The post in which I try to not to offend everyone, but most likely offend someone

I've been thinking about it lately, and I can't come up with any good reasons why I write in a "blog". Neither can I figure out why anyone else does it. On the one hand, I can see some value in people writing in these things, expressing their opinions, and whatnot. On the other hand, people in blog world seem to act just like people in the regular world, except with louder opinions. But basically we all group together according to who we agree with, and think that our little group is better than the other little groups, and so on. And of course, there are the "popular" blogs, the "doomer" blogs, the "arty" blogs, the "burnout" blogs, the "smart" blogs; just like in high school.

Of course, not EVERYONE has a blog. So we are choosing to have blogs. What is it about us that makes us CHOOSE to have blogs? I'll tell you what it is. It's good old fashioned self-absorption. And just a little more than a sprinkle of arrogance. I'm pretty sure that is what separates us "bloggers" from the internet-literate non-bloggers. We actually think people CARE about what we write. And the idea that ANYONE cares is quite a feat of ego, in my opinion.

What did we all do before Blog world started. I'm assuming we simply bored all of our dwindling number of friends with endless displays of how funny and intelligent we were. But NOW? We have each other. I wonder the same thing about all the women that post pictures of their boobz and poonies on web pages, news groups, cams and forums. What did THEY do before the internet? Did they simply not realize that they wanted to be seen naked by millions (okay, thousands.... er, hundreds)? Well, that really IS an entirely different matter.

Where were we? Oh yes, blogs! Of course, I have no way of knowing how many people who have blogs, actually post to them frequently. I think there are at least a couple million blogs, but I seriously doubt that they are all maintained. That distinction is important. Flirting with the idea, then giving it up reflects a far different mentality than updating nearly every day.

From what I can tell, there are a variety of different types blogs. I will now list my scientific findings, with a brief explanations of the type of person who indulges in this blog behavior.

1. The Diary Blog: In this blog, the person writes about the minutae of their lives down to the day and frequently hour and minute. This is more typical of young people. However, any very self-absorbed person may have a Diary Blog, and most bloggers have some element of diary. The assumption here is that the world wishes to read their innermost thoughts. Although, some people may simply use this type of blog as a personal diary, the fact that its on the internet seems to imply something slightly nefarious.

2. The Political Blog: In this blog, the person writes either their informed or uninformed opinions about political matters of the day. Sometimes the blogger in question is well known (like Andrew Sullivan). In other cases, the blogger is just some shmoe like myself. And we all think our opinions are VERY important, and very well-read.

3. The Sex Blog: This blog, seemingly dominated by women, contains writing about sexual exploits. These bloggers proudly label themselves as "whores", "sluts", "cumwhores", etc... This is truly a product of the internet. This sort of thing simply did not exist outside of Penthouse Forum... until the the internet. Again, these bloggers seem to think that people want to know. Or at the very least, they're reveling in a heretofore unknown exhibitionism. My guess is that these blogs are the most widely read. Myself, I only read the ones that contain some element of the person's personality, and non-sexual life, such as On The Prowl.

4. Anything Goes Blog: Most blogs probably fall into this category. Anything from personal, political, or any topic may turn up. These bloggers have particular consistency in their blogging. My blog falls more into that category. To put it another way, persons like myself think that anything and everything we have to say about any topic is important and interesting. This type of blog is probably reflective of the most self-important type of blogger. No matter what the topic is, our opinions are important. We don't simply limit ourselves to sex or politics, or even things about which we are knowledgeable. We touch the entire range of human experience, and post our important opinions on the internet for all eternity.

So there it is. I don't consider this an indictment of blogs, bloggers, or any type of blog. Again, I simply find it fascinating that we do this. We write in these blogs, and no one outside of our small readership cares. Maybe thats enough. Maybe one of us will be plucked from blog obscurity, and be published (looking at you Mr. Stone), or maybe an important think tank will read one of our missives and hire us for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I mean, we have to think these things in order to live.

Oh, so why do I have a blog? These are my reasons to the best I can figure. First, it was to do some more or less creative writing. Second, it was to DO SOMETHING creative in my mostly non-creative existence. Third, it certainly has a lot to do with my belief that I write well enough that people would actually WANT to read this stuff. OR, that I can MAKE them be interested. That is my arrogance talking! Four, make some connections with like-minded individuals. I think thats it.

I've been giving this some serious thought. What if Kerry wins. I actually think he WILL win. At least now, I think so. So I'm going to ponder this possibility.

Support for John Kerry, the man, seems to be fairly tepid. Support for "not Bush" is nearly rabid. That's my take on it. Most of the "not Bush" people consider this election to be the most important election of their lifetime. The number of people that feel that way are more likely to vote for Kerry than Bush. I can't find the poll that showed this, but it was in USA Today on Tuesday, October 26.

What this tells me is that the vote against Bush is a vote due to fear of Bush. I hesitate to use the analogy, but its as if the Jews had the opportunity to vote for someone else in Germany in 1936. This vote against Bush is not in order to move any agenda forward. Rather, its to STOP the Bush administration and the conservative movement from moving THEIR agenda forward.

Now, if Kerry is the president, I think he'll be the right guy for the right time. When Bush "won" in 2000, I held some faint hope that since Bush didn't win the popular vote, and only won the electoral vote after the Supreme Court stopped the recount, that he might be a more moderate political presence on the scene. Of course, I was totally wrong.

Kerry, on the other hand, will have no choice but to be moderate. He doesn't aspire to be the next FDR or some other savior president, which was President Clinton's biggest miscalculation in 1993. I don't think the majority of the people want a savior president. I don't think they want a "bold" president. After twelve rough years, and four devastating years, I really think that this country could use a few years of moderate politics to simply calm everyone down, and turn the volume down on the attack rhetoric going around.

The agenda Kerry is campaigning on will not happen. Certainly, the more progressive elements such as the health care plan will be trimmed down significantly, if it passes at all. See, Kerry will face a Republican House and Senate, so he can't rule by mandate because congress won't consider Kerry's initiatives, and they'll also re-discover their executive oversight power to reign in Kerry's executive orders. (Compare this to Bush, where oversight went out the window).

Kerry will not try to advance any "radical" proposals that are likely to inflame the easily inflammable (Rush, conservatives, etc...). Clinton played right into the Conservative's hands. But I think Kerry is far more pragmatic. He'll deal with Iraq, he'll put more resources into finding Osama Bin Laden, and he'll propose moderate tax cuts for the middle class. He'll also propose rolling back tax cuts for rich folks, but he'll have to push that through Congress.

Everything else, everything that conservatives use to make people afraid of Kerry will stay the same. Guns will still be legal. There won't be an tax increases on the middle class. There won't be any amendment to legalize gay marriage. There WILL be further attempts to refine No Child Left Behind. There will also be attempts to reign in some of the Patriot Act. But the "War On Terror" will continue. Conservatives won the debate on those issues. Now its done. Those basic policies will not change until their is a mass change among the people (the kind of change that takes 40 years). So Kerry will effectively be a moderately liberal president, who presides and manages what are essential conservative policies, and he won't ENRAGE most people. In this sense, he will appear to be the "uniter" that Bush claimed HE wanted to be.

He will please Democrats and liberals by simply NOT being Bush. And won't REALLY piss off Conservatives. At least I don't think so.

He is a more "newsy" look at the same topic in USA Today: What If Kerry Wins

Check This Out
Dead Letter Office. What the hell is going on here?!

The presidential election is really heating up. By "heating up", I mean becoming a national disgrace. If this is what "freeeedom" looks like, I'm not so sure I want it. And now for something completely different...."

I don't know if anyone else was watching it, but by now, anyone who cares, or can't help but be exposed to pop culture, knows that Ashlee Simpson seriously screwed up on Saturday Night Live this weekend. I was flipping between South Park and SNL, and flipped to SNL just in time to watch her band play one song, while her voice sang something different, and Ash just stood there fidgeting.

