Is it wrong to wish for this?

With John McCain's nagging condescension towards Barack Obama over foreign policy near the end of last night's debate, is it unrealistic or unfair to wonder if the "straight-talking" senator from Arizona is going to address Barack Obama as "son" or "boy" in one of the next two debates? Seriously. How many times did McCain say that Obama "fails to understand" some aspect of world affairs? More importantly, how many times did McCain make this claim despite the fact that Obama showed greater understanding of and clearer foresight into the complex nature of world affairs than did McCain himself? But Senator McCain's arrogance did not end there. Of course he pulled out that old reliable Republican trick of loudly and entirely misquoting (or taking out of context) many of Barack Obama's past statements on foreign policy matters while assuming nobody - even Obama himself - would call him on it. At one point McCain even had the nerve to become agitated when Obama accurately cited Henry Kissinger's claim that the United States should enter into talks with Iran without any pre-conditions. McCain's response to Obama's citation of Kissinger's public disavowing of the horribly unrealistic, juvenile and failed approach to foreign policy initiated by President Bush was sadly predictable: "I've known him [Mr. Kissinger] for thirty-five years" and . . . and . . . and well, ok, Senator, you are seventy-two years old, so you've probably known plenty of people for a long time. We get that point; but "I've known Mr. Kissinger for thirty-five years" is not the same as "I've known Mr. Kissinger for thirty-five years and therefore know every comment he's ever made about foreign policy in his entire life." This is the best McAngry can bring to a national debate on foreign policy?

After twenty-six years in congress, one would think John McCain could play the game with a cooler head - not to mention more facts - but that is simply not the case. McCain was becoming agitated by Obama's reference to Kissinger, and with the truth (or, more accurately, the knowledge that he didn't even know the truth) not on his side, McCain began to lose the battle at hand and had to change focus. Historically speaking, once McCain starts to lose an argument or lose his focus, it has often been just a matter of time before he loses his cool as well. This is why, however unlikely, it may not be completely unfair to wonder if John McCain will slip in a "son" or a "boy" somewhere in a drawn-out emotional exchange with Barack Obama during one of the debates. After all, jokingly or not, the man did call his wife a cunt in public.

It would be outrageous and offensive if John McCain were to make such a slip of the tongue, of course. Nonetheless, I kind of hope he makes it. Realistically, if it were to happen, any fair-minded and undecided voter who had not been turned away by the Sarah Palin nomination surely would be turned away by that kind of racially-tinged condescension. And after all the lies presented by the McCain campaign, it would be ironic – and infinitely delightful – to see a moment of revolting honesty from the senator himself become the final nail in the coffin of his own sleazy campaign.

A moment of silence, please . . .

Paul Newman has passed away. And I don't believe there's anybody to take his place among the good guys, either.

Sean Payton needs to have his head examined

Often times in matters of pro football, neither the fans nor the sportswriters have enough information with which to make truly informed opinions. The New Orleans Saints' current situation with rehabilitated running back Deuce McAllister, however, is not one of those times.

For those not in the know here, Deuce McAllister is one of the most dedicated, toughest athletes ever to put on any uniform in any sport. He tore the anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee early in the 2005 season and then returned the next year to run for over 1,000 yards along with ten touchdowns (by comparison, Edgerrin James, considered to be one of the premier running backs in the NFL at the time of his ACL injury back in 2001, accumulated almost as many yards - 989 to be exact - but with only two touchdowns in his first season back from ACL surgery in 2002). In the third game in the 2007 season, Deuce tore the ACL in his left knee, requiring yet another off-season of intense rehabilitation. Anybody who had ever watched Deuce McAllister's efforts with the Saints (including myself) had absolutely no doubt that Deuce would be able to return successfully from a second ACL surgery at the age of twenty-nine, an age that is considered "old" by NFL running back standards. (Frank Gore is the only other running back currently playing in the NFL who has had ACL surgeries on each leg; Gore, however, suffered both injuries while in college at an age when the body is much more able to rebound from such formerly catastrophic injuries.). And thus far, in what little Deuce has been allowed to show in the 2008 season, he appears to have made the successful comeback he had expected to make.

Despite Deuce's proclamation to be ready for this season as well as his having ably carried the load in the first half of the last exhibition game versus the Miami Dolphins, head coach Sean Payton has given the ball to the remarkable running back only twice all season. The only thing Deuce did with those two carries is gain ten yards for a 5.0 average, which is far better than either Reggie Bush or Pierre Thomas has been able to average in much more extensive action. Coach Payton's decision to leave Deuce on the bench was especially puzzling (and downright enraging, really) when the Saints failed to convert on a 4th-and-goal from the 1-yard line in the first half and then again on 3rd-and-1 in Denver territory late in yesterday's loss to the Broncos. The question almost every Saints fan has been wondering (besides, "What in the name of Carl Smith was coach Payton thinking when he called the same play that had failed three previous times on 3rd-and-1?") was obvious: "What in the name of Carl Smith was Deuce doing standing on the sidelines when the Saints needed a mere one yard to all but win the game yet again?" It is this question that Sean Payton simply cannot answer in a satisfactory manner.

All the evidence is there: Deuce was healthy enough to carry the ball eleven times in a meaningless exhibition game against the Dolphins - when injuries are not any less likely to occur than in a regular season game (just ask Osi Umenyiora of the Giants) - but is now being held out of games until Payton feels that Deuce "is ready." In essence, Sean Payton is saying that he's not willing to risk having Deuce re-injure his leg in order to help the team in crucial situations, but he is willing to risk having Deuce re-injure his leg with absolutely nothing to gain in the process. Does this rationale make any sense to anybody over the age of six? If Deuce is going to get hurt, coach, I guarantee you that he would prefer to get injured while trying to make a relevant contribution to the team, not while mopping up the floor with meaningless carries. That would be a complete waste, wouldn't it be? And almost every fan would agree, I'm sure.

