush can't win! Waaaaaa!"

Hell no. It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished -- they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying." - Michael Moore

Rock on. :)

As a big sports fan and journalist (often of the sports variety) I enjoy talking to coaches. Often, these coaches spout the same tired accolades and cliches (Good game today, my guys/girls played great) but the point is that they neither want to rock the boat when a story comes out the next day on TV and in the newspaper, nor do they really want to tip their hand to an outsider.

I love listening to coach-speak. Unfortunately, coaches cannot hide what their teams do on the field, therefore, the best coach-speak often comes when a team is falling apart or not playing up to their potential. The coach still praises, but there's always an odd air of melancholy about it -- it's sort of going through the motions even though there doesn't seem to be a good reason to do it. Perhaps I'm projecting my desire for the truth onto the speaker's desire to actually tell it, I dunno.

Watching a team sink and the coach look for answers, while keeping up the facade that everything is fine, is amusing and painful in turns. Which gets me back to the title of this post.

See, I hear it all the time, from all sides: "Where's John Kerry's plan for Iraq?"

Like it or not (and as a liberal, lemme say, I don't) this election is basically boiling down to a national referendum on the Iraq War. It isn't just a yes or no (obviously, since we're already there), but the many sides finding a place to fall. There's the good idea, wrong execution crowd. There's a large contingent of bad idea people. And, sadly, an equally large cheering crowd who are wondering why we've stopped at one Middle Eastern nation.

Therefore, for all of John Kerry's ideas about education, health care, and taxes (and despite the Democratic despair I keep seeing, they all certainly appear to be sound and popular ideas) it all comes down to what he's going to do in Iraq. So, it's at least a little maddening to hear him dodge and move on the issue. It isn't the central theme in his campaign. It shouldn't have to be, but it HAS to be for the next 2 months.

This is Bush's only chance, and his people have done their job to get it here. He campaigns weirdly, appealing almost entirely to his base, without even making the attempt at netting swing voters. But he is trying to net swing voters in a subtle fashion: terror and death. If he can put the fear of God (or Osama) in enough voters, it seems like he'll win. It's really all he's got.

So the question goes out again... what's Kerry's plan? This is the hot issue. This is what the media and voters seem to be calling out for.

The problem is, John Kerry has to talk in coach-speak.

Why? Because you can't offend the more patriotic swing voters who don't want to believe that American troops could be doing awful things. Because you can't really get your message out in a media that has utterly lost its way. Because when it comes down to it, you don't want to have to tell the half of the Armed Forces that thought Iraq was a really good idea that not only are THEY wrong, every last one of their COs were wrong too.

But oddly, nobody bitches about George W. Bush's big plans for Iraq. There isn't a burning need to hear what he has to say about it. And you'll note, his statements make John Kerry's look like a dissertation: stay the course? The course where insurgents kill 3 soldiers and would 10 more a day? I may not work my way across America to take the pulse of this nation, but I'm quite sure that's a course very few people are comfortable with.

Yet the bitching remains on John Kerry. But he hasn't actually DONE anything wrong yet. He doesn't need to show the burden of proof and prove himself beyond a reasonable doubt -- Bush has done that for him. Bush was the coach that got the team into trouble in the first place, but everyone in the media keeps reporting those upbeat quotes and positive thinking. Why is that? Are the Yankees going to ask the Red Sox to solve their pitching problems next?

No, John Kerry is a little busy right now, campaigning for the very soul of America. It's a big important job, and right now, his only one. Bush was supposed to be the genius who had it all figured out. Obvious he didn't. And we can gnash our teeth all we'd like at Kerry's seeming reticence at unveiling a masterplan, but the deeper truth is this: Iraq is a quagmire of shit, and no plan is going to smell like a rose. There's no point in unveiling a half-assed plan. Should Kerry win, he's got a few months to watch the situation and work on it. After all, that's what Presidents are supposed to be doing. As opposed to say, clearing brush.

Or telling their underachieving team to stay the course.

One of the interesting cultural/sociological theories in the recent past is the idea of the American Brain Drain.

There's a lot of depth to the idea, but the basic gist is this: In rural/poor areas, kids who are bright enough to get out do, and don't come back. Whereas, kids who aren't as intelligent stick around, thus propegating the next generation of less-intelligent kids. Because the first generation of kids are stuck in back-water 'burgs with limited skills and education, they're poor. Therefore, their kids start poor, and then the scholars of THAT generation leave... so on and so forth. The point is that areas get poorer (and on reflection, less intelligent overall) and then become more squalid because nobody has the money or connections (or desire) to make things better at home.