UPDATE:
Here's the link: Ashlee Simpson's Meltdown. Note: The link will immediate start to download a .wmv file

Well, I don't give a shit about all that. There is all sorts of outrage on the internet and message boards and whatnot. The forum on Ashlee Simpson's site has been deluged by self-righteous individuals condemning her for lip-syncing. Supposedly, she even made some comments about never lip-syncing in the past, and that has made the OUTRAGE even more potent.

But seriously folks. Its "Ashlee Simpson". Do you hear me? "Ashlee Simpson". She is the SISTER of a B-Lister! She dyed her black in order to be considered different than her sister. "Punkier!" So she lip syncs. Did anyone really think she was the next Joni Mitchell? Possibly some 8-14 year olds held her in such high esteem. They can be forgiven. Its the first time they may have ever realized that their heroes are just humans. And occasionally a bit less.

Anyone else (meaning, if you are over 15) that takes joy in this is just stroking themselves. How could anyone be upset about this. When we find out that the Beatles could barely perform live, that Stephen Stills tried out for the Monkees, or that Jimmy Page stole his riffs from dead black guys. Yes, then we can be upset.

At any rate, its "Ashlee Simpson". AMG reviews her album with the following: "she's succeeding in creating an album that feels like a bubblegum version of Pink's M!ssundaztood, even if it's not quite as catchy". Do you see? She is being compared to Pink. A lesser Pink. Pink... Exposing Ashlee as a lip-sync'ing, fabricated, piece of nonsense is no victory for the musical snobs among us. When was she ever considered credible in the first place? I think I'd like to see Alanis shown to be a fraud because not only IS she a fraud, but she is also everything else that is said about poor Ashlee, but is seemingly considered an important artist. "Ooooh Flea played on my song. I sing about blow jobs. I'm so cool."

Okay, now I'll go back to holding my breath about this election, and building my undergound bunker. Are there any other kind?

I simply cannot let this stand. I made a brief mention of this in my previous post, but I want to see some outrage. Now!

HOLY FREAKIN HELL! This is the sort of thing you hear about and think that it must be a pile of shit. I heard a representative from the Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility on KDKA the other night talking about how the Bush administration has supported the placing of plaques with quotes from the Bible on several of the Grand Canyon's viewing platforms.

Okay, sounds innocent enough. Right? I mean, why shouldn't there be inspirational Christian religious messages at the Grand Canyon to help us appreciate God's creation? Sounds normal.

But wait! The Grand Canyon's Park bookstore is now selling a book with a "creationist" interpretation on just HOW that darn Canyon came to be. So much for so those silly geologists and scientists with their ridiculous "theories" about how the Earth's natural forces created the canyon over MILLIONS of years. Thats crap. C'mon! Everyone knows that the canyon had to have been created in say, the last 4000 years by Noah's flood. Everybody knows that. Right?

Well, that is what it has come to. Not only has the Bush administration advanced this stuff, but they've thwarted attempts to distribute the apparently, now debunked view, that the canyon may have been created by geological forces.

Please, someone tell me this is some sort of urban legend! I've looked everywhere though, and all I can find is validation that this is happening. I did a Google search, the very pinnacle of fact-gathering in today's information age! Is the other book even being sold there anymore? I've read that it is not, and that it still is. I've also read that the creationist book was moved from the "Science" section to the "Inspirational" section. Why the hell does the National Park have an "Inspirational" section??!

PARK SERVICE STICKS WITH BIBLICAL EXPLANATION FOR GRAND CANYON

Bush's faith-based parks

Pray To Play: Bush's Faith-Based Parks

Chasm over creationism grows from canyon book

Look, this offends me not as a Jew, Hindu, Agnostic, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, or Christian (of which I am a member of each). This offends me as a relatively sane person. This is offensive to the common sense side of me. Beyond that, how fucking scary is it that information can be manipulated like this? No wonder some are afraid that one day people will think the Holocaust was a fraud.

This president IS born-again Christian, and thats HIS choice. I disagree completely with that way of thinking, but it's HIS life. But for that man to come to a position of power, and then try to force those beliefs on everyone else? We really have to believe that the Earth is 4000 years old, and the Grand Canyon was made by the flood? Its come to this? If there is a god, I simply cannot believe that he thinks this is all okay.

And before you post anything, "na", even though we have different beliefs about God and Christianity, you KNOW that it CAN'T be okay for the government to do this sort of thing. And if there MUST be spiritual interpretations of the GRAND CANYON (people!), then why not include the many Native American interpretations that must have existed. And why not throw in the Buddhist interpretation just for kicks?

I've decided that if I become the president, after I get done appeasing terrorists, I'll put out a decree for immediate distribution in all school text books and music stores that the Beatles were and always will be better than the Stones! That should settle THAT issue for eternity!

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 10/22/2004 01:01:40 AM

Thank god, no political crap today! But please read Biblical Explanation For Grand Canyon and be outraged. I know I am! And now we're off...

I used to argue with this guy I knew back in 1997 about the state of rap music. Does it matter that the guy was black? Probably not, but I just wanted to point how cool I am because I had a black friend. The argument was basically that there were two basic types of rap 1) Hardcore/Underground and 2) Commercial. I claimed that commercial rap was destroying the hardcore rap. My friend thought I was an elitist, and that my position had many flaws.

My position was that any rap that had recognizable samples (of easily recognized songs for instance), females singing, did not have a Parental Advisory sticker, or easily remembered choruses was "commercial" rap, and not true to the "true" spirit of real rap.

My friend thought it was absolutely absurd that I, a white guy, 26 years old at the time, really loved hardcore rap, and defended it against other types of rap. Beyond that, he thought that my definition of "hardcore rap" didn't hold up because I liked plenty of stuff that occasionally had a woman singing somewhere, or had choruses, or recognizable samples. He was able to come up with examples that were exceptions to my general rules. I argued that even in those cases, the recognizable samples were used in an original way (such as Gang Starr using Total on the song "Discipline"), and the singing was used more as a sample, as opposed to a melodic, singalong chorus (think the "One More Chance" remix again with Total - a huge hit).

I claimed that Puffy was ruining real rap because he dumbed it down by mixing samples from popular disco songs, and singalong choruses, with raps in between. This sort of thing was getting to be very popular. My concern was that the labels would figure out that this bastardized version of rap sells, and either coerce their hardcore acts to make their tracks more commercial, or simply drop them.

This turned out to be true for the most part. All of the classic hardcore acts tried to go soft and commercial. Nas made one of the best rap albums ever (Illmatic), then spent the next eight years ruining his reputation with one shitty album after the next (including collaborating with Puffy). Then Jay-Z came along to further water down the rap pool by keeping it only slightly hardcore, but making his record very commercial friendly. Once Missy, Timbaland, and Jermaine Dupri came in, the hardcore rap scene was doomed.

Over the next several years, nearly ALL of the best acts either sold out, got out of the game, or were dropped by their labels. I guess some also died (Big L, Big Punisher) or broke up (A Tribe Called Quest). The list of rap acts that fell victim to commercial rap basically reads like... well, its my cd shelf: Heltah Skeltah, AZ, Sadat X, Showbiz & AG, OC, Nas, Mobb Deep, Smif-N-Wessun, and on and on. They all fell victim to the great Puffy, and his evil spawn.

What's a good analogy for any regular white people that may be reading? Imagine, if somewhere in the late 60s, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, and Led Zeppelin all disappeared.

The only hardcore (real) rap left is a vestige of the old days. The Wu-Tang Clan and it affiliates have lost some luster, but they're still out there in a variety of guises still putting out the hardcore shit. DJ Premier and Gang Starr stayed hardcore all the way through. Common Sense (or Common as he is now known) has been consistent. Black Moon had a second coming. Then some newer acts like Mos Def, Jurassic 5, J-Live, and Talib Kweli came along to keep hope alive. And of course, I'd be amiss if I didn't recognize Eminem's brilliance as a rapper and lyricist.

