Nixon-Agnew 2008

From Bill Ayers' column on being smeared by the McCainiacs;
The police lieutenant who came to copy down those threats deadpanned that he hoped the guy who was going to shoot me got there before the guy who was going to water-board me, since it would be most foul to be tortured and then shot.

And wow, reading that, it makes me want to pal around with both Ayers and the cop who said it. But the whole attack on Ayers was absurd and I'm glad he has a sense of humor about the whole thing. And for as much as the attacks were vile, they were idiotic for the very reasons Ayers pointed out. The 60's are over. For a lot of people, the 60's are nothing but a mythical creation of the past. But they don't hold a real bond or message anymore. Even for the people who were there, it was forty years ago. Focusing on the events of 1968 to guide us is like people in that year focusing on the events of 1928 to guide them. It's absurd. It's laughable. It's stupid. And it was a large part of McCain's argument for why he should be president. What an idiot!

And the worst part for McCain wasn't that it made him look like somebody living in the past, but that it was the best he had and it was absurd. If they had anything better, they would have used it. But they didn't have a terrorist past of Obama's to attack. Or an association with active terrorists. No, they had a weak association with a respectable professor who did bad things before I was born. And that's the best attack they had. But the worst part is that the accusation against Obama just sounded stupid. The accusation was so startling, few would believe such a thing. And by the time you've explained the whole thing, it still sounds stupid. It's one thing to make a believable accusation that falls apart under investigation, but the Ayers attacks were giant turds from start to finish. The only people who could believe it were the ones who were desperate to find some rational reason for opposing Obama. But it wouldn't convert a nonbeliever.

And I tried to explain this to the folks at RedState a few times, before they cut-off my account, but they just didn't understand. But they should have. It wasn't difficult. Because, for as much as they felt it was unbelievable that a dude who "pals" around with terrorists could win the presidency, it was unbelievable. It was just a dumb attack and they should have gone with something new. But McCain's campaign was always mired in the same past his base was stuck in, so the whole thing sounded genius to them. It's not that John McCain or conservatives are stuck in 1968, it's just that they haven't learned any new tricks since then. And all those scary hippies just don't look so scary anymore.

Palling Around With Terrorists

I just paled around with some terrorists. It really wasn't as much fun as I had been led to believe. Just a bunch of "Death to America" and "Let's get back to traditional Islamic family values" stuff. I even busted out the Wii at one point, but they all kind of stared at me like I was a big annoyance, and the pork fajitas really weren't as big of a hit as I had imagined they'd be. I'm really not sure if I'm even going to invite them back, as they all seemed to have real bad attitude problems. Like they were angry all the time. Weird. But still, now that I learned that the American voters won't hold it against me for palling with terrorists, I thought i should at least try it now and again.

And who knows, maybe I just got a bad bunch of terrorists, but none of these guys really seemed like the guys I could ever be "pals" with. Associates, maybe. But never pals. I guess the fact that Obama could bond better with these sorts of people is why he's presidential material, and all I've got is this stupid blog. Geez, I hope the Marxists I invited over to watch football with tomorrow at least bring their own chips.

Palin Derangement Syndrome

I wrote recently about the Palinocentrists, who have now made love of Sarah Palin as their new litmus test for who is and isn't a "true" conservative; and now that the election is over, it looks like McCain and his handlers are now off of their Christmas card list. Hot Air's Allahpundit suggests that this is "a sign that Maverick’s headed back to the center." But of course, if McCain was smart, he never would have left there to begin with. And at this point, I'm not sure the center wants him anymore.

Because the wingnuts are still totally in love with Sarah Palin. She reaffirms everything they believe in, and in a world that continues to marginalize these freaks more every day, that must really help. Conservatives never had a majority, but there have been times when reality gave them enough support for Republicans that they could imagine they were finally popular. But they never were.

And the more conservatives insist on taking over the Republican Party, the less popular Republicans will be. It just took awhile for the moderates to realize they weren't wanted anymore.

Getting Redder

And it's sad to see that the nuts are still holding on to some delusion that Palin helped, rather than hurt them. In Michelle Malkin's mind, Palin was a plus because "She energized tens of thousands to come out who would have otherwise stayed home." But what good did that do? What state stayed red because of Sarah Palin? They lost a buttload of red states and were close to losing a few more. Who do they think Palin saved? Alabama? Did they think Mississippi was going to flip without Palin's help? And hey, Obama didn't get Guam, so that's something, isn't it?

And that's the thing, her appeal only worked for the hardcore reddies. But of course, that's who McCain was told to woo, too. That's why he picked her. And that was a horrible, horrible mistake. And I predicted this back when McCain first won the nomination. I knew that McCain would get stuck trying to keep the base in line, and that this would be his downfall. He'd never be able to reach out to the moderates or independents, because he would be too busy throwing red meat to the right. And the more they clamored for meat, the crazier he'd get. And that's exactly what happened.

And now it looks like the red meat being thrown out is McCain's hide, and it's Palin doing the tossing. And I'm all for that. For as much as it was funny watching Carl Cameron dish out the dirt on Palin, it was even funnier to see how he wasn't actually sure which side he should take on this. I mean, Palin is the future of the Republican Party, but that future is a sad one of ever-increasing obscurity.

For as much as they insist that Democrats have become enslaved by the loony left, it's obvious that the Republicans have been captured by the rabid right, and now that they've got their claws in them, they want to drag the party down into the swamp where they live. It will be their creature, their comfort. But that's just because nobody wants the damn thing anymore. They broke it.

The Coalition of the Cynical Liberals

Two of the most important rules to being a true conservative is that you can never be too conservative or hate liberals too much; but of course, being "conservative" really just means someone who hates liberals, so I'm being redundant .  And a subset of that rule is that you must believe that the only reason a Republican can ever lose an election is if they violate this rule.  You could have every conservative in the country vote for you, but if you lost, it was because you weren't conservative enough or didn't attack your liberal opponent enough.

And it's sad to say, but there are far too many liberals who are the mirror image of that.  Unless a Democrat is out on the stump demanding the impeachment and imprisonment of every Republican who's ever held office, they're a traitor who has sold us out.  But of course, the key difference from conservatives is that the liberal equivalent knows that this is the surest way to lose, as the Powers That Be will never allow such a candidate to succeed.  So while conservativism can never fail, liberalism can never be allowed to succeed.  And both sides know that the Establishment is in the pocket of the other side.

But all the same, these savvy cynics expect every politician to follow their lead, and until that happens, we'll keep getting sold the same bill of goods every time.  It's like they believe that people will elect any Democrat who gets the nomination, and hate the fact that moderates keep getting the nomination.  Somehow, it never seems to occur to them why that is, or that perhaps the reason their candidates can't get the nomination is the same reason they'd get trounced in the General Election.

Obama's Already Sold Us Out

And so now that Obama has won, these savvy cynics are pouring out of the woodwork to rub it in our faces that Obama will sell us out.  I have no idea how they know this, as they've dropped no hints that would suggest they have ESP or a time machine; but they're quite confident that it's going to happen.  Some of them even insist that Obama's supporters will be quite angry at him if he betrays them, and you'd think that Obama would know that more than anyone and that this would be a reason he wouldn't sell us out; but somehow, that sort of logic eludes them.