Anyway, one of the side-effects of the Bush debacle is to make a lot of liberals look at America and openly wonder, "Would it be better if I left?" I've heard a lot of people mention it in passing, but today I was a little shook up because my own mother sighed aloud and suggested that leaving the country for retirement might not be such a bad idea.

Looking at it, it seems like a logical solution. Things are pretty bad in this country right now. We're riding through rough waters at best. However, picking up the stakes and leaving is simply a horrible idea.

Worse is the idea that forward thinking left-wingers will either drop out or band together with some nonsense outside candidate (yes, Ralph, I'm thinking of you). But this cannot happen. We desperately need to stick together now more than ever, and any defections will simply tilt the battle of ideas even further to the right.

Oddly, that's the sort of strategy that Bush seemed to push after 9/11 in regards to his blunder into Iraq. However, the difference is that the battle for the heart and soul of America can be won, because we don't have to win ALL of America — just enough to carry and election or two and some media traction. If liberals invaded Alabama, we'd have no shot; sadly for anyone who is rational in Alabama, the left lost the state the second LBJ's pen touched the Civil Rights Act.

But the fight is winnable. I know it seems uphill, but consider all the liberal ideas that were once scary to the reactionary knee-jerk crowd that are cornerstones of America: Unions, Social Security, environmental protections (specifically the EPA), the aforementioned Civil Right Act, our legal system, our Constitution, and our free ways of life. Or shorter me: Every Dark Age is eventually followed by a Renaissance.

Yes, the nice folks in Canada are friendly and altogether more rational and less knee-jerk than Americans (and they also don't love guns like our nation does). Certainly, England is lovely this time of year. Europeans are a bit more enlightened and certainly liberal-leaning. But to simply give up on America — at a time when America really needs YOU — is to turn you back on the good things about our nation. And again, not to show up like one of those flag-waving idiots, but America isn't entirely deception and failure. We still have plenty of freedoms worth fighting for, and worth defending from the incompetence and idiocy of our leadship and the the frightening ignorance of our many citizens.

That's the rub, though, it's a fight. And it's a messy bar fight with some rough looking bikers. The Republicans are fantastic at making people believe that abortion and guns are actual important things to worry about in a time of war and deficit. Plenty of otherwise reasonable people believe the most irrational things when it comes to politics. None of these things, though, should have people jumping ship by any means. We need to be working harder and smarter, not giving up!

I myself am going to phone my ass off on weekends from now until the elction. In other words: don't leave just yet, folks. Things are just beginning to get interesting...

... you must believe these things.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Indeed.

Turns out John Kerry isn't the only hero on the run. Apparently, the Father of Our Country is just as unfit to lead as Mr. Kerry is.

Please, for the sake of your country, read all the details at Rowboat Veterans for Truth.

I'm so tired of being called an elitist for the wrong reasons.

According to the punditry in the media, EVERY liberal is a hoity-toity sherry-sipper who wouldn't be caught dead with the "average" American. Then again, I know better to decry the unparalleled idiocy of most pundits; that's a black-hole of anti-knowledge and if I went on that bend I might never connect with another thought for the rest of my life.

In this case, though, they're right for the wrong reasons. Their point was to say that liberals are disconnected from the rest of America — as though we're on some mental island secluded away from every other political persuasion — and that we exclude anyone who doesn't think like us because we consider ourselves better than others.

I don't think I'm better than anyone because I'm a liberal. But they're certainly right about me being an elitist. I'm a damn fine stinky-stinky big old exclusionary jerk.

And so are you.

Let me count the small and stupid ways I exclude people from myself. I abhor stupidity, so I tend to avoid people who I find to be stupid. I tend to dislike fascists, so most Bush supporters are verboten within the fiefdom of my life. Oh yeah, and if you smell bad, I'm not going to stick around for very long.

Does this make me a bad person? Heck no! Everyone is an elitist. From the NASCAR fan who rolls his eyes at the baseball fan to the creepy guy you don't say hi to in your neighborhood, to the 15-year-old girl who LUVS Britney to the goth kid to the obnoxious co-worker who can't stop talking when you need to work to the redneck who loves his flag to, yes, the liberal who scoffs at the needs of middle America.

Doubtless, you rarely give this idea any thought. But consider the opposite. What if you excluded nobody from your life? That sounds like a nice charitable... perhaps every Christian thing to do, yes? Well, it sure is nice, and go right ahead and invite the pedophiles, murderers, and thieves to your picnic, but be sure to cancel my invitation, because I'll be over on this side with the non-convicted crowd.