I think the labels that keep these low-selling acts around do it for prestige. Sort of like Warner Bros/Reprise keeping Neil Young. None of the acts I mentioned sell more than 100,000 units at best. But thats what we have now.

I think I was ultimately very correct with my misgivings about Puffy back in 1997, even if my definition of "hardcore" had some flaws. Look what comes out now. Look what is popular now. Tell me who was correct to be concerned!


One day about six 'o clock I'm woke up
By the sound of my buzzer and a car or a truck
Screechin' off, so I jump up, scratch my nuts
But when I'm like "Who's that?" nobody speaks up
So I go to the door there's a note it says:
"We have Hip-Hop hostage with guns to his throat,
Do the right thing and we might let him go,
But if you call the police, that's all she wrote
You know what the motive is, it's all about dough
And in case ya think we bullshittin' here's the photo."
I couldn't recognize the clows because they was all hooded down
But I peeped Foxy Brown sippin' Cristal in the background
With fake alligator boots on
And smack dab in the middle was hip-hop with a Versace suit on
I immediately called Primo
I said "Hip-Hop is in trouble, meet me at my rest on the double
Don't even jump in the shower, matta'fact scratch my rest
Meet me and D & D in an half an hour
And bring all ya shit wit' you cuz you know what we got to do."
Yo Afu! (Whassup?) Lets jet-son like Elroy
If I recall correctly I last saw hip-hop down at Bad Boy
We'll see if Puff knows whassup
Cuz he's the one gettin' him drunk and f**kin' his mind up
We go to the office, he's nowhere to be found
So we snatch up Jay Black and beat his bitch ass down
"Now where's Hip-Hop?!" "Aaight, aaight..." he confessed:
"Suge came and took him from Puff last night,
He said he'd give him up if a real nigga came to retrieve 'em..."
So we went to L.A. later that evenin'
When we got there, everything was aaight
And we brought Hip-Hop back home that night.
ONE DAY... - Jeru The Damaja, 1997

Okay, liberals probably AREN'T the niggers of the world, just U.S. politics. Anyway... President Eisenhower once claimed himself to be a Liberal. But now people run away from the word. Well now, I'm going to take the word back from those who have smeared it for the past 40 years.

I gave this some thought. I was trying to come up with a word that was like "liberal", but not quite. Sort of like how black people reclaimed "nigger" but subverted it into "nigga". I couldn't come up with anything. "Libra" doesn't work for a variety of reasons. And of course, we can't steal "nigga", although that would be the expected thing for a decent white person to do. So, "liberal" it is.

I think the analogy is accurate even if the symbolic meaning of the two words is quite different. For instance, when whitey wants to dismiss a black person or a group of black people, he just calls them "niggers". Well, that solves that. Why are they poor? They're niggers of course! Why do they commit crime? Its just those darned niggers. Why are they better at every sport than other races? Those damn niggers sure can run! Must've been all that time running around in Africa.

The term "nigger" has more symbolic resonance than "liberal", of course. White people never used "nigger" kindly. Although, they did use it matter of factly, which didn't necessarily mean it was an insult, just a label. But what with slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, etc... the word has a HUGE loaded meaning. It was a word used by Whites to label black people and individual persons as "things", as opposed to humans.

But see, anyone that disagrees with a conservative is called a "liberal". And the usage is the same. The intent is the same. The point is to dismiss a person or idea or philosophy with the use of a label. For instance, I really think that government should be involved in helping the poor. Damn liberal. I think that a fair progressive tax system is more important than a regressive tax structure that favors certain people much more than others. Fucking liberals. You stupid "libtards" are ruining OUR country! I respect the United Nations. You liberals are giving up our freedom to the French (another word that is quickly becoming a pejorative term).

I think that where the word, "liberal" once meant a general preference for progressive public policy such as decreasing inequality among social classes and race, decreasing discrimination on any basis, and providing as level an economic "playing field" as possible for everyone (even if it meant higher taxes). These general principles were exactly those that made Eisenhower refer to himself as a liberal. Sometimes the policies that arose from those principles had unintended consequences. Some worked better than others. But we have Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Workplace Safety rules, some Environmental Regulation (Nixon helped with that), and Medicaid because of "liberal" ideas and thinkers, and most people think its for the better. And most poor people receiving assistance are glad to have it (and don't receive it for long, by the way). It wasn't the poor out screaming about welfare. It was rich white guys that had the problem.

But now that we've endured 40 years of accusations that "liberals" are responsible for everything that is wrong with this country, and nothing that is good, is it any wonder that politicians run away from this label? Well, I say that if you think you ARE a liberal, then start making rap songs with the word. Start to refer to your friends as "my liberal" or "you my liberal", etc...

Note: The title of this post was LIBERALLY appropriated from the title of a John Lennon song "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World", itself based on a poem by Yoko Ono.

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." - Mark Twain

I became "politically aware" somewhere between 1988-1992. This means that beyond considering myself a Democrat, I became more knowledgeable about the political process, how the three branches of our government work and interact, and why I was deliberately choosing my political party affiliation, as opposed to inheriting it. In addition, I started to tune into political debate and talk. I was around 20 or so at the time.

Somewhere around 1992 or 1993, I became aware of the "Conservative Movement". Up until then, I didn't realize that NOT EVERYONE hated Reagan and Bush. Well, I was wrong. Very wrong.

I shouldn't have been surprised. Obviously, these guys won some electios. So SOMEBODY had to like them. What did surprise me was that a new Conservative breed had developed, and they were mean sons of bitches, and they didn't give a shit who they pissed off. In addition, they seemed to have very rigidly held opinions about economic policy (supply side), social welfare (againt all of it), and foreign policy (convert them, or kill them and let GOD sort them out).

I spent the summer of 1992 cleaning hotel rooms, and I was able to listen to the radio while I cleaned rooms. However, the only station I could receive was KDKA, which played Rush Limbaugh from 12-3 every weekday. So during the election year of 1992, I got full dose of the Conservative mentality from the high priest himself. At the time, I found Limbaugh to be fairly entaining, and not so much of a tool for the Republican party, that I had a problem with him. I considered my experience listening to Limbaugh as part of my education. In hindsight, he was probably a complete tool then, as he is now.

I first encountered actual conservative young people in my Political Science class. And lo and behold, they all sounded like "little Rush's". In my college courses, I was actually exposed to my peers talking about "feminazis" and "welfare queens" and "liberals". Some of the work in these courses was supposed to be collaborative. Unfortunately, I found this to be almost impossible. I considered that *I* was the one with the problem, but it seemed like compromises weren't possible with my conservative Republican peers. In fact, any suggestions that were contrary to their Rush-speak, ditto-head speak, could and did result in a fair amount of vitriol headed in my direction. Apparently, for these people Political Science college courses were their opportunities to play "Crossfire-Junior" Ultimately, these little projects were failures.

Now for my point

My experience in school was unfortunately not isolated. What I found as I've moved through the last dozen or so years, is that there are A LOT of conservative people out there. And most of them don't know much beyond Rush. Sometimes, if I'm lucky, I'll come across a George Will conservative. Thats pretty rare though.

What I thought differentiated Conservatives from non-Conservatives was that they were ANGRY. And, they didn't want to hear other opinions. I can't honestly say how many Democrats or Liberals this would also apply to, but I suspect its a lot less. Those evil "Liberals" just seem to be more inquisitive.

At this point, I won't discuss a political issue with someone that tosses around labels and names. I'll discuss an issue with someone only on the condition that we put it on the table, remove the labels, and simply discuss the merits of the issue, or the pros and cons of a particular public policy position. I find that if people remove themselves from their agenda, cause, favorite politician or writer, etc... and simply discuss an issue, it can be fairly enlightening. But let me tell you, this hardly EVER happens. Most people just can't do it without erupting in anger.