And the primary thing that they point to as their "proof" that Obama will sell us out is because he keeps talking about being bipartisan and reaching across the aisle.  And even worse, he actually says nice things about McCain and other Republicans.  And to these progressive-types, that's the worst sin possible.  We're in an epic struggle, we're told, and before Policy One is ever discussed, the line in the sand must be drawn: No matter what happens, Republicans must be attacked first, last, and always.  It's the only way we can get anything done.

And the problem is that, because they're so cynical about everything, they don't expect for politicians to get anything done.  And so they don't care about having a strategy that might actually get something done.  In fact, one of the key signs you're dealing with such a person is that they always tell you how Republicans or traitor Dems are going to undermine us, without ever explaining what we should do to stop it.  But in fact, the savvy cynic knows that nothing can be done, but to sit back and lament on how they had prophesied the whole thing.  

Fighting to Fight

But of course, it was all a self-fulfilling prophesy.  If any compromise is a bad compromise and compromise is the only way to get things done, then nothing will get done.  And that's exactly what they want.  While they lament about not getting everything they want, it all just comes around to their insistence that we need to fight.  And again, this is why Republicans failed, because they were beholden to a conservative movement that thinks the same way: Compromise is never permitted because it's the first sign of surrender.

For example, they'd rather see no healthcare plan than a compromised one, as they somehow imagine that they'll be more likely to get the Perfect Healthcare Plan if they hold out longer.  But of course, Republicans know better.  They know that once you establish the idea that an entitlement is a good thing by creating it, it's just a matter of time until it gets expanded upon enough that people will always expect it.  That's what happened with the Medicare prescription drug plan.  They were hoping for a cheapie election gimmick and actually ended up with a halfway decent plan that cost a fortune.

And that's why conservatives oppose all of these sort of entitlements on principle: Once it's established that the government can solve problems, people will expect it to solve more problems.  That's also why they work so hard to break government.  But rather than understanding any of this, the savvy cynic insists that we need to have the Perfect Policy at all times.  Unless they get every demand met, they'll know they were sold down the river.

Even during the Dem primary, because Hillary's healthcare plan was seen as being superior to Obama's, Obama was an unacceptable appeaser who couldn't win the election.  No talk is actually given to whose plan has a better chance at passing, or if Hillary's plan might have had political weaknesses that could have hurt her in the General Election.  No, these people were acting as if these two plans would be enacted the day after the election, and if Obama won, people would suffer forever and there could be no room for improvement ever.  It all came down to that.

Getting Things Done

But again, they don't even like the discussion of how things are actually supposed to get done.  For as savvy and cynical as they imagine themselves to be, they never actually worry about real world discussions of how bills become laws.  As if such talk is beneath them.  But of course, the real reason they can't discuss it is because it undermines everything they're saying.  If you're actually concerned with getting a healthcare plan passed, it really doesn't help if you're spending all your time denouncing Republicans.  Especially as it lowers you to their level and makes their antics seem less shocking.  

One big reason Obama did so well is because he didn't join the mudfight that Hillary had been promising us.  Instead, he let McCain throw all the mud he wanted and sat back as all the mud just fell back on McCain.  And it never occurs to them that it might be easier for Obama to get things done if he pays lip service to bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle.  And they don't trust Republicans at all and see them as a monolithic group that can't be negotiated with, and see no reason to not burn every bridge they see.  And if you even suggest that it's possible to work with a Republican, then you're a naive moron who deserves their scorn.  If you suggest that any Republican might side with us, they'll insist that every Republican is Rush Limbaugh and that they'll always attack us, and that you're a fool for not knowing this.

And really, that's what it's all about with these people.  Scorn, hatred, attacks, and savvy cynicism.  It's all about them being smarter than you and being too cool to actually care about a politician.  They've been burned in the past and that means they'll always be burned, and if you don't already know that, than you're just another fool who they'll laugh at when they're finally proven right.  They'll stick with Ralph Nader, who has never lowered himself to the level that he actually became a viable option.  They're much too cynical and reality-based to support a reality-based politician.  Only fools support anyone who could actually win.  And when they lose, they'll just chalk it up to being proven right, yet again.

Doctor Biobrain Was Right

Yet again, I was right.  I was proved fucking right.  And what thanks do I get?  Not a damn thing.  I predicted this victory back in January, after Obama's win in Iowa, and firmly believed this is how things would go down.  But nothing.  Nobody cares about poor Doctor Biobrain. 

And so it's on to RedState, and I've got to tell you, I think I now have a new favorite RedStater.  Sure, Moe Lane has the cool name and the huge inferiority complex.  But I now think I've got to go with Dan "Puttin' the Laugh In" McLaughlin as my new favorite.  Not only has he been a perennial favorite here at Biobrain's Response, but his latest call to action after admitting McCain's defeat in the election was simply stellar.

The problem for McCain was always that the Republican agenda was all talk and no action.  It was just a bunch of feelgood rhetoric that had no actual basis in reality.  It was all about Family Values, Preserving America, and preventing the gays from getting "special" rights.  It was a Smoke & Mirrors campaign that was heavier on the smoke than the mirrors.  And while that was absolutely great at winning elections, it totally sucked ass in the Getting Things Done department.  

And so, they didn't get shit done.  And after many years of controlling Congress and then the Whitehouse, people finally realized that Republicans just weren't getting shit done.  it was all a bunch of empty hoohaw, and voters just weren't going to take it anymore.  And so, in short, McCain's problem was that he was the Republican candidate in the year that people realized the Republicans were totally full of shit.  This wasn't Bush's fault or McCain's.  This wasn't just about the war, or the financial crisis, or healthcare, or any of the other issues most folks keep citing as the reason McCain lost.  It was the whole kit and caboodle.  

It was Republicanism they rejected, and in turn, the empty conservatism the Republicans used as the basis for their empty rhetoric.  The empty rhetoric that appealed to these fools.  John McCain didn't lose this election.  Republicans lost this election.  And we always knew this.  President Bush was a symbol of Republicans and conservatives; he wasn't their downfall.  He fell because they all fell.

Conservatism Never Fails

And so what else would Dan McLaughlin write about, than to suggest that, once again, conservatism was failed?  Because that's what he imagines the problem was.  In his reality, McCain was a moderate that somehow failed to connect with moderates because he wasn't a far-right conservative.  And no, that doesn't really make sense to me either.  In fact, that makes the opposite of sense to me.  To me, you use a moderate to win moderate voters.  But to McLaughlin, moderates will only vote for far-right conservatives.  And again, that doesn't really make sense to me either.

And of course, Dan's problem is that conservatives were told to believe that Obama was a far-left liberal Marxist Muslim.  And in the conservative world, it somehow makes sense that extremists appeal to moderates by being fringy.  But in the real world, Obama was a centrist-liberal who appealed to everyone by being centrist-liberal.  And McCain helped with this because he kept trying to appeal to the base that Dan suggests was somehow crucial to McCain's win.  In other words, McCain gave Obama the audience he needed, as a way of appealing to the McLaughlins that McCain already had.

And look, McLaughlin's argument makes no sense at all.  He's suggesting that McCain lost because he was a moderate who only won the base states.  But if it was his moderateness that lost the election, he should have won the moderate states and lost the base states.  But he didn't.  He won the states he was expected to win, and lost a few moderate states that he should have won.  Why?  Because he kept trying to appeal to the people who were already going to vote for him: Dan's people.