Before anyone gets all hot under the collar, there's certainly things that you shouldn't exclude on. Racial elitism makes me want to vomit, sexual-orientation elitism infuriates me to no end, and gender elitism will throw me off into a multi-hour tirade. But don't excluding on the basis of THOSE things make you a better person? I just couldn't be friends with someone who made a big deal over being a racist, a homophobe, or a chauvinist piggie. Because, heaven knows, telling the son of a strong single mother that women are inferior is just a really dumb idea — and beside hating sexism, remember that I also hate stupidity — so this is just an affront to me on so many levels.

Those are just the big ones. There are so many daily small ones that everyone has. Music tastes, fashion choices or sports teams, for example. And those are fairly meaningless in the scheme of things, but it does happen. Admit it: you'd have a hard time being best buddies with a guy who has a feathery mullet. But then, maybe he'd have a hard time liking you because you're different from him. Elitism is meant as upper-class disrespect toward the lower-class, but there's no doubt that it often goes both ways.

I respect people who have high standards, and yes, in some ways I disrespect people who have low standards. But that's fine, they also have the right to disrespect my high standards. If going on Jerry Springer is your life dream, than by all means, have no standards or exclusionary boundaries in your life. But don't exclude me by calling me an elitist without realizing that you're doing the same thing.

Went ahead and skipped Friday 'cause I was out celebrating.

Here's the hardest-working cat in showbiz:



When not working hard for the money, though, he likes to relax in various ways. Here he is checking out the picnic next door:



And, of course, what night isn't complete without a hot game of Scrabble?



So, enjoy your Labor Day!! Get out there and don't labor (or if you do labor, earn time & a half or double pay for it, by God)

I'm no Hunter S. Thompson, but in watching Bush's acceptance speech tonight, one thing that HST would definitely remark upon was the Fear that was obviously sweeping across the floor of MSG.

It seems amazing to me how much Bush — and by extension the Party — fears John Kerry. Time after time, when Bush could have been advocating his accomplishments over the last four years and pushing for his next four, he would stop and make fun of John Kerry. The crowd responded by, erm, waving their arms about like a speed-freak who thinks he sees Jesus. Next stop: Atlanta Braves games.

There were even lines in the speech that weren't directed at Kerry, but I think were much subtler jabs at him. A perfect example is where Bush mentioned the troops, and closed up his thought by saying: "And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned." — a Swift Boat slam, perhaps?

Even if not, though, the Fear and Hatred raged over the last 48 hours. Zell Miller was a public embarassment. Then again, if you want to see the softer side of "Zell on Earth" feel free to check out his website, particularly where Senator Miller made a pretty speech praising that rascal John Kerry. Sweet, isn't it? And if you're looking for Dick Cheney to soften the blow... don't. Some people respond to adversity by softening up and becoming more sensitive to other people's suffering. And some people like, say, Bob Dole and Dick Cheney, become callous and stone-hearted. I imagine that 6 heart attacks would make me pretty short-tempered too.

And Bush, the antidote to Fear and Hatred — our amicable anti-intellectual frat boy who we can have a good time at a Sunday barbecue with — came out looking like he was reading from a teleprompter set on "slow." I give him credit, though, Bush didn't do a bad job with what he was given. In fact, despite consistently shaking my head at the factual misses or short-cuts the speech took, it was not horrible to listen to. Bush may not be the smartest operator, but when he needs it, he gets the job done.

The problem is Bush has nothing to stand on for his term. Atrios said it best: Four years, and all they've got is Bush standing on a mass grave with a bullhorn. All the talk of new programs will excite Republicans, but any other observer might wonder how. After all, Republicans, nay, CONSERVATIVES run the House, Senate, Executive Branch and the Supreme Court. And somehow, the band of cowardly Democrats that comprise their opposition have somehow stopped all their good works? The Democrats that could muster ONE lousy vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act? The Democrats who resoundly gave Bush the opportunity to roll his Coalition of the Fearful into Iraq?

And so, with 60 days to go, everything is going to be thrown at John Kerry. The Fear of a society with national health care, the Hatred of gays, the bitter reluctance to call Iraq a "mistake" will drive the push. And Kerry will have to respond, and the media will have to refer to the race as dirty from both sides, and the majority of voters in our weak-willed nation will tune out. This is another problem for another time, of course, but know that Bush began it tonight by trying to drive a nail into Kerry's campaign instead of talking about his accomplishments.

As Hunter S. Thompson might have said...