Its a shame really. But I'm pretty sure that this mentality cuts to the core of the divisiveness in this country. We don't discuss issues, or even think about issues with an open, honest mind. I don't claim to always do this myself. I have always maintained that I'd vote for anyone that made sense. And I HAVE voted for the opposite party in certain cases.

I'm not sure who is to blame. I can't actually blame Rush Limbaugh. Nor his followers. I think these broadcasters (Drudge, Savage, Hannity, etc...) have a simbiotic relationship with an audience that had a need to be fulfilled. So, I'm simply not sure what has caused the divisiveness (although I have my suspicisions). American politics is a football game now. Opinions on important political issues come down to having loyalty for the your team. For too many people, its all about one's ego-investment. And the current political climate, as well as media-culture plays to this tendency. Maybe its always been that way, but it certainly seems like a betrayal of one's civic duty at the very least.

I had no idea that today's posting would be my most popular yet. 21 comments and counting. Wow. And there is so much hate. How did we get this horrible horrible place? Why are we all at each other's throats? I blame Lincoln! He should've let the South go. Then we wouldn't be in this mess! Here are all of the comments in their unedited glorious entirety:



I'm already on pills, look what a childhood under Maggie Thatcher did to me!!!
Glampers | 10/18/04 - 12:19 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, y'know whomever wins in Nov. is stuck with Iraq - meaning, we'll have another 2nd term Johnson. The best thing for the Democrats would be a Bush victory and for Repubs, a Kerry victory. So why am I voting for Kerry? I don't want the mark of the beast that will come with a Bush vote.
Obama 2012! It's our only hope!
Thanasimos D | 10/18/04 - 12:21 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of course pills are always fun...
the D that kills | 10/18/04 - 12:22 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although Bush's re-election is by far not a lock, the recent polls do give me hope.
My suggestions for you and your liberal buddies:
1. quit whining and hoping to get someone elected because everybody hates the other guy. Kerry is a nobody. I think his biggest plus is that he hasn't done enough to piss anyone off.
2. spend some time getting a better candidate next time. (Hillary is a dead loser) Frist as a MD will be tough to beat because he will likely get a lock on the senior vote, which is ever more important.
na | 10/18/04 - 12:45 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Pick your issues and stick to them. I think you guys could gain a lot of bi-partisan support by attacking some specific parts of the patriot act. In order to do this, your party will have to start preaching a little more about self reliance. There are plenty of republicans that hate "We're the government and we're here to help"
4. Take whatever money you got from Bush's tax cuts and donate it all to a local charity that you believe in.
5. move to Europe for 4 years and see the caste system that the socialism most of you profess gets you.
6. Start a business, hire workers for less than they were making at the job Bush took away from them, take advantage of all the tax loopholes, and donate all of your profits that you get via price gouging to a local charity you believe in.
7. Give a homosexual $20 to help pay the health insurance for their partner.
.
na | 10/18/04 - 12:45 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Go back to school for some sort of bio-engineering. Best case, you become a billionaire by curing something, worst case, you help balance a current market inefficiency
na | 10/18/04 - 12:45 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARK OF THE BEAST!!!! Anymore I think we should all just vote for Bush, not because we want evil to reign in blood, but because we are all just ants in the hailstorm after all, powerless to change neo-nazi rising monster that is Bush-Cheney.
I keep thinking of joining the army, something half of me always thought I'd be good at. . .but that's the white half and look where he's gotten me so far.
misterstone | 10/18/04 - 12:47 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GODDAMNIT!! HOW DID NA SNEAK BACK IN LIKE THAT! I SWEAR THERE WAS NOTHING BEFORE I HIT 'OK' AND SUDDENLY THERE ARE TO NA COMMENTS. "LIBERAL BUDDIES?"

Jesus, na, what is it with you and all you fucking republichristians. You know that 'liberal' is only an insult to you assholes, right? To all of us with BRAINS and FEELINGS, it is just a fucking word. Do yourself a favor, move away. Not to another country or city, no find a way to move back in time to NAZI GERMANY and stay there, eating poop and whacking Jews and doing what the hell ever fascist fucks like you enjoy.
K?
misterstone | 10/18/04 - 12:49 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I was interested in "eating poop and whacking jews" I wouldn't need a time machine. I could just move to Syria, Lebanon, etc. I could probably have your candidate set up a roundtable with the folks who engage in that kind of stuff today.
na | 10/18/04 - 12:55 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good lord. I go to lunch, and come back and find a firestorm. Or possibly.... a hailstorm.... a ha! Anyway, misterstone, "na" doesn't mean any harm. Seriously. He's an old pal from where I used to work. However, if someone had asked me if me back then if "na" and I agreed on much when it comes to politics or religion, I would've said "probably not". I never predicted that this is what it would look like though. Maybe I was wise to keep my trap shut on these topics while I was eating my Biggie Size fries.
Ant In A Hailstorm | 10/18/04 - 1:36 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Na, you really SHOULD drop the "liberal" label as some sort of put down for people who disagree with you on public or foreign policy. Its so "ditto-head". I mean, its just a silly thing to say.
Ant In A Hailstorm | 10/18/04 - 1:39 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine, but tell your old pally-wally to stop flinging the L word around as if it makes him and his 'people' special.
I realized I took a bigger bite outta him than I meant to, but I work with a shit-headed, auto-pilot loyal republichristian and am sick and tired of being told that liberals are the same as commies or whatever those narrow-minded God-oriented people have drugged themselves into thinking.
I do not apologize for my passion, but I will take it easy next time.
misterstone | 10/18/04 - 1:40 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I generally don't physically assault those that I disagree with, but you likely would have gotten an earful.
I don't think there were any attacks in my comments today, other than my attempt at satire. I'll try to keep them down now that I've been unveiled. (God, it is easy to get carried away with an anonymous voice)

The facist comments are a bit extreme in my opinion.
na | 10/18/04 - 1:44 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it just me, or is na a pure knob-jockey?!
Glampers
| 10/18/04 - 1:49 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As someone that usually agrees with Democrats and mod-Republicans, I think it would be wise for the Dems to consider WHY and HOW the conservative movement became so strong, while the Dems became stagnant. I plan on reading "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" (by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldrid) as soon as possible. Although I don't plan on hearing from the party chairman anytime soon.

The Democratic Party now, is much like the Republicans prior to Goldwater. They have ceded the larger debate on most social issues, taxes, foreign policy and fiscal policy (much as Republicans had to eat it on things like Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, abortion, etc... back in the 50s and 60s).

Democrats basically say "We're the same but not as much". Dems need a Goldwater to really shake things up. Howard Dean was probably that man. He would've lost in a landslide, given the Dems a huge wakeup call, and gone on to become "our Goldwater".
Ant In A Hailstorm | 10/18/04 - 1:55 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole political system is outta control, na. The mood in this country is very much like a gas can sitting next to a raging fire. As I said, I do not apologize for my passion, and also as I said, I realized after I commented that I was harder than I meant to be. BUT, you must understand, personally, that I am surrounded by people who seem to agree with you who are, in my opinion, INSANE.
Kerry is the better man.
Bush is a bad liar, a failed businessman, in bed with our enemies and working every day to bring us closer to the end of the world than I ever wanted to be.
Plus, stop calling people liberals, it makes you sound stupid.
I don't think you are a facist, only a republican.
misterstone | 10/18/04 - 1:56 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do we have any good lame-ass put downs for Republicans or Conservatives? The only one I can think of is "redneck".
Ant In A Hailstorm | 10/18/04 - 1:57 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about "hellbound douchebag" ?
misterstone | 10/18/04 - 2:04 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROTTING TORY CUNTS!
Glampers | 10/18/04 - 2:05 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with "republicans having to eat it" on civil rights. Have a look at what Eisenhower and "that evil bastard" nixon said, and more importantly did, about civil rights. It was the "Dixiecrats" that were the last hold out on civil rights issues.