Furthermore, as John DeShazier of the Times-Picayune pointed out, if coach Payton is so sure that Deuce is not ready to carry the ball, then why does he allow Deuce to dress for the game at all? Why not activate an extra player on defense, where injuries have taken a huge toll on its abilitiy to stop opposing offenses? Does this decision mean that coach Payton can't determine a mere two days before the game whether or not Deuce will be able to carry the ball at all? He can determine whether or not Scott Fujita, Aaron Glenn, Aaron Stecker, Mike McKenzie and every other injured player is physically able to participate, but that Deuce's physical condition is so extraordinary that his ability cannot be determined at the same time? Ridiculous, I tell you.

The most damning piece of evidence, however, is Deuce McAllister himself: granted, it was only two carries, but Deuce looked as good as any other Saints RB in those two carries versus Washington. Not only that, but Deuce has historically been the RB to carry the ball in short yardage situations - and he has historically been good at delivering what the Saints needed, too.

I've heard some people speculating that Payton is "saving" Deuce for later in the season when the Saints will "really" need him. Well guess what: those late-season games won't be nearly as important if the Saints don't start winning today. And obviously neither Reggie Bush nor Pierre Thomas is having much success on 3rd or 4th & 1, which leaves no logical explanation for Sean Payton's decision to keep Deuce on the bench.

We can only hope that coach Payton sees the error of his ways before yet another late-game short-yardage failure costs the Saints another victory. If this happens just a couple of more times, any action Deuce - along with everybody else on the Saints' roster - sees after mid-season will have been rendered completely meaningless by the head coach's currently inexplicable way of making decisions.

Defying Science (Yet Again): The Republican Party Sinks Even Lower

Just when you finally had accepted the fact that the Republican Party will ceaselessly lower the level of their own shamelessness, they manage to sink so quickly that one is still shocked. It wasn't shameless enough to constantly criticize Barack Obama's readiness to serve as President and then nominate one of the most unqualified politicians ever to serve as backup President for an elderly, near senile presidential candidate with a history of health problems. Nor was it shameless enough for Republicans to warn Americans that they can expect Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress to spend taxpayer money recklessly even after a completely Republican-controlled government spent taxpayer money like a bunch of coked-up heiresses on Rodeo Drive while running up the biggest budget deficits in U.S. history. And – somehow, some way – it still wasn't shameless enough for John McCain and Sarah Palin to criticize Barack Obama for the amount of earmarks he requested the U.S Congress in 2007 for his state – $25 per resident, to be exact – even though Sarah Palin requested earmarks at a rate of $295 per resident as governor of Alaska! No, none of those ridiculously baseless criticisms of Barack Obama were shameless enough to satisfy the apparently insatiable Republican appetite for self delusion and hypocrisy.

A statement made yesterday by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, however, might just be enough to satisfy the Republican need for hypocrisy, self-delusion and self-pity all in one. With complete and utter sincerity – or with what passes as complete and utter sincerity for a Republican – Mr. Davis told Fox News (who else!) that Governor Palin would not grant any more interviews (after the one interview she gave to ABC's unofficial Republican liaison Charles Gibson) until – get ready, folks – she can "be treated with respect and deference" by the media!

Holyshiteatingbunchofmotherfuckincracksmokingsonsofbitches!

What did that colossal asshole just say?!!? Did he really say that the media needs to treat Governor Palin with "respect and deference"? By "respect and deference," can we assume Mr. Davis was referring to the same kind of "respect and deference" the media showed, say, Vietnam veteran and longtime senator John Kerry in 2004? Or Vice-President and future Nobel Prize winner Al Gore in 2000? Or President Bill Clinton during the absurd, grotesque theatre of the Monica Lewinsky "scandal"? Oh, wait – not that kind of "respect and deference" from the media, stupid American citizen! No, Mr. Davis was referring to the kind of respect and deference the media has shown to somebody like, say . . . John McCain. You know, the kind of respect and deference that allows members of the Associated Press to sit down and share shits, giggles and donuts with Senator McCain! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7EDnW-yns] Ahh, yes, that kind of respect!

You see, folks, self-pity and victimization are huge – and I mean huge – parts of the Republican Playbook. If you were to ask a Republican, he would quickly identify his own white self as the most put-upon person in the entire United States of America. Let us now pity the poor, downtrodden, trampled-upon average Republican, for he is a victim many times over: he has to pay higher taxes than everybody else; his guns are always on the verge of being confiscated by the government; his marriage is in danger of being defiled by those dastardly homosexual monogamists; his peace of mind is being chipped away because violent criminals are not being executed by the state; his religion is not being allowed to infiltrate every part of the government; his job – and nobody else's – is habitually threatened by the influx of illegal immigrants; he has to pay for every other child's education; his children are threatened with the possibility of learning about sex rather than being shielded from it; his self-worth is always being brought down by all those uppity women want to get paid the same amount of money he gets for doing the same job; he actually has to compete with minorities now for the jobs his forefathers were guaranteed; and, of course, the mainstream media is always out to destroy his preferred political leaders and ideals.