In other words, McCain wasted all his time appealing to the people McLaughlin wanted him to appeal to, while ignoring everyone else.  And he suffered egregiously for this.  And what's McLaughlin's solution?  More cowbell.  Seriously, these guys couldn't be worse parodies if they tried.  They were McCain's doom, while believing that McCain needed to use them more.  I just wish they had.

Meanwhile, I'm drunk off my ass because the Dems finally did what I've always thought they should do, and they had a HUGE victory.  The type of game changing victory that won't even be understood for generations to come.  And what thanks do I get for having totally predicted this?  Nothing.  Doctor Biobrain gets nothing.  I predicted all of this, and all I get is bragging rights.  Hardly sufficient.  I expect restitution.  I fought a whole lot of damn assholes who insisted that Obama couldn't win, and he ends up with the big victory I predicted all along.  Bigger than the Big Dog got.  And for this, I get ignored.  

But at least I got drunk. That's something.

Reagan Wins!!! Reagan Wins!!!

Reagan always wins.  

And in other election news, my big turkey dinner is almost ready and smells quite delicious, but I'm saving the champagne for later.  More as things develop.

Update: The Biobrain Election Central statisticians just called Guam for Obama.  That's right, Guam's zero electoral votes go in the Obama column.

Later Update: The latest exit polls show that Old Europe has gone decisively for Obama, 65-35.  Those 35-percenters are being rounded up and shot as we speak.  No word yet from New Europe.  I'll keep you posted.

Latest Update: New Europe has been rounded up and shot.

John Galt the Plumber

Just because I like the sound of my own writing so much, I think I'll repost two comments I wrote elsewhere.

Roy at Alicublog cites an absurdist post by Instapundit, where Insty posts reader comments sent to him by people who insist that they're going to "go John Galt" and start producing less of whatever it is they do if Obama gets his tax proposal passed next year; and might even leave the country if some saavy tax haven lures them to a conservative paradise. Apparently, 3% extra in tax completely removes any profit motive in these people, and several of them say they have already started scaling back their business, just in case. And so I decided to write my own sad story:

Well, I was about to buy my boss's horseshit factory, which employs fifteen million people and accounts for over 13% of all tax revenues, but after having discussed Obama's tax proposal with him the other day, we both decided it was best to just burn the factory down with all the employees inside and become invisible bank robbers like we were during the 90's. We'll just have to get accustomed again to living frugally, like we used to do; using nail clippings for razor blades and paperclips for clothes. We save all our loose hairs in a jar, just in case, and can only go out after dark. Thanks Obama! This is what you drove us to.


And believe it or not, that's a true story and horseshit factories really are more profitable than they're usually given credit for. And over at Bagnews, we find some more analysis of Joe the Plumber, in which Bagnews writes of Joe's "righteous superiority that is off-the-charts." And naturally, I had to defend Joe, writing:

"Righteous superiority"?? This is Joe the Plumber we're talking about here, so quit your elitist claptrap and bow down to the man who got Obama tap dancing on his doorstep like a black Fred Astaire. And sure, it's easy for you to act all high & mighty, but poor Joe was about to buy a million-dollar business and begin his ascent out of the pipes and into the American Dream...before it was dashed forever by The One's socialistic rise up Bill Ayers' pantskirt in his fevered quest to destroy America and everything holy.

And sure, some people may say that Mr. the Plumber actually benefits from Obama's Marxist tax fantasies, but only if he stays poor and downtrodden. And now that Obama has forever put ownership of a multi-million dollar plumbing business out of Joe's reach, the paltry welfare he'll receive in return will be but cold ashes to Joe's insatiable skinhead desires. Joe could have been a great businessman, perhaps with a few underpaid Joes of his own on the payroll, but now all he can be is a spokesman for the very people you mock with your very existence. So bravo, Mr. Bagnews. Bravo. You may have taken Joe down a peg, but with him, you have taken down every man that Joe represents: The American Workingman. I hope you're proud of yourself. I hope you're really proud.

And on a final note, I'd just like to mention that it didn't go unnoticed that TPM essentially stole my Election Day prediction, even if they did add a decimal point to hide the fact. Oh, and not that I wanted to jinx anything, but I assure you that I not only have a bottle of champagne waiting for tomorrow (today), but plan on eating a big ol' New Year's style turkey dinner, complete with the black eyed peas for good luck. Out with the old, in with the new, don't ya know.

Stealing Elections, One Vote at a Time

Uh oh, guys. It looks like RedState has finally caught on to our big plan to steal the election. That's right. They've uncovered our plot to use Comrade Farah Minwalla, our "field organizer" in North Carolina, to vote in North Carolina and thus throw the state in our favor. How they figured it out, I'll never know. But this one vote was absolutely crucial for us to win the state. It looks like NC's going into the loss column yet again.

And if they're on to this one, they might also uncover our plans to use Comrade Hasballaw in Pennsylvania, Comrade Biers in Ohio, and Comrade Biobrain (no relation) in Florida. And with RedState fast on our trail, I don't think we can take any chances. I am making an immediate order for all agents to withdrawal from their safehouses and head back to our Soviet enclave in Kenya to await further orders. It looks like 2008 was a bust, but if we get moving now, we can get each of these "voters" registered in these same states in time for 2012, with new identities, of course.

Remember, one vote can make the difference. When we lose all four of these swing states on Election Day by one vote each, we'll know that this is due entirely to those meddling RedStaters. Foiled again!

Sad Days at RedState

Sad days indeed at RedState. You've got RedState founder Erick Erickson whining because he made a reality-based prediction that Obama would win and is now being attacked by his own for demoralizing the team by not hyping empty propaganda. You've got Dan McLaughlin dusting off the Winston Churchill quotes to tell them to never give up and never surrender. And here's Dan again, having given up on the idea that McCain can win and predicting that, with Obama in the Whitehouse, we'll finally uncover the nasty revelations about Obama's past that they've been using as their basis for hating Obama all these months.

And it's really kind of sad. As I've suggested before, they never liked McCain and went into this thinking it was already a dud election. And then Palin came in and jazzed things up, and they got enthusiastic with the idea that the Republicans were finally listening to them. After all, they've always "known" that conservativism is truth and that everything would work out, if only everyone did what they said. But now it looks like the election was a dud after all, and while they recite their mantra that Palin was mishandled and that the attacks on Ayers and Wright weren't made strongly enough, everyone else knows these were the straws that broke the camel's back.

And so here they are, with their internal squabbles about whether they should stand firm in their propagandic thinking, or if it's finally time to admit reality. And while it was always apparent that they never really had the dirt on Obama that they pretended they had, they still refuse to admit it and are now beginning to relish the idea that they'll get to attack Obama for the next four years. And really, I'm sure that that's what they really wanted anyway. Even their love for Bush was really just a form of liberal-bashing and now they've got nothing to hold them back.

Whitewaters Forevah!

And like sleepy little kids on Christmas Eve, they're already fantasizing about how much fun it will be when they're finally proven right about what they always knew would be uncovered about the dreaded Barack Obama. And while I'm sure they'll pretend to relish each "revelation" that Limbaugh and his RNC overlords feed them, I'm equally sure that they won't be satisfied until Obama is impeached, tossed from office, and imprisoned.