As an aside, is there some kind of equivilence, moral or otherwise, between outsourcing and affirmative action? Why would evil corperations be unwilling to give a job to a minority, but so anxious to ship it to an unknown face somewhere on the other side of some ocean?
na | 10/18/04 - 2:33 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And on the social security issue:
read this: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view332.html#Monday
na | 10/18/04 - 2:44 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I think "conservatives" of both parties had to eat it on civil rights. The conservative dems who opposed civil rights either switched to Republican or died.
Ant In A Hailstorm | 10/18/04 - 3:41 pm

Attention all rapists, serial killers, liberals, sadists, Democrats, molesters, progressives, homosexuals, and future John Kerry voters!

Now that I have your attention, its time that we start coming to grips with a painful reality: George W. Bush is very likely to win this election. Most polls show the race as tied, or with Bush leading. If John Kerry wins, then he'll pull it out of his ass. He won't win because of mass popular support. So look people, we may very well be fucked!

For the last two years, we have really blown our wad. Did it every occur to us that Bush just might win? That all of our collective anger would not be enough to elect a new president? I mean, weren't we in denial the whole time?

Okay, its only October 18, and the polls are seemingly volatile, and events could drives this thing in any direction. The race is still close. And of course, "Kerry won the debates". But this shouldn't allow us to further descend into stupor.

So what follows now are some suggestions for how to live with another four more years of Bush.

Pills

When in Romen, etc, etc...

Be afraid

Move to another country (not Iraq)

Ignore all news. It doesn't matter anyway

For the love of all that is holy, stop reading anti-Bush books

Find some loose change and invest in Oil companies

Remember that people hated Nixon even more, and they survived (mostly)

Forget that those same people say Bush is worse

I guess thats all I can think of. I'm not trying to be funny people. We have a serious problem here. We've been running around thinking that Bush was going down, and really thinking it. And we WEREN'T prepared to lose. But now? Get ready to eat it. Or at least start to drool.

Perhaps after another four years like this, there may never be another Republican in a nationally elected office.

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 10/18/2004 09:28:32 AM

This post is dedicated to Dan

Apparently, I inadvertently smeared a good old friend of mine by saying "He was another one of those white guys that didn't think rap was "music". In a comment on my post Do Any Black People Read My Blog? he corrected my memory by stating that he liked Public Enemy prior to our meeting. I lumped him in with all the arrogant white asses (of which I was a member) that once thought "Rap isn't music. They copy other people's songs and can't even play an instrument". I actually made such a statement in 1989. Poor me.

However....

Now, that my memory has been slightly jogged back to 1995, what I DO remember is that I think my accused friend was allegedly one of those guys that only liked rap that had some sort of social importance (ala Public Enemy and A Tribe Called Quest), the "Condescending Rap Fan". And I believe THAT was a source of comment among us at the time. Although I can't be sure. But listen here you draft dodger, you KNOW you weren't the Full Rap Fanatic that Josh and I were at the time. Now, I think our band officially ended in the spring of 1996. And I moved out in the spring of 1997. I don't know when you started to see the light. If it was after 1997, then it was like getting into the Beatles in 1971. Too late, but still lots of good stuff to discover. But if it was before 1998, then you got in during the end of hey day of the rap renassaince. The Woodstock-era of rap. Okay, I'm taking the 60s analogy too far.

There was another guy I knew around that time, who was an adamant rap hater when I met him, a real "Just a bunch a black guys talking" kind of guy. He would mock rap by pulling out the lingo and poses of mid-80s b-boy rap. Clearly, he was unenlightened. I applied the pressure, and EVENTUALLY, he was hooked. I take full credit for THAT.

As for me, I'm plenty guilty. When I started college, I was completely ignorant of rap. What was I listening to then? The albums of the time, for me, were "Late For The Sky" and "The Pretender" by Jackson Browne; "Writer" by Carole King; "Legacy" by the reunited Poco; "Freedom" by Neil Young; Full Sail and Motherload by Loggins & Messina; Black Rose by J.D. Souther. I was exposed to N.W.A. and Public Enemy when going to college in North Philadelphia, but while listening to the music of mid-70s southern California. Rap scared me. Period. Shit like "Fear Of A Black Planet", "Criminal Minded" and "Straight Outta Compton" sounded like black people were fully planning to kill as many white people as possible. Well, thats what I thought at the time. My comment at the time was "This will never last. Rap is even in commercials now. Its days are numbered". In retrospect, I think rap WAS very angry-sounding in the late-80s/early 90s, moreso then than ever since.

I eventually moved from my "Rap Denial" phase, and into the "Rap Is Okay if it has a social message" phase, also known as the "Condescending Rap Fan" phase. Then I moved into "Rap Acceptance" when I realized that Dr. Dre's "Nothin' But A G Thang" has a killer bass line. That was it. Then I bought Dre, Snoop, and a couple hundred plus rap albums in the next three years.

Those three year just happened to be the finest years of rap, in my opinion. 1994-1997, with some overlap, were years when nearly every three months another nearly classic rap album would come out. The Wu-Tang Clan was brilliant, DJ Premier was putting out shit left and right. Death Row was still good. Nas put out the classic, "Illmatic". Boot Camp Clik, D.I.T.C., Busta Rhymes, Tribe. Brilliant stuff. Damn son...

Its all over now though. Most of those great rappers are without record labels now, living in shit hole apartments somewhere, cleaning toilets and working at convenience stores. Thanks a lot Puffy.

You can't hack the tactics
Of a semi automatic full rap fanatic
You can't hack the tactics
Of a semi automatic full rap fanatic

Apologies to Dan...

What else WOULD I say? DECISIVELY my ass!

I watched the Third Presidential Debate last night. And it was BORING... oh my god. It was terrible.

People can understand explosions and killing involved in botched foreign policy and terrorism threats. There is plenty of R-Rated thriller action in THOSE debates to keep us interested. But talk about economic policy (even at the most basic level, such as last night) and its a huge snoozefest.

Somewhere during the immigration question, I started thinking that Kerry was losing it. Not the debate, but simply his momentum and zeal. Which in 2004 means, the debate. Bush said all the same crap about Kerry voting 98 times for tax increases. This number included procedural votes, and votes on omnibus bills, but why let a good line stand in the way of the public's ignorance of how Congress works. What else? "Kennedy" is now the same as Saddam Hussein in Bush/Conservative/Evangelic world. Thats a good one. Kerry is too "liberal". Snore...

At any rate, Kerry also said all of the same stuff he usually says. He made a lot of misstatements too. But I really don't care too much about those. I mean, is "Bush" really responsible for ALL of the job losses? ALL of the increases in health care costs? Of course not. But I don't care. He IS responsible for all the deaths in Iraq, but thats another issue.

Anyway, I thought it was a tie, with a slight Bush edge. Kerry, lifelong public servant that he is, is too bogged down in specific details of domestic policy issue to be able to reduce them to comprehendable 2 minute sound chunks. Consequently, I though Bush did better in some cases, because he doesn't know much about policy details (aside from what he memorizes), and can consequently spit out simplistic comments about complicated public policy issues. (Yes, I said it). So I feared that Kerry was too "wonkish", while Bush was just Bush, which translated into a Bush win.

However, the polls suggested otherwise. It just goes to show how out of touch I am. The Gallup Poll showed 52-39% in favor of Kerry. So my instincts were way off.

So now we have 2 1/2 horrible weeks of campaign bullshit. I can't wait for it to be over.

What the hell is this shit???

Blogshares: Fantasy Blog Shares Market"?

How did I get listed in this? Can anybody tell me what the F this is?!