How many Republican campaign speeches and commercials have been filled with some or most of – if not all of – the scenarios listed above? Oh, you've never seen a Republican openly declare he is against equal pay for women? Well, truth be told, neither have I. Obviously, almost no political candidate is going to come out and declare that he doesn't want women to make the same amount of money men do for performing the same job; however, the fact that almost no Republican ever publicly declares that leveling the paying field is a priority says enough. After all, silence is approval; by not speaking up for true equality, Republican candidates merely affirm that the unequal status quo is working just fine for them. Every other scenario has been explicitly stated as a platform, though their obvious psychological motivations are often left unstated, of course.

All of those Republican self-pitying scenarios have one thing in common, and it sticks out like a gay black woman at their national convention: each of them is patently absurd. And that's what this claim of the media's lack of "respect and deference" toward Sarah Palin is: a gigantic and utterly absurd piece of political poo-poo. Please, Mr. Davis – the media is not showing Ms. Palin the proper respect and deference? Then what were all of those banner headlines praising her speech at the Republican National Convention? Some of those reviews even argued that her speech may have saved the Republican Party itself; those certainly didn't seem like career-killing reviews to me. Still not satisfied with the amount of respect the media gave her after that speech? OK, first things first, Mr. Davis: Sarah Palin isn't the Queen of England. She's not even the Queen of Alaska; she's the governor of Alaska, a state that ranks near the bottom in population and infrastructural needs (and before that was the mayor of town of close to 9,000 people, wherein she infamously tried to start banning books almost immediately upon taking office). However small the town of Wasilla or state of Alaska might be, however, being mayor of the former and then governor of the latter surely should command everyone's respect . . . unless by "everyone" you're including Republicans, that is. If I recall, Republicans, your favorite character assassin-turned-political "analyst" Karl Rove showed a complete lack of respect and deference to Barack Obama's once-presumed running mate, governor Tim Kaine of Virginia. What were Mr. Rove's less-than-glowing words about governor Kaine? Hmm . . .

Well, with all due respect again to Gov. Kaine, he's been a governor for three
years. He's been able but undistinguished; I don't think people could really
name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest
city in America. Again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller
than Chula Vista, California, Aurora, Colorado, Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona, North
Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town.

Soon after Sarah Palin had been nominated, a spokesperson for Barack Obama's campaign, Bill Burton, pointed out the GOP's double standard of criticizing Obama's lack of experience while possibly placing somebody with even less experience a very delicate heartbeat away from the White House:

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign
policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin
shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big
Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the
change we need, it's just more of the same.

One person's lack of respect is a Republicans' refreshingly honest political analysis – when a Republican is refreshingly not showing the respect, that is! So, what was a piece of candid political analysis by the insidious Karl Rove a mere four weeks ago magically morphed into an utter lack of respect and deference on the part of the Democrats and their cohorts in the "liberally biased" mainstream media. And the only thing that changed was the subject of the criticism.

But this type of criticism was merely the beginning of the incessant Republican whine-fest. The truly unbearable display of self-pity and victimization by the Republican Party began when more of Governor Palin's personal life came to light. Naturally, because Governor Palin was all but unknown, the mainstream media was completely abuzz trying to find out anything about John McCain's hockey mom-turned-running mate. So what did the media do? Well, it did its fucking job – that's what it did! It uncovered the fact that the very religious Governor Palin, who is vigorously anti-choice and firmly believes in abstinence-only sex education, has a teenage daughter who, from all available evidence, is either a slow learner or simply a non-believer in abstinence-only sex education. In either case, she is living proof that her mother's belief in abstinence-only sex education simply does not work; after all, if you can't prevent your own daughter from being impregnated through that kind of education, how are you going to prevent inner-city girls from being impregnated via the same means? But the media didn't cover Bristol Palin's pregnancy from that approach (of course not, because that approach would have been responsible!); no, the media then did what it does best when it comes to politics: it runs away with and obsesses over the more or less meaningless aspects of the story. Some left-wing blogs (most noticeably the Daily Kos) went particularly ape-shit and started publicly questioning whether Governor Palin's four-month old baby was hers or her daughter's. Is this kind of "journalism" going too far? Well, I think it is, but then I thought it was going too far when the mainstream media – not right-wing blogs, mind you – publicly questioned, without a shred of evidence, whether or not the Clintons had murdered longtime confidant Vince Foster during the Whitewater investigation. Where was right-wing outrage over that completely irresponsible and disrespectful bit of media coverage? Oh, wait – that was a-ok because it had the off-chance of bringing down the dreaded Clinton political machine. Kind of like how it was a-ok for the mainstream media to obsessively investigate President Clinton's private life in order to uncover the Monica Lewinsky affair. Yeah, I can't recall too many Republicans publicly declaring that the media was showing a lack of respect and deference toward President Clinton during that sorry excuse for congressional abuse of power. The list could go on and on and on, but you get the idea.