They've made quite a feast for themselves with the slim pickings they got to attack Obama with, but that just made them all the hungrier. In that post, Dan even goes on to rehash the stuff that Clinton got exonerated on, and we can rest assured it will be the same with Obama. Every molehill will be a mountain and every decision Obama makes will be part of the destruction of America. And the more Obama gets away with it, the more frustrated they'll get. The RNC has got them stuck on a high-carb diet with absolutely no substance and it's driving their blood sugar wild.

This is just the beginning. But fortunately, after sixteen years of this crap, the right's loony ramblings will only appear more loony than ever. Over the next eight years, the Republicans will prove to us how unwise it is to keep running the same play all the time. It's my prediction that the wingnuts will assure that Obama gets another landslide like the one they gave him this time. Conservatives have proven that they're all talk and mudslinging, and the more they talk, the deeper they'll sink in the mud.

Election Prediction 2008

I've been saying for quite a few months that it was quite possible that McCain would hit about 45% of the vote on Election Day, and I think I'll just go with that as my Election Day prediction. And just to make it official, I'll give it as McCain 45%, Obama 52%; though those specific numbers were just pulled from my ass as I was typing. And it'll all go down in history as a decent-sized landslide. And while I used that 45% number repeatedly in comments at other blogs, I just thought I'd share with you excerpts from the two posts I used it on here.

From June 7, 2008:
The Year of Obama

But instead, we got Obama. And this is going to be a picnic with Obama, because he's the product we really wanted. He's the fuel efficient car during times of rising gas prices and the comfortable shorts during a hot summer. And while he's a great communicator who can sell his position well, it's not necessary; he sells himself. Because he's what we've wanted the whole time. And while he would have been great in 2000 or 2004, he's best of all in 2008 when everyone hates Bush. And it's obvious that even McCain realizes this. His ads emphasize how bad war is and how serious our problems are. As Carpetbagger mentioned, McCain used the word "change" 33 times in his greenscreen speech.
....
And these products aren't the same at all. McCain's trying to jam an obsolete PC inside a cool new iMac without understanding that it just won't fit at all. Particularly not when there's about 30% of the population that still demands the previous version of the obsolete PC. I'm honestly wondering if McCain's going to end up pissing off everyone. I should add to all this that I find it extremely unlikely that McCain could get less than 40% of the vote in November. But even 45% would be an Obama landslide, and I think that's quite possible.


From August 5, 2008:
Obama Doom Mongering

As we speak, many of McCain’s media admirers are already admitting on television that he’s running a dirty campaign that embarrasses them. It won’t be too much longer until they realize this is the “real” John McCain and that they had been duped. And I predicted this months ago. August is a long month in presidential politics, and if they’re already bad mouthing his attacks now, he’ll be totally screwed by October, which is when most voters really start paying attention.

And hey, we’ll never win everyone over. People just aren’t like that. Your crazy uncle will still keep accepting those insane Obama-bashing emails as gospel truth, and it’s almost impossible that McCain will get less than 40% of the electorate, and he’s likely to get more than 45%. But 45% is a trouncing in presidential politics. We don’t need to convince everyone. Karl Rove will never admit that Obama is in a far superior political position. In real life, bad guys rarely ever confess. McCain will not throw in the towel.


And just so you know, I realize that it ain't truly over until that fat lady sings. I just wanted to make sure that my prediction was on record, just so I can give the obligatory "I told you so" late Tuesday night; assuming my prediction is accurate. But of course, I was predicting this back in January and wouldn't have backed Obama if I didn't see this coming. I really do believe he's the best presidential candidate we've had in my lifetime, and I think he'll make the best president too.

But of course, his victory will really only be the beginning. The rabid McCain-Palin supporters never really gave a rat's ass about either of them, and were only using them to mask their hatred of Obama. And with an Obama victory, the real battle begins. Game on!

How I Learned to Stop Worrying About Democracy and Love the Bomb

Ted Rall is an idiot. Honestly, I’ve never liked the guy and always felt he was a bad smear on liberals. Had Ted Rall not existed, Karl Rove would have invented him. He’s the conservative answer to Maggie Gallagher, and I say that as someone who has had the misfortune of exchanging a few emails with Gallagher. In short, I don’t like Ted Rall.

And while I’d never seek him out, I happened to see a headline in Yahoo for one of his columns titled: THE FIRST RULE OF REELECTION IS DON'T THINK ABOUT REELECTION. And I found that quite intriguing, as that sounded like a pretty stupid rule. And sure enough, after having read his column, I see that it was. And if anything, Rall got the rule backwards.

Apparently, it breaks down to this: Because most modern presidents have worse second terms than first terms, they should all act as if their first term was their second term, and everything should go smoothly. But...if it’s the second term that’s the problem, shouldn’t they do the exact opposite? Because if there is a second term curse, it has to do with hubris and the feeling by presidents that they no longer have to follow the polls or obey the wishes of the people, because they’re not up for re-election anymore.

It's the Term-Limit, Stupid

Because if anything, it's term-limits that are the problem, as they detach the President from democracy. After all, the point of democracy isn't that it's the best way to pick leaders (as it clearly isn't). The point is to give citizens ownership of their system, so that they feel that they have control over their leaders and their fate. But of course, a term-limit gets rid of that completely. Once a president wins re-election, then he's essentially a four-year dictator. And so again, the problem isn't with re-elections, but rather the lack of re-election that screws everything up.

And so Rall’s advice for Obama is to do just that: Stop worrying what voters want him to do and start doing what Rall wants him to do. I’m serious. He even goes as far as suggesting that Carter was a great president because he was "thinking past the horizon," and that Reagan got credit for many of Carter's best ideas because they took awhile to hatch. And yeah, couldn't it be argued that this trait of Carter's gave us four years of Reagan, instead of, say, four more years of Carter? Wow, what a brilliant strategy.

And perhaps Obama can take Rall's advice so that Mitt Romney will someday receive the credit for all the hard work Obama did before 2012. Simply brilliant!

Second-Term Curse

But of course, I find his argument for a second-term curse to be a bit weak. Reagan didn't become senile because it was his second term. He became senile because he was an old man and that's what happens to some people when they get older. And he cites Watergate for Nixon, but of course, the Watergate break-in occurred during Nixon's first term, it was only during his second term that he got caught and he had a long pattern of behavior on this sort of thing. Similarly, Clinton began his affair with Monica Lewinsky during his first term and it was over a few months into his second.

Overall, reading Rall's list of the "Second Term Curse" is like reading the threats at the end of a chain letter. Even if this stuff is true, it has more to do with coincidence than fate; and most of it is outright sham. He even mentions Truman and Johnson being hurt by their respective quagmire wars, even though these were continuing policies from their first terms that kept getting worse. And in Johnson's case, history tells me that he didn't seek re-election; though perhaps Rall's history differs. So in essence, these guys were hurt because of unpopular decisions in their first terms that became even less popular as time went by.

And no, Bush Sr didn't turn up in his column at all. Somehow, that one term president got ignored. But perhaps that was really Bush's second term and Rall forgot to tell anyone about it. Nor does Rall ever mention that Clinton was more popular in his second-term than his first. Any fact that doesn't fit into Rall's stupid rule gets chucked; and that's a lot of facts.