... Cazart.

Part One available here.

One of the reasons that I love sports is the fact that sports has carefully designed rules and easily accessible winners and losers. Teams may play better than other teams, and circumstances may sometimes let lesser teams defeat mightier ones. But in the end, there's a number on a scoreboard, and that's it, no more questions asked.

So today, let me do up a world-politics scoreboard.

Military invasions of America by Communists: 0
Military invasions of USSR by Americans: 1

I am not talking about the U2 spy plane incident. Nor do I speak of any of the Cold War games played by individual soldiers, fighter planes, or submarines. No, only one side invaded the other, and guess what -- it wasn't those Godless Commies.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson (who is a contender for the worst President of all time) began to send secret monetary aid to the "White" (non-communist Czar leadership) faction of the Russia Revolution. We'll let him get away with sending money to tyrants; that's barely a par on America's course of foreign policy. But in 1918, Wilson went right ahead and -- despite WWI going on at the same time -- authorized a naval blockade, and with the blessings of Britain and France, sent forces to Murmansk, Archangel, and penetrated the "Red" faction's defences at Vladivostok. The fighting continued until 1920, when the White faction was truly crushed.

Beside the obvious truth -- America wasn't going to accept a Communist government without a fight -- those forces continued a bloody inter-continental struggle longer than it otherwise would have lasted.

Although American history textbooks don't teach it (read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" a delightful work by UVM Professor James Loewen for more about this and other historical inaccuracies taught in school), the Russians, for some reason, never quite got over it. The Communists in power learned that the Western powers would attack their country for any (or no) reason. And that fueled their end of the suspicion that caused the Cold War for 40 years.

Was America to blame for that? How could we not be! Pre-emptive invasions were no more popular in 1917 than they are in 2004, and our actions served to put the world into a paranoid nuclear standoff for a generation. All because we saw the word "communist" and panicked.

So it should come as absolutely no surprise that our hands are, of course, all over our current terrorist threat.

We supported Osama bin Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80's. We supported Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 80s. All well and good, at the time, as we saw Soviets as our arch-enemies, and Iran had kicked out their secular quasi-democratic leadership in 1979 and decided to run with Islamic fundamentalist leaders.

Osama was a good egg, a freedom fighter repelling those mean Commies out of his Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein was a vital connection. See Donald Rumsfeld give him a nice warm handshake right here:



Those were heady times, back then. But something weird happened. See, Saddam decided killing his OWN people wasn't enough. And Osama no longer had the Soviets to fight off. Feeling bored, Osama decided Communism wasn't the enemy; now it was anything anti-Muslim. Saddam invaded a helpless little country next door named Kuwait.

Fortunately for Osama, Kuwait was very rich in oil. Unfortunately for Saddam and the United States, Kuwait was very rich in oil. As humanitarian go-getters, America went to war, beating the ole "Saddam is evil, those poor Kuwaiti" drum. Why let anyone know that American military technology and money were the backbone of his army?

And then, suddenly, old Bush pals Saudi Arabia decided that, heck, American soldiers are fine upstanding young fellows, let's let THEM be stationed in the Muslim holy land! Osama, well, he wasn't so pleased. Neither was most of Saudi Arabia (or for that matter, the Arabian ruling family, which is still bitterly divided over "the West"), but then again, most of Saudi Arabia aren't multi-millionaires with a private army and weapons graciously donated by America...

Perhaps you see where this is going.

Often the right calls what they refer to as liberals as "the blame America first crowd." They don't even know how right they are. After all, if Woodrow Wilson hadn't invaded Russia in 1917, there's a pretty good chance that Osama bin Laden would be running a multi-billion dollar campaign to reform his image of a rich playboy slacking frat boy who was running for Sultan...

Osama bin Laden is a terrible human being. He should be brought to swift and at least somewhat painful justice. If he was the one behind 9/11 and the USS Cole and the original WTC truck bomb (and the evidence is pretty damn ironclad) then he deserves everything he gets.

But it does us NO good to stick our heads in the sand and scream bloody murder when some of the conflict can be lain at our front door. Nor does it do us any good to run around shrieking "God Bless America" and clinging to our flags and our strong belief that our nation couldn't possibly do any wrong...

Well, we did. We have. We are. We probably will again. And without an honest discussion of mistakes and alternatives to our current policies, we'll end up making the same knee-jerk mistakes that have come before this time. The connection between terrorism and communism is tied not necessarily with each other, but tied with the perversely American belief that our side can do no wrong. In thinking so, in doing so, we have only made the problem worse.

Since 1917.