The idea is simple: as always, it is the patented Republican hypocrisy that makes the McCain campaign's cry of media unfairness so ridiculous. The media constantly ran stories and aired "analysis" by conservatives that belittled and/or defamed Barack Obama (along with just about any Democrat who happens to be on the national radar as well, e.g. Tim Kaine) and convicted Obama through his associations with a controversial religious pastor and a former 1960s radical-turned professor. The very instant one of their own was subjected to the same intense scrutiny, however, Republicans – not right-wing blogs or "mainstream" right-wing media, but nationally recognized members of the Republican Party itself – pulled out the victim card and claimed that the mainstream media was treating their candidate more harshly than the Democratic Party's candidate. Very few in the mainstream media, however, will point out the obvious: the Republican Party knows damn well that the media is not treating Sarah Palin unfairly. Ultimately, though, who will care? Nobody. Well, nobody other than well educated and well informed Obama supporters and independents. Why? Because the GOP's constant cry of left-wing media bias still seems to work, so they will play the victim card as a means of shielding Governor Palin from the expectations placed on every Vice Presidential candidate who ever came before her. Then the GOP will forbid the media from conducting any completely unscripted interviews with Governor Palin, and they will cry liberal wolf every time the media uncovers anything new and unsavory about the inexperienced candidate. And then the mainstream media will follow the lead of the poor, helpless, victimized Republicans and refuse to obsess over Palin's private or public life the way it obsessed over every detail of the whereabouts of President Clinton's penis, the misquoted (but valid) claims of Al Gore, the completely evidence-free assertions of the Swift Boat Veterans for [cough] Truth, the exact cost of every haircut John Edwards ever received, the controversial sermons delivered by Barack Obama's longtime pastor (whether or not Obama was present during or even approving of these sermons), the one-time failure of Joseph Biden to cite the source of a quote he had cited every previous instance he had used the quote in similar speeches - etc, etc, etc.

Then, because of the mainstream media's spineless capitulation to the Republican Party's victimization act, there will remain the outside chance – and terrifying prospect – that John McCain, despite being a warmongering, near-senile dipshit, will win the 2008 presidential election after all.

153 Down, 6 To Go

The 200 block of Vinet Ave in Old Jefferson is one of only six blocks in that neighborhood still without power. An Entergy representative informed me today that power would "definitely be restored by September 9." Of course, just yesterday I was told that power would "definitely be restored by September 8," so the the word "definitely" obviously doesn't have the same meaning for Entergy as it does for the rest of the English-speaking population. All of which means that, if Hurricane Ike follows its projected path, there is an outside chance that by the time I get power back I'll have to evacuate the very next fucking day.

Yeah, I can't wait to see how this situation plays out . . .

The Sarah Palin Nomination: Business as Usual for the Republican Party

On the surface of things, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin – who has served as governor of the state of Alaska for less than two years – appears to be a radical choice for the party. After all, she has a vagina and is rising through the ranks faster than many men in her party; that fact in itself is revolutionary for the GOP. As soon as one has digested that bit, however, he will notice that her nomination is nothing more than business as usual for the Republican Party. Governor Palin is a red-blooded modern Republican through and through: she is a feverishly pro-life, card-carrying member of the NRA who has been calling for the termination of the federal government's ban on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for quite some time. This "business as usual" label, however, lies not so much in Palin's policy preferences as her party's infinite ability to talk out of both sides of its very large and very loud collective mouth.

You see, the GOP's most common attack on Barack Obama is that, as a one-term U.S. senator, he is simply not experienced enough to serve as president. Now comes the news that the oldest candidate for president in U.S. history – a man who has battled near-constant health problems for ten-plus years, a man who also has shown at least five of the ten warning signs of Alzheimer's disease and a man whose father and grandfather both died suddenly of heart attacks – has chosen a self-declared "hockey mom" with less than half a term as governor of Alaska under her belt as his prospective vice president. The vice president, of course, is the person with the crappiest job in the higher reaches of our federal government. John Adams, the first vice president of the U.S., once described it as "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived." Why did future president Adams feel this way? Well, basically because the vice president doesn't do anything. The primary responsibility of the vice president (as vested by the Constitution, not Dick Cheney) is to do as little as possible unless he is called upon to fill the shoes of the president, in which case he is expected to be as ready as the disabled president was. In other words, the vice president is basically a well-paid understudy to the actual president in case the president cannot fulfill his duties. What are we to make of the Palin nomination then? If I'm not mistaken, the Republican Party appears to have hired Dakota Fanning to be Sir Anthony Hopkins' understudy for a new production of Richard III. Is it just me, or did John McCain just turn himself into the political world's very own Max Bialystock?

Why is any of this vice presidential stuff important in the first place? Well, the cold hard reality, folks, is that John McCain's age and health are completely legitimate factors in assessing his ability to competently serve the highest office in the land, if not the world. Whether it's politically correct to discuss publicly or not, the fact is that Senator McCain's extensive medical history, along with well-known contemporary medical statistics, means there is a much higher probability that John McCain would be unable to complete his term in office than any previous first-time presidential candidate in U.S. history. That simple fact alone makes Senator McCain's choice for vice president much more important than Senator Obama's choice for vice president. Despite the obviously greater need to choose a running mate who is ready to be president immediately, Senator McCain and the Republican Party approved the nomination of somebody who is even less ready to serve as president than Barack Obama, whom the GOP has constantly accused of not being ready to serve as president. The fact that McCain was willing to choose somebody who is even less experienced than Barack Obama to serve as U.S. president in the instance of an emergency displays incredibly poor judgment on the part of Republican candidate; in turn, this incredibly poor judgment should be a major concern – and a major roadblock – to anybody who is considering not voting for Obama simply because he lacks experience.

Of course, this selection is par for the Republican Party's well manicured course: they firmly believe that the same thing that constitutes a weakness or fault in an opponent does not constitute a weakness or fault in themselves. How will the GOP justify placing somebody so unqualified within a heartbeat of the White House? I'm guessing the same way they do anything: they'll just make up shit and talk in circles! I can see it already (because I've seen it countless times before): they will cry that "Barack Obama is not ready to lead because he lacks experience," of course; and then, when called out for hiring somebody wholly unqualified to replace an elderly man with near-chronic health problems in the most important job in the country, the GOP will respond that "Governor Palin's even smaller résumé of governmental experience is not a weakness because she has [insert artificial GOP-created reason here]. Besides, she's running only for vice president." It's the only thing the GOP knows how to do: accuse others of having the very glaring faults they possess themselves – and then continue to do so until the public consciousness is beaten senseless.