Term-Limit Doom

And then there's his lengthy mention of Bush's disastrous second-term, which only disproves his point. Bush's second term was so horrible because he didn't need to worry about re-election and could finally start doing the business he wanted to. Somehow, Rall's history suggests that Bush's plan to privatize Social Security was "abandoned and forgotten" due to Katrina and problems in Iraq. But my history tells me privatization was doomed because it was extremely unpopular, so much so that he wouldn't even talk about it until he secured re-election.

Same for some other unpopular decisions that hurt him with conservatives, like the Harriet Miers nomination and the Dubai port brouhaha. And these issues were abandoned due to all the Republican Congressmen who were still up for re-election. It wasn't some mystical curse that doomed Bush. It was an unpopular agenda that was only stopped because Congress doesn't have term-limits. The people spoke, and it was good.

And again, this only makes sense. Because democracy isn't the best way to pick leaders, or we certainly wouldn't have ended up with Bush. The purpose of democracy is to allow citizens to hold their leaders accountable in order to make people feel that they control the government that controls them. It's about giving people an ownership stake in the system. And if there's a second-term curse, it's because we've removed that ownership stake from the system and given the president a freer hand to do whatever they like without fear of repercussions.

Rall's Radical Agenda

Now, I'm not sure why Rall imagines this is a good thing, other than that he's a radical who knows his ideas aren't popular. And while I have nothing against radicals and think they serve a real purpose in life, they shouldn't be running the show. Nor should they be giving advice to folks who are running the show. In fact, Bush's biggest problems weren't when he was being popular, but when he was listening to the radicals who told him to be bold, rather than popular. And how bold, radical decisions will lead to popularity. And even when it was obvious that popularity would elude him, he was told that history would be the real judge of his presidency.

And that's the exact advice the idiot Rall is giving to Obama. For myself, I just hope that Obama does all the things he said he'd do to get elected, as that's what people want and expect. But that's clearly the point of Rall's column, as he insists that Obama's plans aren't radical enough. For all of Rall's differences with Bush, Rove, and Cheney, it's obvious they share one thing in common: The belief that the presidency is a four-year dictatorship.

And that's why I'm damn glad that none of those four are up for election this year. We've had enough radicalism over the past eight years to last us the next eighty years. Now it's time to get back to the way things were.

Income Redistribution for Everyone!

It's a weird phenomenon that people get so accustomed to a particular situation that they'll fail to see it for what it is. And so it is with our constant debate about taxation, and whether or not taxes should be progressive or not. Because people always talk about this as if it's an issue of whether rich people should pay more than poor people. Yet...I've only encountered perhaps two or three people in my life who actually think rich people should pay the same as poor people. Even the Flat Tax and Fair Tax people think rich people should pay more taxes than poor people.

Because it's like this: Whether or not you think rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income than poor people, if you're using a percentage system, then you think that rich people should pay more. If you think everyone should pay a flat 20% of their income, than you think rich people should pay more than poor people. Because 20% of $250,000 is far more than 20% of $25,000. Similarly, no matter how regressive the so-called Fair Tax is, it would still make rich people pay more in overall taxes than poor people, even if they were paying a higher percentage of their income than the rich people. And in all cases, this means that poor people are receiving more in benefits than rich people; and thus, income is being redistributed.

And the alternative to this would be if we came out with a system that said something like "Everyone pays $10,000 annually." That would be a true flat tax. Everyone would pay the same amount, no matter how much money they earned. And while I think I've debated a few people over the years who really did suggest such a system, I have no idea who they were and have never heard anyone important propose such a system. Because it would be utterly insane. It's simply not done.

And so it's weird to read arguments as if this is what we're talking about. As if anyone is seriously suggesting that poor people actually pay as much as rich people do. As if income redistribution isn't built into McCain's plan. Because it is. The only issue is how much income redistribution we're talking about, not whether it should happen.

And once we realize this, it changes the entire face of the debate. Because by the McCain-Palin definition, we're all just socialists trying to determine how socialist to be. And that's an entirely different ballgame.

I Got Polled

Hey, I actually got polled today! That's right, a real live pollster actually called my house and asked for my opinion about political races. It was pretty exciting. Particularly as the tiny bit of input my opinion makes into this poll is far, far more important than the nothing blip my actual vote makes on Election Day here in Texas. (Thanks Electoral College.)

And it's weird, as she asked me how likely it was that I'd vote, and I had to tell her that I already voted. And she told me that that's alright and I can answer the questions anyway, as if I had thought that my having voted made my opinion less important rather than more important. And the whole time, she kept asking me who I thought I'd vote for, again, as if I hadn't already voted. It was really quite weird. And that's one of the things about the polls: Now that early voting has started, the polls are becoming more accurate every day.

And one of the funniest parts about the interview was that she couldn't pronounce many of the names of the Democrats she was asking me about, and I couldn't tell her the names either, as I voted straight-ticket and didn't bother looking at them (I ALWAYS vote straight ticket). Sure, I helped her out with the pronunciation of Rick Noriega (who will hopefully be the next U.S. Senator of my fine state), but I didn't have a clue with most of the names she goofed. And it's not that she had a weird accent or anything, she just didn't seem to know how to pronounce names. And I kept telling her that I only voted for Dems, but she insisted on asking me about each race anyway, and I kept telling her "I don't know, whoever the Democrat was." Seriously.

So anyway, I feel pretty special. I always hear people complain about how pollsters have never called them, and now I'm proof that they do. To be honest, I don't even remember what group she said she was with, so I can't even go back to the numbers and see where I was. But whichever poll it was, I'm sure I did Obama some good. And that's what it's all about.

Palinocentrists

One of the odder developments regarding the Palin selection is how conservatives have essentially realigned themselves so that Palin is the standard they use to determine who's a "real" conservative, as well as what conservatives believe. Here's something I wrote regarding how they did this with Bush:

One of the scary things about conservatives is how almost the entire
conservative world realigned into a Bush-centric perspective, which completely
abandoned all previous conservative theory, yet still considered itself to be
pure to its original intentions. In a sense, they all set their ideological
compasses to reflect that Bush was the new North without even realizing it.

And now that Bush has become such a leadweight that even RedState uses him as an example of what not to do, they've adopted Palin as the new North. And I already documented how Love of Palin is the new litmus test to determine if people who were identified as conservatives their entire life are "real" conservatives. with everyone else being exiled from all respectable conservative circles.

The New North

And the latest Palinocentric shift: Everything you know about the powers of the Vice Presidency is wrong. Why? Because Sarah Palin answered a question wrong. But because Sarah Palin can't be wrong, everything else you've known about the VP is simply wrong and even the power-hungry Dick Cheney wasn't aware of this.

RedState's Mark Kilmer was quite upset after Chris Matthews mocked Palin for believing that the VP "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes." Because the word of Sarah Palin can never be doubted, Kilmer is forced to write:

"That is the only specifically enumerated duty of the veep in the Senate, besides presiding over it, but the role is not Constitutionally limited to only that. But still, Matthews is a dull blade."

And sure, the Constitution doesn't limit the VP from fulfilling that role. Similarly, I just checked the thing out and see that I'm not limited from running the Senate either, so watch out Harry Reid. That gavel is mine, bitch!