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this one.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that "blogs" are used by primarily white people. To narrow that down a bit, I'll suggest further that blogs are primarily the domain of 16-24 year old white kids. Or possibly, as my erstwhile friend JoshuaGabriel recently stated, "i've decide that blogs are for nerds". This would seem to imply with certainty that no black people read my site.

I find this state of affairs to be absolutely deplorable. There was a time when I actually used to know black people, and count some as my friends. Now? Forget it! I know only one black person, and she's the girl at the deli that makes my bagel in the morning and takes my order at lunch. We make small chit-chat, but nothing more.

So when I want to discuss Rakim, or the latest Ghostface album, I have no one. I listen to rap all alone, in my car. I've been listening to D.I.T.C, Boot Camp, Mobb Deep, Wu-Tang, EPMD, and a lot of other stuff lately. And sometimes I feel compelled to get on this site and write about mid-90s Wu-Tang was as good as the Beatles. But what's the point? No one that reads this site knows who any of those guys are!

So, if you are black, please say it loud and be proud. Let me know if you are black, so I can occasionally direct my messages to YOU!

I think I should make this page look like a real news source, so I can trick any hapless readers into believing that this is a credible news source like Fox News.

The comment, Facts Are Stupid Things, is something Ronald Reagan actually said. Do you, my pathetic readers, need for me to give you the context of this comment? Or will you simply take my word for it, that he said it?

Do YOU, my gullible fellow blog readers and writers, require me to tell you when I am attempting to tell you a "fact"? As opposed to when I am giving an "opinion"? Or some other possible non-fact. I could make up new HTML tags for such things, and submit them to the World Wide Web Consortium I suppose. How about this:

<fact>George W. Bush made $84 in 2001 from his part owenship of a "timber company"</fact>

Then all of you will know with certainty that I have presented information that I consider to be a "fact". On the other hand, when I present an opinion, I could do the following:

<opinion>George W. Bush's tax policies for small businesses are bullshit. And you can take that to the bank</opinion>

So that should clarify that I just stated an opinion. However, there is always the problem that some of you may not realize when I'm making a broad over-generalization, which is probably true, or may have some truth, but for which I haven't provided reference. So I could always do the following for you folks:

<Possibly False>George W. Bush only recently found out that the Iraqi people consisted of four different groups of Muslims</Possibly False>.

Now that way, all you ignorant rubes will know that you better bring up Google and check for yourself to see if the reference is true. Or possibly check The Urban Legends Reference Page to see if I'm simply repeating some blatantly untrue garbage. Otherwise, you could run around quoting something that is possibly false about our otherwise knowledgeable President.

Should there be a sarcasm tag too?

There is still another area where there could be confusion. Sometimes I say things quite quickly, and off-handed because this is a stupid blog that I use to keep creative writing skills in-tact, and not a term paper, a thesis, a newspaper, or a scientific journal. How can I let you all know when I'm writing in blog shorthand? How about this?

<blogshit>If George W. Bush wins the election, after making a bone-headed decision that has resulted in the deaths of over 10,000 innocent Iraqi human beings, and nearly 1,100 American soldiers, then that is proof that either God does not exist, or he's one sick SOB.</blogshit>.

Hopefully that will clear up statements I make that are not meant to be taken ABSOLUTELY seriously.

Of course, there is always the possibility that I could say something very inflammatory. Especially, after watching a campaign ad, or right after a debate. I such cases, I will submit another another new tag to the World Wide Web Consortium:

<CrazyAssLies>George W. Bush snorted coke until 1988, and even in the White House. He also had tons of filthy sex with prostitutes while he was drunk off of his ass, but unlike Bill Clinton, Bush had a father who knew that these whores had to be killed so they wouldn't later make rape accusations, so while he was in charge of the CIA, George H.W. Bush had all of his son's hookers killed. </CrazyAssLies>.

Now that should clarify everything for all of you people who have problems determining when I'm stating what I think are "facts", and basically everything else. <lie>For now on</lie>, I'll try to use these tags, so that you people will all know when to consult Google, or factcheck.com, er... I mean, factcheck.org, and there won't be any confusion.

So, what about that Ronald Reagan quote then? Yes, he said it at the 1988 Republican Convention, and it was apparently a misstatment based on something John Adams said. Innocent enough, eh?

I really wish I could take credit for the picture at the left. Thats some funny shit. Nothing like a well-placed phrase next to 1950s commercial art. It doesn't really apply to this post, but what the hell?

Some of my regular readers - I think there are about three or four (you know who you are), may have noticed that I got sucked into another debate with my old protagonist "na". "na" started leaving messages for me last December, I believe. I'd know for sure but I lost all of my old messages. Poor me. At any rate, he (I assume "na" is a he, I don't know why) stops by every so often to post frequently irritating, often insulting, and occasionally insightful comments to my various witty, yet arrogant postings.

For the life of me, I have no idea why "na" posts here. I think he's a Christian, and probably a Republican. But you can never be sure of anything on the "internet". Of course, my posts are neither Republican nor Christian. They are more like "Republica-rrific" or "Christastic" or perhaps "Christaphrophes". Uh, anyway... I can't figure out who he is, or why someone with such different opinions cares to read this stuff, let alone leave comments. I mean, who cares? Right?!

If "na" is real, and not just some put on, then I might like to discuss the various topics he brings up in his comments. On the other hand, our respective opinions seem to start from radically different places, that I think finding common ground would be very difficult. For instance, if I were a Muslim, there would be little point in trying to persuade me to not be. I'd have a completely different worldview. And that is the case here. We have completely different worldviews. Consequently, we have engaged in at least four series of extented cross-talk arguments that settled nothing, and enlightened neither of us. Although, I was really hoping HE'D win the "Does God Exist?" debate. Oh well...

Oh yeah, my point. My point is this: Mr "na", please direct me to your blog. Why? Because I'm at an disadvantage. Granted, I created this blog, and I choose what to post. What more, I post a lot of personal stuff. Well, some personal stuff. Consequently, I've left a lot of terrain open to attack. I'm like America before 9/11. I leave myself vulnerable on this site to any attack. Actually, I'm a lot like America AFTER 9/11. Thank you, Department of Homeland Security! Anyway, since you, more than anyone else, "na", have chosen to debate my positions, assertions, and bullshit ad naseum, I want something in return. "Quid Pro Quo", to quote Mr. Lecter. I want to know where your blog is, so I can start reading YOUR musings in depth, and commenting on a whim. Then I will have some sense of where you are coming from, and what you're all about. Until then, I'm going have to try to refrain myself from responding to your comments.

How is THAT for a threat?

More hilarious rebuttals:

1. IQ is more than just potential. In theory (again, I'm not sure how big a believer in it I am) it should certainly allow W to "be able to use critical thinking and apply rigorous analysis and question the information".

His actual IQ may be good enough, but he isn't using whatever abilities he may have very well. At least not as president, and not in public.

2. I am actually a big fan of O'Neil, but there was a fundamental disagreement between the President and O'Neil on deficit spending. Clark has been discredited as a politically and book-sale driven hack. I haven't read Woodwards book, but when I do catch him on the tube, he seems careful to not under rate the President's intelligence, but describe the way he forces things in a general direction he has already chosen. At any rate, for a man who believes in "science", you seem to lend a lot of credibility to anecdotal evidence, at least when it suits you

O'Neil: He and Greenspan were both in line. The President didn't have an opinion on deficit spending you silly goose. Cheney, Lindsey and Rove told him his opinion. Thats the problem.

Clark: He hasn't been discredited. I don't know if you read his book, but only about a quarter of it deals with his Bush years. Most of the book is a history of counterterrorism of the last 25 years, particularly his role in it. He was critical of the administration's approach to terrorism and wrote about it. Thus, he must be smeared. I think it suits you to see Clark as "discredited", especially when the only sources trying to discredit him were conservative talk show hosts and Bush administration officials. How about an independent source? The 9/11 Commission perhaps? My guess is that Clark has mixed motivations for writing the book, but that doesn't mean that ALL (or any) of the content was false.