Do you doubt my claim? Please – it took me over an hour just to decide where to start! How about this anecdote: just a few weeks ago on CBS' "Face the Nation," former GOP assassin turned political "analyst" Karl Rove, discussing the rumors that first-term Virginia governor Tim Kaine would be selected as Barack Obama's running mate, told Bob Schieffer that Obama

would pick a Red State Democrat, because I think he's going to make an intensely
political choice, not a governing choice. He's going to view this through a
prism of a candidate, not through the prism of President. That is to say, he's
going to pick somebody that he thinks on the margin will help him in a state
like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and
broad about the responsibilities as President. Well, with all due respect again
to Gov. Kaine, he's been a governor for three years. He's been able but
undistinguished; I don't think people could really name a big, important thing
that he's done. [emphasis added]

The implication is obvious: Barack Obama would choose a vice presidential running mate based solely on how many votes this running mate would bring to the ticket while John McCain would do the exact opposite and choose somebody who is qualified and ready to stand in for the president because John McCain is so experienced, so responsible and always so ready to put country before politics or his party or especially himself. (*sigh* what a dreamboat that John McCain is!) Lo and behold, three weeks later, it's Barack Obama who has chosen his running mate, Senator Joe Biden (of the critically strategic state of Delaware, that is), based on the strength of his extensive congressional résumé while John McCain has shamelessly attempted to woo the uncompromising members of the Religious Right along with still-disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters by choosing the uniquely unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate. Does that seem almost unbelievably absurd and hypocritical? Of course it does, but again, that's merely business as usual for the Republican Party. (And, oh by the way, Karl: please name one big, important fucking thing she's ever done as governor of Alaska. What was that Karl – I couldn't hear you.) One piece of evidence not enough? Here's another one: the Republican Party – with a collective straight face – has had the audacity to tell the American people during this campaign that they should fear runaway government spending by Barack Obama and the Democrats – never mind the fact that we just recently spent six years under a federal government run exclusively by a Republican Party that ran up the largest budget deficit in the history of the country. See how it works? The GOP recklessly spends money for six years and then runs for office on a platform of "fiscal responsibility" and "reform." By Republican campaign logic, then, their slogan should be simple enough to remember: "The only way to get us out is to vote us in!" Folks, insanity this fucking insane is nothing more than a living, breathing self-writing and extremely unfunny punch line. But it's what Republicans do. And they seem to do it 24/7. It's the only way they can ever get votes: to create a lie or unfounded fear, and then repeat it over and over and over – with the help of the right-wing loving mainstream media, that is – until voters simply give in to the mantra (see the habitually misquoted Al Gore of 2000 & the character-assassinated John Kerry of 2004 for proof).

Now we have John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, a choice that simply continues the patently hypocritical Republican way of business. They have been squealing at the top of their lungs that Barack Obama is not "ready to lead," yet announce today that the person they have chosen as their backup president is younger and less experienced – or less "ready to lead," if you prefer – than Barack Obama. And again, the Republican Party does all of this without a trace of evidence that they are aware that this choice undercuts their very own message. Of course, the Republican Party can pull off this magic trick as many times as they wish since the mainstream media almost never points out the fact that the GOP talks out of both sides of its mouth virtually all the time – but that's a matter for an entirely different entry. This time could be different, however; even I am not convinced the McCain-loving mainstream media will be able to provide McCain cover from the consequences of this blunder. All of which means that the person who stands to lose the most by this selection is the selection herself. The reality is that Sarah Palin is exactly the kind of politician conservative voters love: she's a tough-talking, no-nonsense achiever with a matching set of uncompromising political views. And she's also already being investigated for ethics violations in Alaska, though I can't say all conservatives love their politicians to be unethical scoundrels (it just seems that way). Unfortunately for Sarah Palin, she now stands a good chance of becoming a political casualty of the very standards created by her own party to kill Barack Obama's candidacy.

William Kristol: His employment is now one of the world's greatest mysteries

I have copied and pasted – in its painful entirety – New York Times' columnist William Kristol's latest bout of mental diarrhea. Mr. Kristol used his pulpit to lambast Moveon.org's latest ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzB4T5I4eAI). Following Kristol's latest masterpiece, I have included my letter to the editor of the Times-Picayune, the local New Orleans paper that insists on printing Mr. Kristol's detestable bowel movements in its editorial section (because the comics are too light-hearted, I guess), in response to their printing this bad joke. I hope you enjoy it, provided you can actually survive more than one paragraph of William Kristol . . .


Someone Else's Alex

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Published: June 23, 2008

The people at MoveOn.org have a new Iraq ad that is, if they do say so themselves, their most effective ever. Then again, for the group that brought us the "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad last September, that might not be saying much.

Nevertheless, the organization boasts on its Web site, "This isn't your average political ad — it lays out the truth about McCain's Iraq policy in a personal and compelling way." MoveOn also claims, "We just got the results back and polling shows that voters found it to be more persuasive than any other ad we've tested before."

I'm not persuaded. Having slandered a distinguished general officer, MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform.

Their new and improved message is presented in a 30-second TV spot, "Not Alex," produced in conjunction with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It's airing for a week on local broadcast stations in markets in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, and on two national cable channels, with a reported buy of over half a million dollars.