But of course, they were only following the McCain campaign's silly lead. But still, anyone willing to make this argument will only be laughed at. In fact, this is just standard operating procedure for conservatives, to double-down on every mistake. Somehow, conservatives have become convinced that this is some method of defense. But of course, repeating something that you need to defend yourself against doesn't constitute an offense. It only brings the mistake back into the focus of the conversation and makes you look even dumber. But because conservatives can't make mistakes, conservatives aren't even allowed to believe that this is what's happening.

And that's doubly so if the mistaken conservative is the egregiously blunder-mouthed Sarah Palin. Everything Palin says must be triple-downed on, to ensure that everyone understands that she couldn't possibly have made the mistake that everyone thinks she made. And again, this is the same blunder they made with Bush, which is why he made so many mistakes and why they followed him head-first into each one of them. Actions need to have consequences.

Commenters Comment

But of course, a RedState post wouldn't be the same if we didn't hear from the RedState commenters.

We've got Colokid who encourages RedState to vote for McCain based on the premise that Palin might really be able to get in there and preside over the Senate and force liberal Senators to ask Palin's permission before they can speak. Why didn't anyone explain this to Cheney before?

My favorite RedStater, Moe Lane, writes "Look, we're sorry that we picked somebody who read the darn thing," And of course, the implication here isn't just that Palin wasn't mistaken when she said this, but that she's the first VP to have bothered reading the Constitution in over a hundred years, and realizes what a screwing the other saps got.

And then there were a few who tried desperately to find ways to revise history to suggest that this is the normal way things are done. One cites a blogpost at Ace of Spades, where memories of Al Gore running the Senate in 2000 cannot be found online (I'm planning to write a separate post on that), as well as someone who cites a piece on Senate.gov that mentions that Vice Presidents used to preside over the Senate, but no longer do. In fact, that piece cites a story about Spiro Agnew attempting to lobby Senators, which prompted a fierce backlash where a Senator vowed that anytime Agnew lobbied him, he'd automatically do the opposite. And that said nothing about Agnew even attempting to run the Senate. It's just not done anymore.

Cult of Palin

And of course, in some way, these people have a point. The Constitution doesn't strictly limit the Vice President against running the Senate. But there's this thing called precedent, and how we do things as they've been done in the past; and to somehow skip back one hundred years to find the rule to justify Palin's control of the Senate is a bit reactionary, to say the least.

But of course, I'd guesstimate that the number of these people who were making these arguments before Palin said these things would be somewhere around zero. This isn't some longstanding conservative position they've held since time incarnate, and if Joe Biden attempted to takeover the Senate in January, I have no doubts that they'd be as outraged as we'd be if Palin attempted such a thing.

This isn't about Constitutional limits. This is about the Cult of Palin. Palin can do no wrong, and if Sarah Palin claims that the Vice President controls the Senate or that the Sun sets in the East, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll find the argument that finds this to be true. And woe be to anyone who suggests any differently. All hail Palin!

Voters of the World Unite!

Alright that's it, I just early voted and privacy concerns aside, I'll just tell you: Obama won! That's right. I picked Obama. It's over. Time to pack up your bags and head back to Mother Russia, my loyal readers: The deal is done.

And let me tell you comrades, Premier-Select Obama is very proud of the work you've done for him these past twenty years and has included an extra bottle of vodka in your monthly stipend, along with the thirty rubles we promised. And once we have all these foolish imperial Americans out on the streets and begging from beggars for crumbs of the diseased, you and your families will be moved into their big American houses and you will be assigned five American workers each to use in any way you see fit; in accordance with the principles Father Marx espoused all those years ago. I predict this transition should be completed as soon as our new economic redistribution policies are implemented by the end of next month, so pack quickly, comrades. We have no time to lose!


Update: Commissar Ayers just informed me that my one vote was not enough to win the election for Premier-Select Obama. Apparently, the Americans have instituted a more complex leadership selection process than we had at first anticipated. It's time to move to Plan B: We all show up on Election Day and vote using the Vladimir Lenin voter registration cards that were supplied to us by ACORN. This plan cannot fail.

DON'T NOT VOTE!!!

The Great Palin Purge of Aught-Eight

At this point, I've really started to feel sorry for the poor chumps at RedState. If anyone's been duped, burned, roped, and drained by the Republican Party, it's these guys. Because at a certain level, I believe them. They might not know what they're talking about, but at least they're earnest. And sure, on a day-to-day basis they engage in a huge amount of shameless deception, but at heart it's always self-deception. They're only proponents of the conservative system because they're such strong believers.

And holy shit were these guys used by the Bush Administration for the past eight years. Just shamelessly so. They bought every line, pimped the propaganda, attacked every foe; and what do they have to show for it? A huge huge embarrassment that they're forced to cover-up by blaming everyone else. And then along comes a new election with the hope of a "real" conservative at the helm, and what do they get? Fricking John McCain, a traitor they hated.

But then McCain pulled a rabbit out of the hat. He picked Sarah Palin, a conservative goddess from the toughest of all states. And sure, reality tells us that Alaska sucks at the government's teat harder than anyone else, but dammit, what good has reality done these people? Not a lick of good. But right when they thought they were settling into the greatest presidency since Ronald Reagan, BLAMMO! something horrible happens: It turns out that many of the conservative Republicans who only pretend to drink the Koolaid just couldn't get on-board the Palin Express. And thus begins The Great Purge.

Propaganda Nonsense

In just one of many posts on the subject, RedStater Mark Kilmer pretends to laugh at conservatives who are crapping on his parade. And for as much as Mark insists that he's "entertained" by these conservatives, it's quite obvious from the incomprehensible rambling quality of his writing that he's clearly shaken by all this. Not that I think he gives a hoot about what these conservative pundits say, but it's what they're doing by undermining his belief system that's really hurting him.

I quote:
"It is amusing that certain people with a misplaced sense of elitism can verbally attack a conservative Vice Presidential candidate in the middle of what could be a very close election, essentially because they do not like the cut of her jib."

Excuse me? So is it only people with a proper sense of elitism that can verbally attack Palin? Is it only conservative Vice Presidential candidates being attacked that make this amusing? And most absurd, is it not enough to dislike her jib? Do we need another reason? And perhaps there were also verbal attacks, but I believe these were written attacks he's speaking of, by National Reviews' Kathleen Parker and NY Times' David Brooks.

And so, while I understand exactly what he's getting at, it really just seems like this paragraph is a patchwork of rhetorical phrases used as substitute for an actual point. Because the translation is: Republican pundits shouldn't criticize Palin even if they don't like her, because it might cause us to lose. So why the "amusing" "elitism" "verbally attack" stuff? It's like he's so upset that he's just digging into a very limited bag of rhetorical tricks in order to not make this sound like he's upset because these pundits aren't propaganda machines. Because that's all he really wants: Conservative pundits who praise Palin.

Meaningless Language for Oafs

But that one was nothing, check out the next paragraph:
"Are these people seeking meaningless language which the speaker uses to fool the unsuspecting oaf into believing that a high-minded principle is being discussed? The politics of meaning, by jove, it takes a village? Does that suffice in the place of sanity? Obama/Biden?"

What the fuck does that mean? I'm telling you, I haven't left out any context here. This is it. What the hell is he talking about? The only sense I can even make out of it is that the first sentence applies to what he's doing, and then he does it in the other two sentences. He's using meaningless language to fool his readers into believing he's discussing a high-minded principle, when he's really only trying to pimp pro-Palin propaganda. And then he throws out what I guess is a Hillary reference with the "village" line, and then questions someone's sanity...I think.