As for Woodward, it is true that he is careful to not underestimate Bush as a politician, but that doesn't say much about him intellectually. And even his political skills belong to Karl Rove and Karen Hughes.

As a side note: I don't personally know Bush. I haven't met any of his advisors, nor have I attended any policy discussions in the White House. And unless you are Dick Cheney, then neither have you. So we are all sifting through the immense volume of rhetoric, news, books, spin, etc..., then picking and choosing what seems most probable. Its all anecdotal out here!

3. You, and many liberal thinking people, are fond of the phrase "lack of intellectual curiosity". I submit that at some level, purposeful is the same as "intellectually incurious".


Bush can be "Purposeful". Its doubtful that any effective leader does not have a sense of purpose. What his administration does, however, is have "principles", then they look for any supporting evidence. And if they don't find any, they... make it up(?).

UPDATE
Even more stuff....

1. This all started when I challenged your assertion that Bush was "average or below-average intelligence". If I can take your joking about it this morning (eastern establishment elite) as ceding the point ok, but I'm not sure you've ceded the matter of fact that George W. Bush is very much above average in intelligence. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "he isn't using it". The best explanation for that statement I can come up with is "He doesn't agree with me, so he must be stupid, or at least acting stupidly".

Actually my joking about being "eastern establishment elite", was a parody of the way "liberals" are typically dismissed. I DO concede that according to most measures of "intelligence" Bush is not below average. I do think he is AVERAGE. I don't think average is good enough for the position he holds. As for not agreeing with me, I don't agree with a lot of people, but not because they're "stupid". But when you listen to individuals like William Safire, George Will, Jack Kemp, or William Rudman, you hear people with reasoned arguments based on interpretation of factual information. They aren't stupid, but I DO usually disagree with them.

2. a) Greenspan believes it too! Great discussion on the merits.

Okay, don't be a smart-ass. This is a blog for chrissake! I used Greenspan as an example of someone that is generally agreed to be a fiscally wise man by members of both political parties. I'm not going to argue against supply-side economics, or the against the virtues of deficit-spending here. I'm not writing a term paper. I'm also not dictating economic policy. If I was, however, I'd spend at least a little time familiarizing myself with progressive and regressive tax strategies, the history of different types of taxation, when one policy works and the other doesn't and vice-versa. And I'd certainly have at least a few questions for experts in those topics.

b) I haven't read the book, but the railing he did in it seems to contradict his sworn testimony to congress and the 911 commission.

I did read the book, liberal that I am. And I can assure you that he did very little "railing". As I mentioned before, it was mostly historical. Very little time was spent on the second Bush administration. And his main observations were that 1) Anything Clinton did was bad, including counterterrorism policy and including former staffers 2) His concerns were being ignored 3) Invading Iraq was the goal, both pre and post 9/11. 4) The administration has incurred more wrath among radical Muslims as a result of invading Iraq than existed before.

3. The President's actions (all president's, not just bush) are based upon his principles. I infer from your response that your candidate Kerry simply has no principles.

Uh... okay. Kerry has stated his "principles" many times. Go to web page to see what they are if you don't know. Bush surely has them too. The problem is that his his principles as they apply to public policy are uninformed. Or, at least not fully formed. Bush said "I don't do nuance". But life is nuance. Not for the Bush administration, however.

Republicans are funny, but they are also, at least sometimes, right

They aren't funny in a good way. Beyond that, we'll see.

My latest posting on whether a common man can be president yeilded some commentary about my assertion that President Bush is of "average or below average intelligence". I'm going to stand by that comment for the most part because I'm an Eastern Establisment elitist, and consider even "average" to be "below average". Nonetheless, I'm going to address the main point my erstwhile protagonist "n/a" had presented me with. First, lets hear from "n/a":

You put forth as fact the bush is of average or below average intelligence. Please provide some sort of evidence for this assertion. The only reference I know of is a comment I remember Orin Hatch making on Meet the Press that there were a lot of people that would have been happy to have the President's 1200 SAT score. Back in those days (i.e. before the liberals gave us outcome based education) SAT score was correlated to IQ. Score one for the good guys (that's me) I did a google and came up with the following: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010622.html 88th percentile is actually below mine, but hardly average or below.

a little more digging yielded this: http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html. This puts W's 1206 at 129-130 IQ. Which is 2 standard deviations above average. Not Einstein, but certainly not average or below.There is certainly room for rational people to disagree with decisions the president made, but some of the things you say are just plain out there. BTW, please don't come back with some esteemed intellectuals estimation of historical figure's IQ's, I find them silly. We can certainly debate the validity of IQ, and to be honest I'm not sure how much I buy into it.

I don't have time to go and check now, but Bush's IQ is probly about 120-125. I think the chart in my second link isn't the right one for the time period Bush took his tests.

Okay...
IQ is mostly a reflections of one's potential. And I'm willing to concede that his IQ could be as high as you say (Stuttering John's IQ is 160, by the way). What you do with that IQ is another matter.

Unless you are willing to dismiss all of the books and comments by people who worked for the man, or researched the inner workings of the administration (O'Neill, Clarke and Woodward to name the top three), then at some level you are going to have to admit that he lacks intellectual curiosity, doesn't show any interest in learning about the policy matters he must deal with every day, looks for information which supports his already formed "beliefs" on a topic - while dismissing everything else, and beyond that simply cannot communicate very well (admittedly, not in spontaneous public settings such as press conferences and debates, but much better when EXTREMELY rehearsed, or in casual settings).

I consider this "average or below". He may have the IQ potential to at least apply some effort at understanding or questioning the information he receives from his advisors. He may have the IQ potential to actually comprehend the alternatives, then come to a reasoned decision. But if he does, he isn't using that IQ. Fault me for the "below average" assertion, if you must. But I don't want a man of "average" intellect serving as my president, if this "average" President's performance is any indication of what a President of "average" intelligence can do.

This post is a direct response to comments on my endorsement of John Kerry. My important endorsement of John Kerry, that is.

I received the following comments from frequent readers:

"I still haven't decided and I still think they both suck. They are both elitist and it just bothers me that this country can never be run by the common man. "

"A common man can not and, in my opinion, should not hold the title of COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. That job, like many, boils down to "Are you willing to kill people? And if so, which ones?" I am a common man and could not make such a choice. "

My experience in political science, admittedly 10 years ago, has taught me that among other things, the presidency as we now know it is far different than originally envisioned. The original idea was that the houses of congress would be far more powerful that the executive branch. I urge anyone curious to read Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution to see the orginal responsibilities of the president.

Various presidents over the past 212 years have taken the powers originally invested in the office of the executive and expanded them significantly. I think of the following presidents:

Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

Theodore Roosevelt's use of the presidency as Bully Pulpit, a forum for setting a national agenda. That was the first step to getting us where we are now.

Woodrow Wilson's advancement of The League Of Nations, which was ultimately not ratified by the US Congress, but nevertheless set a precedent for what became the United Nations, and the US's role in international politics.

Franklin Roosevelt's four terms in office, including his successful expansion of the role of the federal government, and execution of World War II. These days, we cannot grasp it, but FDR was a larger than life figure whose passing was deeply mourned.

Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton: The best TV era president's. These three presidents more than any others cemented the role of the president as celebrity, as well as chief executive. This singular focus on the president has given the office unprecedented power, never anticipated by the original Constitution. Television and large media in general has taken Roosevelts "Bully Pulpit" premise, and multiplied many times over. Consider that George W. Bush didn't win the popular vote, and ultimately was allowed to win Florida by 594 votes, but still pushed through $10 trillion in tax cuts, and greatly advanced the most ideological agenda ever attempted. For the most part, aside from Democratic filibusters, Congress gave Bush free reign. That is the power of the modern day bully pulpit.