The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy:

"Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he's my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him."

Take that, warmonger!

Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isn't counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.

And it might be picky to remark that when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, "Maybe 100" — explaining, "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. ..."

In other words, McCain is open to an extended military presence in Iraq, similar to ones we've had in Germany, Japan or Kuwait. He does not wish for, nor does he anticipate, a 100-year war in Iraq.

But it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won't be drafted, and his mommy can't enlist him. He can decide when he's an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army.

All of this is pretty much par for the course in political advertising. And I'm of the latitudinarian school when it comes to campaign discourse; politics is supposed to be rough and ready. So, why, I wondered after first seeing the MoveOn ad, did I find it so ... creepy?

I was having trouble putting my finger on just why until I came across a post by a mother of a soldier recently deployed in Iraq, at the Web site BlueStarChronicles.com.

Here's what the mother of an actual soldier has to say about the remarks of the mother of the prospective non-soldier in the ad:

"Does that mean that she wants other people's sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone's son, somewhere."

This is the sober truth. Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And we're not entering any such world.

We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he won't be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.

But that's not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.

The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.

And the sole responsibility of others.

Who needs waterboarding when you can just shove a little of William Kristol's prose down theie throats? Hahahahahaha . . . yes, it's over. Congratulations if you've reached this point without having stabbed yourself. Now onto my letter to the editor (note: the Times-Picayune changed the op-ed's headline from "Someone Else's Alex" to "Anti-war ad is a testament to selfishness) . . .

RE: Anti-war ad is a testament to selfishness (William Kristol, June 26, 2008)

Upon reading William Kristol's latest failed attempt at making sense (he's still advancing the completely baseless Germany-Iraq comparison), I couldn't help but think of the classic poem by Countée Cullen titled For a Lady I Know. The poem is incredibly powerful in its simplicity:

She even thinks that up in heaven
Her class lies late and snores
While poor black cherubs rise at seven
To do celestial chores.

It is fascinating to observe the heights to which Mr. Kristol's hypocrisy can soar. He would like to play the part of the honorable Mr. Cullen by pointing out the selfishness of little Alex's mother, but, unlike the unprivileged Mr. Cullen, Mr. Kristol is himself a member of the truly powerful elite. The hypocrisy, of course, is that, like so many other public advocates of unnecessary military action, Mr. Kristol completely avoided any kind of combat when he had the opportunity to serve his country honorably. Apparently it is not selfish for people of Mr. Kristol's class to lie late and snore when called to military duty, but it is pure selfishness when poor cherubs like the one in the moveon.org advertisement lie late and snore when they are called.

The fact that Mr. Kristol – or any other Neocon who never served in the U.S. military (the list is way too long to include here) – feels completely justified in attacking the "selfishness" of a mother who does not want her son to serve in a prolonged, senseless war started by the lies of a few privileged men including Mr. Kristol himself is way beyond galling – it borders on the criminally insane.

(End of letter)


And I didn't even bring up how Mr. Kristol is able to detect that the advertisement "barely disguised . . . its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving." Nor did I mention how Mr. Kristol finds that "the ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past." Really? It did all of that - with just a mother telling Senator McCain that he can't expect her son to serve in his war? If he can find all of that from that simple advertisement, then he's probably going to find some sort of erotic, homosexual subtext in Curious George Goes to the Hospital as well. And I also didn't mention how I feel that the ad is actually kind of lame in the first place and not even worth mentioning in a public forum, for goodness' fucking sake. I didn't mention any of that, and all of it would have been worth mentioning if the Vietnam-avoiding Mr. Kristol hadn't had the near-impossible audacity to come and out and call anyone - much less the mother of a newborn son - selfish for not wanting to serve in a war that he played a major role in starting. And as shitty and inhumane as I had always assumed Mr. Kristol and the rest of his Neocon, draft-dodging buddies were, I simply never thought even one of them could write a column so incredibly moronic and megalomaniacal.

It leaves me with one question: how in the fucking world does this guy stay employed? It's truly incomprehensible.

You're not depressed until George Will says you're depressed!

On Sunday's installment of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," George Will declared that he would tell the "average American" that he's better off now than he was eight years ago if put up to the task. If the Democratic Party had any kind of brains for the most important part of contemporary politics - that would be electioneering, of course - then they would run the video clip of this infuriatingly pompous comment on its own network, 24/7 until Election Day.

If elitism has a face, it is George Will's self-satisfied mug with a wide-open mouth full of foaming diarrhea. Is there anything more elitist than somebody who comes on national tv and tells a large group of people he's never met that their dissatisfaction with the economy and their place in it is simply a work of their imaginations? OK, so those aren't the words Mr. Will actually used, but that was part of the implied message since almost all the latest polls show Americans as feeling worse off economically today than they did back in 2000. If Mr. Will had wanted to avoid any kind of ambiguity, however, then his declaration would have more closely resembled this: "The average American is better off than he was eight years ago, he's just too stupid to realize it." In fact, that is the one and only thing that could be construed from Will's closing statement from the the clip over at crooksandliars.com (see link at end of entry).