And geez, I could go on to quote just about everything the dude says and marvel at it. He goes on to quote an odd rambling defense of Palin by McCain, in which he posits that Governors are always more experienced than Senators. And then there's some weird stuff about Reagan, who "always kept his eyes on the prize, reflected in conservatism." And then something about how Americans in the 80's knew what they were doing, where they were going, and why; and asserts that Obama and Biden don't. Huh? And then there was something about how he's "never heard a sophism escape [Palins] lips."

This is all just nonsense. And again, when you boil down what he's saying it just means: Republican pundits need to repeat propaganda. That's it. There are no facts given. No arguments made. Merely a recitation of what Kilmer would like to hear from all Republican pundits. And at the end, the only real defense of Palin he can muster is to say that, if anything happened to McCain, she'd be surrounded by good advisers who'd help her through it. And yeah, that worked great with the last dope this guy helped push on us. It's like they've erased Bush from their memories completely. I sure wish they'd teach me that trick.

Commenters Comment

But of course, the real fun begins in the comments section. Now it's time for them to hash out which Republicans are real conservatives and which are "Georgetown elitists."

Commenter dbecraft gets the ball rolling by attacking everyone from the "National Republic" (I believe he meant National Review) to Peggy Noonan and suggests that they all be thrown out of the "Republican Conservative party." But Kilmer comes back and suggests that Noonan is really a conservative, but still thinks she should be reciting the Palin propaganda. And finally, Ezekiel ends that discussion by saying that Kathleen Parker is a conservative, but Brooks is a "PBS conservative" they trot out to make conservatives look weak.

Later on, despite a glowing rave of Brooks by a commenter who just thinks that Brooks is too "inside the Beltway" on this one, another commenter insists that neither Brooks or Bill Krystol are conservatives. As he says of Brooks "Lord, this boy wouldn't know conservative if someone smacked him," which seemed particularly odd until I remembered that getting smacked is a leading cause of conservativism. Kilmer than shows how out of touch he is by wrongly stating that Krystol doesn't write for the NY Times. Having read a few of his boring columns, I wish I didn't know that either.

After that, you can read a thread on how "Obama and the liberal left have no tolerance for the Sarah Palins of the world," as evidenced by the fact that they've attacked Palin. That discussion devolves into an absurdly anti-intellectual rant about how "Academic performance and real accomplishment are mutually exclusive." Another commenter acknowledges that Obama is smart, but suggests that "much of what he knows just isn't so" which leads us to a very odd definition of the word smart. Later on, we find a debate as to whether or not Palin is anti-intellectual, with one commenter insisting that this is what makes her endearing, and the other saying that she's just anti-snob and connects with the people, like Clinton did (damn, I'm old enough to remember when that'd be considered an insult by these people).

Purge Purge

And then we can get back to the purge, where General Colin Powell is a "sophisticated, liberal Republican" who is "beholden-to-the-cocktail-party-crowd snobs." Jesus christ, why do these people hate the military so much? Lone Beagle goes as far as to suggest that Powell be "run out of town on a rail," along with Brooks, Noonan, and the person he was responding to.

And two more tratiors I found: Eisenhower's Granddaughter and Chris Buckley. As one commenter says of them, "the fruit fell far from the tree." Another commenter suggests they add "David Gergen, George Will, Tucker Carlson and the rest of the left of center Bow Tie Republicrats." PURGED! PURGED! PURGED!

And another target: "Country Club Republicans," as if that isn't the entire core of the party. And getting back to the point at the beginning, I understand why these conservatives would want to hate these people for what they did, but it's their fucking party! And if the RedState conservatives don't like what the Country Club Republicans keep doing, then they need to find their own party. Republicans are invite only.

Oh, and towards the end there is a HILARIOUS discussion with a moderate Republican trying to explain to them why these purges are a bad idea, and all they can do is keep insulting the guy and tell him that he's going to be "blammed" (banned from the site) for dissenting. And no, the irony didn't seem to occur to any of these people. Too funny.

And I'll end this with another comment by Lone Beagle:
"It seems that people who like Sarah Palin are thoughtful, well informed and intelligent. Just like Sarah Palin herself!"

And that just about says it all. Sarah Palin is now our new Good v. Evil litmus test.

The Have Wannabees

I understand the principle behind the Republican idea that tax increases on the rich might cause them to do less to earn profits. But one thing I don't understand is the idea that tax increases on the rich hurt starting businesses and entreprenuers. Now granted, it could theoretically hurt investment into those companies by rich people. But most small businesses don't start off that way. Sure, they might get a business loan, but most small businesses start off with the money of the business owner and that's it.

And then there's idea that regulations stifle innovation and hurt new ideas. And while they can do that, they can also do the opposite: Prevent big companies from stifling innovation and new ideas. And that's why most folks have no real choice of cable, internet, or home phone providers.

And the reality is that Republican policies are good for people who are already powerful and want to stay that way. But that implictly means that they're crap for anyone else who wants to be that way. Taxing profitable businesses helps struggling businesses. Anti-monopoly regulations help new businesses. That just makes sense.

RedState Blues

But of course, all of this argument is well over the heads of the typical conservative. For them, Republican equals Pro-Business and Democrat equals Anti-Business, and that's all there is to it. Honestly, I've been reading RedState for long enough now to realize that they don't even discuss how this stuff is supposed to work. It's one thing for them to complain about "socialism" and "redistribution of wealth," but they also seem to think that regular small businesses are going to be destroyed by this stuff. Destroyed I tell you.

Yet there's never any actual discussion of this stuff. No policy debate at all, from what I've seen. It's all taken as given that it's going to happen and the only discussion is on how badly Obama is going to screw everyone over. On the one hand, you've got the people who assume that Obama's lying about his tax proposal and think that his tax increase will apply to people making $100k, and on the other side, you've got the people who think the whole thing is out of his hands and that Pelosi and Reid will be the ones dropping the hammer with a scary tax that destroys us all.

But of course, Obama and the Dems will be fools for not working to pass Obama's plan as stated. After all, the main thing he's selling at this point are his policies, and people really seem to like his tax plan in particular. It's a mandate. And so if he doesn't get it to us, but instead gives us some crappy-ass tax policy that he said he wouldn't, then he's screwed. Especially as I think he's got a really good tax proposal, so it'd be dumb to not implement.

Iraq Forevah!

Equally, some people think he won't get us out of Iraq. And that would be such an epic blunder that I can't really see him making a worse mistake. Because Iraq is just such a huge and pointless money drain that it cripples everything else we do unless we get out. And the sooner he starts it, the better, because it will make him look bold, decisive, and honest. We're only staying there because Bush required his PR victory and the only people who will oppose it are the people who already think that Obama is a terrorist, so there's no real downside to it.

Sure, he'll have to prepare people for the ensuing violence that is likely to break-out, but honestly, in the long-term, I think things will work out better this way. It's a domestic and foreign win-win all the way around and he should get on it as soon as possible.

But anyway, I'm not sure exactly where I was going with all this, but think I said enough. Hope you learned something. If not, sorry.

Challenges from God

From the Dr. Dobson interview:
Describing herself as a "hard-core pro-lifer," Palin said the birth of a son with Down syndrome was "this opportunity for me to really be walking the walk and not just talking the talk. There's purpose in this also and for a greater good to be met there."