Most of our presidents, no matter who they have been, were "common". In terms of coming from mediocre beginnings, again there have been very few. Truman was a farmer, and didn't go to college. However, certainly Truman was the most common man to ever order military action that would kill hundreds of thousands of people. But he was far from ignorant. Grant was the son of an Ohio tanner. Carter was a peanut farmer. And Lincoln certainly had humble origins. Of course, Clinton was dirt poor. He elevated himself based solely on his intelligence, and native political skills. But lets face it, most of our presidents, right from the beginning came from wealthy families that could afford to send their sons to the best colleges to get the best educations, and become lawyers, and attain other prominent positions.

So now let me justify why this should be the case. First, the requirements of the job are such that the president must be a very intelligent man in order to a good job. This doesn't REQUIRE great education, but it usually helps. Some presidents (Eisenhower, Reagan, both Bushes) choose to surround themselves with experts, as opposed to trying to do it all, or most of it, themselves (Carter, Clinton). This is a leadership style all presidents must make, both of which have good and bad points. However, even the president that heavily delegates, must have the ability to sift through the advice of his advisors, seek alternatives, and make decisions based on as much good information as possible.

Unfortunately, to be truly skilled at such things, you have to be very well educated. And in order to be very educated, you usually must be very wealthy. Now, if you have those assets, you are potentially in a position to seek political office because wealth attracts wealth, and you can get the funding to mount a campaign for a political office. I honestly do not know if there is any way that this system can be constructed so the wealthy do not effectively rule the poor. There is more opportunity for less well-to-do individuals to hold political office at the local level, but the Federal level is pretty much off-limits. Nonetheless, I don't think we can dismiss the our privileged leaders, simply because of their privilege. Dismiss them because of their policies, their strengths and weaknesses, but not their backgrounds.

Our current president is a man of average or below average intelligence who became president precisely because of his wealthly connections. No one would've plucked out George W. Bush for governor of Texas, or president, had it not been for his pedigree. Unfortunately, this president's extreme intellectual medicrity, has forced him to overly rely on his advisors and make poor (or simply uninformed) decisions. I say he was "forced" to rely on his advisors. My guess is that the man's lack of intellectual breadth made him unable to be the kind of fact gatherer that a true "delegator president" must be. This type of president doesn't have to be a genius, but he must be able to use critical thinking and apply rigorous analysis and question the information. Bush can't do those things. And yes, John Kerry can.

Is John Kerry privileged? Of course. He is also an intelligent, well-reasoned man, with ideas of his own, and an ability to made decisions on complicated matters based on facts that he actually understands.

Privilege and wealth don't automatically equal corruption and elitism. They frequently do, but not always. And I think John Kerry is someone that is both wealthy, and well-meaning and intelligent. And that is what I want in a president.

Everyone has been waiting for this important, and totally unexpected endorsement. So here it is!

Yes, as you can guess from the picture of Senator John Kerry chomping down on a tasty hoagie, I'm endorsing John Kerry.

Really, there was no way I'd be endorsing Bush. Right? I mean, c'mon?! But I could choose to sit it out too, and I'm not going to do that. I can do better. I am taking one consistent stand and endorsing John Kerry.

Okay, he really wasn't my first choice. I liked that crazy Wes Clarke. He just seemed like a real looney, and I could just tell how much he hated Bush.

At first, I was fairly indifferent about John Kerry. For one thing, I had never really clarified for myself the difference between John Kerry and Bob Kerrey. Y'know? Both were senators. Both were in Vietnam. Same name, sort of.

But now, especially after the debate on September 30, I actually like the guy. He was smart, disciplined, and went after Bush. Of course, I'd really like to see Kerry ATTACK Bush hard. But he can't destroy Bush because people would feel sorry for the guy, the President... ugh...

So, yes, I like Kerry. I WANT him to win. I don't just want Bush to lose. I will now state some reasons why I actually WANT Kerry to win:

Kerry is intelligent, well-reasoned, and thorough.

Kerry support labor rights.

Kerry is an advocate of fiscal discipline.

Kerry would allow federal funding of Stem Cell research.

Kerry would be a better president for the environment.

Kerry is a more respectable man, and would thus, be more likely to have world support.

Kerry's head looks like a cereal box.

Kerry would nominate moderate/liberal judges.

Kerry would not support funding of missile defense.

After 30 years in public life, including 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry has something to offer to the U.S Presidency.

I won't mention all of the reason why I DON'T want Bush to win. I've discussed those issues elsewhere. However, I think the following Bush soundbite neatly captures at least two-thirds of my problems with the man: We Got An Issue In America. Yes, we most certainly "got" an issue. This book and THIS book cover nearly all of the remaining 1/3 of the reasons why I don't want Bush for another four years.

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 10/04/2004 02:34:50 PM

I fully intended to write about "Smile" in my next post. I really did.

I'm not going to write a capsule history of "Smile", the legendary "lost" album from 1967. Every review of "Smile" has a capsule history that explains various aspects of it. For anyone is curious, The Smile Shop has a good FAQ that hits the main points.

So, what I'm about to do is give my opinions about Smile an album released by Brian Wilson in 2004.

Instead of snippets of recordings from 1966-67, individually released songs taken out of context, and bootlegs, there is now an officially sanctioned "Smile" release, with all the songs, themes, snippets, and weird noises presented as a finished piece.

Quite frankly, I don't feel the way I wish I felt. I like it because its "Smile". I like the songs because they're by Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks. But there is something inauthentic about this finished Smile. If you look at the 2004 project on the surface, it has one main point in its favor: The songs were and still are good, if not great, if not the greatest pop songs every written. Not in its favor are: 1) The project as originally envisioned 37 years ago was abandoned and its execution now is in the hands of outsiders (one of whom might be Brian, himself), 2) Brian's voice just isn't what it was when he was 24, and I think much of the grandeur of Smile rested on his singing (the "cantina" section, the falsetto vocals on the original "Wonderful", and of course, "columnated ruins domino"), 3) All new recordings were made with new players and new technology (mostly), 4) These songs sounded better sung by the Beach Boys.

So, the end product is necessarily compromised. Given what it turned out to be in 2004, it would've been hailed as one of the greatest pop achievements ever in 1967, had it been completed. It might have been considered "better" than "Sgt. Pepper", even if it didn't sell as much or wasn't as commercial. It would not have been the major musical event that The Beatles' release seemed to be. But... it would've been recognized as a major work.

Okay, okay... so what ABOUT the Smile of 2004? Hey, it IS great. Its "Smile" for Chrissake! Some of it sounds inauthentic, but that makes sense since "Smile" had never been complete, so there is new stuff. The musical reproductions are virtual replications of the 66-67 arrangements. Some of the new lyrics are surprising and disorienting because so many of the "Smile" fragments were instrumentals. If I had never heard any of these songs in any other contexts (including releases on Beach Boys albums, bootlegs, and various "Smile" reconstructions), then I would probably be blown away. It would probably be similar to the feelings I had when I first heard Hawaii by The High Llamas, which of course, would not exist if there had been no incomplete "Smile".

Ideally, for me, Smile 2004 would've used what was available from the sixties, including the completed tracks and whatever vocals existed. Then the completed work could've been finished around what existed. Maybe some of the new Brian vocals would've been a bit incongruous with the 24 year old Brian vocals, but judging by what I hear on "2004", the newly added vocals would've sounded okay.

So in conclusion, had "Smile" been scrapped completely in 1967, with no bootlegs, and no snippets or pieces or songs coming out on Beach Boys albums, this 2004 "Smile" would be the crowning achievement of Brian Wilson's career; vindication of his original musical vision. As it is, it's brilliant. However, with so much history, time, and circumstances its a compromised piece of work. One which I'll enjoy immensely nonetheless.