The statement made me wonder: if Barack Obama is elitist for identifying - some would say misidentifying - the average small-town American's dissatisfaction with and knee-jerk reactions to the faultering economy, then how elitist is George Will for telling the average American that he doesn't even have the right to his dissatisfaction in the first place because he just doesn't understand that he's better off than he was eight years ago? There is simply nothing more elitist than this type of statetment, and the Democrats would be wise to point out this type of elitism as often as possible before Election Day.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/15/george-will-on-this-week-who-are-you-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lying-bank-account/comments

Misleading Headlines of the Lazy Mainstream Media

MSNBC's website published an article today featuring the following headline:

White House admits fault on "Mission Accomplished"

Anybody in America with a tenth of a human brain understands the reference to "Mission Accomplished" – they are the two words on the prominently positioned, self-congratulatory banner hanging on the USS Abraham Lincoln, where President George W. Bush gave his speech marking the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq on May 1, 2003 (I guess the ensuing five years have been nothing more than minor combat operations, though I wouldn't dare say that aloud near anyone serving in the military right now).

There is one very peculiar problem with this article: the White House never actually admits its true mistake! Back in 2003 White House administrators claimed that the crew of the battleship USS Abraham Lincoln ordered the sign and then claimed – as if the entire U.S. population were as stupid as themselves – they had no knowledge of the banner before the speech! Then, in keeping with a common Republican theme, the White House created its own second reality in which the crew of the Lincoln put in a request for the banner to the White House, which then paid a third party to create it.

Now we have the latest White House-created reality involving the "Mission Accomplished" banner. According to Press Secretary Dana Perino, the banner "should have been much more specific" in regards to which mission it was referring because – I hope you're near a toilet bowl – it was really referring to the mission of the battleship itself, not the mission of the entire U.S. military in Iraq! Yes, folks, you read that sentence correctly: the White House now wants us to believe that a huge banner declaring "Mission Accomplished," hanging on the battleship upon which the President of the United States of America was announcing the "end of major combat operations in Iraq," was referring only to the mission of the battleship where the speech was given, not to the erroneous content of the speech itself. Wow. Again, one must wonder: does the Bush Administration think we're every bit as earth-shatteringly stupid as they are?

If Ms. Perino had left the matter there, it would have been bad enough; but the Bush Administration has never been good at knowing when to say when. Ms. Perino goes on to say, "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year." What exactly is this price of which she speaks? Being the butt of numerous jokes on "The Late Show" and "The Colbert Report" – is that the price to which she is referring? Or perhaps she was referring to Bush's being the butt of numerous jokes on "The Late Show" or "Real Time with Bill Maher"? Whatever! Here's the real reality, Ms. Perino: President Bush hasn't paid the price for anything, sweetie. Paying a price for the things he's done to this country and its citizens – not to mention to other countries and their citizens – would include his being impeached and then sent to prison for war crimes. That would be "paying a price," toots – being mocked by every comedian in the country is mere foreplay in this situation. Of course, the Bush administration has made lying to the public a habit, so why should we expect even a drop of truth to invade its ocean of bullshit?

As if the White House's habitual lying weren't bad enough, there's also the problem with the media's presentation of this habit. This article presents a bigger problem, in particular its completely misleading headline "White House admits fault with 'Mission Accomplished.'" The thing is, MSNBC, the White House didn't actually admit the true error. No, like an elementary school student who just got caught trying to pull one over on the teacher, the White House simply came up with yet another excuse – and a horribly pathetic and completely unbelievable one at that. Ms. Perino may as well have just come out and said that the dog ate the memo about the banner's true meaning, which in turn caused everyone to mistakenly believe the banner was referring to the entire "Operation Iraqi Freedom" rather than the USS Abraham Lincoln's mission in carrying out its part of "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Despite the obvious transparency of the White House's mea culpa, MSNBC's headline suggests that the White House offered an honest admittance of arrogance in the shameless public relations stunt that was "Mission Accomplished." This decision by MSNBC is extremely puzzling given the seven and a half years of habitual bullshitting on the part of Bush & Co; at this point, shouldn't it be routine for any and every media outlet to pass on the words of the White House with a reality translator? Apparently not, as we are subjected to the reporting only of White House spokesperson Dana Perino's flimsy explanation and ensuing whining about the effects of the White House's "mistake" on President Bush's reputation. If the media were performing its true service to the American public, MSNBC's headline would have looked more like this:

White House offers impossible-to-swallow explanation of that ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" banner

Actually, sources tell me that was the original headline . . . until one of President Bush's dogs ate it, that is. Unfortunately, neither Barney nor Miss Beazely seems ready to offer any confession at the moment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24400896/

Barry Zito: Poster Child for the Media's Need for a Good-Looking Superstar?

John Donovan of si.com published an article yesterday about the 2008 prospects of San Francisco pitcher Barry Zito, who is in his second year with the Giants after having signed a then-record seven-year/$126 million contract. Zito’s first year as a Giant was a complete bust: he posted career-worst numbers in ERA (4.53) and innings pitched (196 – his first full season under 200) while also finishing with his first losing record (11-13). Obviously this is not what the Giants expected out of Zito when they signed him to that record deal. The heart of this situation, however, is not what the Giants expected out of Barry Zito, it is why they expected so much out of Barry Zito. There was plenty of evidence available for the Giants front office to realize that Barry Zito was never worth the $126 million for which he signed after the 2006 season.