This isn't meant as criticism of Palin's decision, as that's a personal thing and I don't really care what her decision was any more than I'd want her to care about my decisions.  But I've never really felt comfortable when people who have made the decision Palin made talk about it solely in terms of this being a personal challenge for themselves.  As if this was merely a question of the parent accepting God's challenge of raising a child with disabilities, or whether they'd wimp out and have an abortion.

And I don't know, but that's always struck me as being entirely selfish.  I mean, I've heard this kind of thing before, and there's always this underlying self-congratulatory air about the whole thing.  Like we're supposed to think they're such great people for accepting this challenge, and that the only implications involved them.  Particularly when they frame it in terms of them selflessly showing their devotion to their faith, which is entirely what Palin means with her "walk the walk" line.  

It's as if she saw this as being a test of her faith, and rather than making this decision as a parent, she made it as a pro-life Christian.  And perhaps she didn't mean it that way, but that's how she framed it and how I often see it framed by people in similar situations.  As if their decision was made to prove their love of God.

Worse than Death

Because I don't know about you, but I personally don't think I'd like to have Down's Syndrome.  Perhaps that's just me, but I don't think I'd like that at all.  I found life growing up to be hard enough as it was and really don't think I could have taken any extra challenges.  And this isn't to suggest at all that anyone with Down's Syndrome is miserable or should be killed or anything like that.  It's just that, well, I just think there are bigger implications here than the inconvenience and heroics of the parents.  There is a child to think about, too.

And much of this is due to my grand agnosticism.  Because I think it's entirely possible that our souls are something outside of their existence here on earth.  So perhaps the decision to have a child with Down's Syndrome has denied that soul the ability to be born as someone else.  Or perhaps aborted children go directly to Heaven, which certainly would be preferable to them coming here to earth.  And I can think of an infinite number of different possibilities whereby having a child with Down's Syndrome isn't the best thing for the child.  

And yet we never seem to hear a side of this where perhaps the child might not want to be born this way.  And we get that from all pro-lifers, where it's always assumed that life is better.  But I just can't agree to that.  There's a lot of bad shit in the world, with kids being born into horrible situations that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy (for the record, I have no enemies).  And so some kid is born into a drug house where she's beaten, abused, and treated like a slave by hateful parents who were treated the same when they were children; and I'm supposed to think this is a good thing?  

Sorry, but I just can't do it.  I've seen enough of this world to know that there are some things worse than death; and I say that as someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife.  And I'll never be so egotistical that I'll imagine that I can make these decisions to know that life is always better than whatever the alternative is.  For all we know, God wants some fetuses to be aborted; and no number of bible interpretations can convince me otherwise.  Some things are simply outside our realm of understanding.

My Decision

And trust me when I say that I'm trying to be delicate here, as I really don't want any of this to be taken as a suggestion that I think Palin or any other parent who made this kind of decision made the wrong one.  Again, that's their personal decision.  But for myself, if I were in that situation, I believe that I could not do it.  It has nothing to do with my selfishness at having to care for a child with disabilities.  It has to do with how cruel this world is and me not wanting to subject one of my children to it in that sort of situation.

Similarly, I don't think I could ever give a child up for adoption.  In fact, my greatest fear since I became a parent is that something would happen to me and I'd be unable to raise my children.  That's honestly the only thing that frightens me.  I've never feared death, but now I fear that I wouldn't be able to raise my children the way I think they should be raised.  And so the idea that I'd bring my child into this world with even fewer advantages would trouble me enough that I don't think I could do it to them.  

Again, that's not to say that anyone else should think as I do.  Merely that I don't like when this is framed in terms of the heroic decision the parent made, as if it's the only selfless one possible.  And when these stories are told merely as a means of showcasing the parent's devotion towards their faith is even more troubling.  This isn't about them or their faith.  It's about the child.  I'm hoping that they are fully aware of that, but wish they'd stop presenting it as if that's the only consideration.  This isn't a challenge from God.  It's a child.  I just hope everyone remembers that.

Respect My Authority

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh on why Vint Cerf's endorsement of Obama is invalid:

Google's Vint Cerf Endorses Obama. Reasons? He likes the "principle" of "net neutrality" and he also likes the idea of "sav[ing] money on lobbying fees" by having a President who will respond to Cerf's every desire.

Don't believe me? Read this.

No Pejman, I don't believe you. Because it seems a bit odd that Cerf would actually have said such a thing. But hey, Pejman did me the courtesy of giving a link for all us doubters to read. Surely that link would show that he was correct, right?

Wrong. If you click on that link, you just get another blogger who writes about Cerf, but doesn't quote one word that Cerf said. Instead, he quotes from another blogger who casts doubt on Cerf's motives for endorsing Obama. And when you click through his link, you end up at Valleywag, a tech gossip blog with a guy who opposes net neutrality (an issue he doesn't seem to understand) and who jokes that Cerf endorsed Obama to save on lobbying fees. And presumably, the joke would be that Cerf was acting out of his own self-interest because Obama supported a policy that Cerf supported.

And so from a tech gossip's anti-Cerf joke, we filter through a technology libertarian blog, and viola!, Pejman has his reason to diss Vint Cerf's endorsement of Obama. But of course, none of this makes any sense. I understand the desire to spin endorsements to de-emphasize their importance (ie, Powell and Obama are black); but in this case, the spin seems to be that Cerf's endorsement isn't legit because Obama agrees with Cerf on an issue that benefits Cerf. And this is damning because...

But of course, it doesn't matter what Vint Cerf says. All that matters is that somebody, somewhere made him look bad when saying it. And that's good enough for Pejman.

No Pro-American Associates

And I'll leave you with a comment from RedStater Stephen Halsey on McCain's weak attacks on Obama:

Also, the fact that Obama has no public associations with people who love and want to defend this country is troubling if not frightening. His entire past is littered with associations with communists, marxists, socialists and other radicals bent on the destruction of traditional America. These are serious and troubling issues and McCain has failed to make the case.

I think he left out all the muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, and hornswogglars Obama associated with back when he was Sheriff of Rock Ridge. And he never has been particularly open about this part of his past either...

Stevens Takes the Long View

From Senator Ted Stevens corruption trial:

Stevens has said he never sought gifts and wouldn't even accept a free lunch, much less expensive remodeling services. But prosecutors say he had a history of accepting gifts — including an expensive massage chair from a friend — and omitting them from the financial disclosure forms.

He said he considered that chair a loan.

"And the chair is still at your house?" prosecutor Brenda Morris asked.

"Yes," Stevens said.

"How is that not a gift?"

"He bought that chair as a gift, but I refused it as a gift," Stevens said. "He put it there and said it was my chair. I told him I would not accept it as a gift. We have lots of things in our house that don't belong to us."

But really, in the grand scheme of things, does anything truly belong to us? Or are we just leasing out this space on earth for the short time we are allotted, before turning it over to its next tenant upon our departure? This air we breathe, this water we drink, is it truly ours? Or are we all like Senator Stevens, merely allowing objects to stay in our homes before they are ultimately taken away from us forever?

Indeed, we can prosecute senators for accepting expensive message chairs, but this won't get us any closer to our true purpose: A vain denial of our very mortality. In the end, we're all giving back our expensive message chairs. Thank you, Senator Stevens, for reminding us of this.