The continued overrating of Barry Zito has been – at least to me – as perplexing as the myth of the "liberally biased" media. In his article, Mr. Donovan wrote that Zito hasn’t had a "Zito-like" season since 2002, when he went 23-5 with a 2.75 ERA, 182 strikeouts, a 1.13 WHIP in 229 innings pitched. If these statistics constitute a "Zito-like" year, then what are we to make of his statistics from every other season? Upon further investigation, it is easy to see that his 2002 numbers were as un-Zito-like as his wretched 2007 numbers. Let’s look at his ERA, for example: that 2002 season saw him record his lowest single-season ERA, 2.75, which is 0.92 below his career ERA (3.67). His horrible 2007 ERA, on the other hand, was 4.53 – 0.86 above his career year – a smaller deviation from his career ERA than his 2002 ERA was. This fact raises an obvious question: if his 2002 ERA deviates further from his career ERA than his 2007 ERA does, how is 2002 more of a "Zito-like" season than 2007? His WHIP (walks & hits allowed per inning pitched) follows a similar track. Zito’s career WHIP is 1.262; in 2002 his WHIP was 1.134 (or 0.128 below his career average) while his 2007 WHIP was 1.347 (or 0.085 above his career average). Again, the larger deviation occurred in the "Zito-like" season of 2002. Does Mr. Donovan not have access to these same statistics? That is the only reason I can see for his blatant neglect of reality.

So what exactly is a "Zito-like" season? Apparently it looks something like this: 15-10, 3.67 ERA, 85 BB, 164 K, 1.26 WHIP and 219 IP. Of course, his lifetime statistics were slightly better before the Giants gave him that fat contract, though the fact remains that Zito was never an elite pitcher. His outstanding 2002 season put him on the verge of becoming an elite pitcher, but one outstanding season does not an elite pitcher make. In other words, his 2002 season offered a glimpse of Zito’s best up until that point; it was never the norm by which to calculate future production or value unto itself, especially when taking into account the four more or less mediocre years that followed. Throw in Zito’s early penchant for extreme peaks and valleys that continued throughout his career (for example, Zito began the 2001 season 6-7 with a 5.07 ERA before reading "Science of Mind" founder Ernest Holmes’ Creative Mind and then finding success – not exactly the surest sign of trouble, but then again, definitely not the surest sign of stability, either), and there were plenty of reasons for the Giants to doubt that Zito would switch leagues and magically become the dominant pitcher from that 2002 season all over again. Hence, the question remains: what did compel members of the Giants front office to bestow an $18 million per year contract upon a pitcher with only one truly spectacular season under his belt?

Zito’s aforementioned – and yet to be fulfilled – potential is the most obvious answer, of course. The other answer is the reputation Zito acquired through the media as an elite pitcher following that 2002 season – a reputation sportswriters continued to perpetuate long after it had become obvious that he simply was not fulfilling the lofty expectations created by that spectacular season. The creation of the Barry Zito myth began in that 2002 season when he went on a ridiculous second-half surge: 12-2 with a 1.92 ERA, to be exact. This incredible second half performance gave the short memories of the baseball media something to obsess over – and completely ignore the fact that not only had Pedro Martinez of Boston posted superior numbers all season long, but that he went on a similar second-half surge of his own: 9-2 with a 1.61 ERA (in four fewer starts due to injury). This is how each player finished the season:

· BZ: 23-5, 35 GS, 229.3 IP, 2.75 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 78 BB, 182 K, 24 HR, .218 OBA
· PM: 20-4, 30 GS, 199.3 IP, 2.26 ERA, 0.92 WHIP, 40 BB, 239 K, 13 HR, .198 OBA

While Zito trumps Pedro in durability, Pedro dominates Zito in every single performance category (important note: I have never considered won-loss record a "performance" category, especially since 1987, the year Nolan Ryan led the entire Major Leagues in ERA and strikeouts and finished with an 8-16 record for a lousy Houston Astros team; that said, even with fewer wins Pedro still finished with a higher winning percentage than Zito, .833 to .821). With across-the-board superiority, Pedro Martinez was the obvious choice to win the American League Cy Young Award in 2002. Unfortunately, once the brain-dead mainstream media begins a love affair with somebody – especially when he’s young, attractive and white – there’s no terminating it unless he’s found with a dead woman or a live boy in his bed. And since Barry Zito was by all means a likeable, quirky guy in 2002, he naturally walked away with the Cy Young Award that should have gone to the more aloof, more enigmatic, more dominant – in short, more deserving – Pedro Martinez.

Thus Barry Zito’s reputation was born. He followed that fantastic 2002 season with a very good – not great, just very good – 2003: 14-12, 3.30 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 88 BB, 146 K, 19 HR. Still, Zito was considered an elite pitcher, and perhaps rightfully so; despite his near break-even record, Zito was quite effective, so it was reasonable to expect him to follow that season with a better one in 2004. Instead, he hit rock-bottom: 11-11, 4.48 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 81 BB, 169 K, 28 HR. Had Zito come back from his disastrous 2004 campaign with seasons resembling his 2002 campaign, then it would have been reasonable to consider him an elite pitcher – and perhaps consider his 2002 season "Zito-like." Instead, Zito came back in 2005 and 2006 with seasons that more or less resembled hybrids of his 2003 and 2004 seasons: 30-23, 3.85 ERA, 1.30 WHIP. These simply are not the statistics of a dominating, elite major league pitcher.

The baseball press, however, was still madly in love with Barry Zito all the while. In 2005 Sports Illustrated published Zito’s behind-the-scenes photographs of spring training; the San Francisco Chronicle published several photographs and an article detailing Zito’s trip to Arlington Cemetery; then there were the infinite number of bits about Zito and Alyssa Milano during their 2004-2005 relationship (wherein it is safe to assume many of them referred to Zito as the Oakland Athletics’ "ace" even though counterparts Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson were putting up similar to superior numbers). Every baseball publication since his 2004 debacle has asked whether or not Barry Zito will "return to form" this season. Even during his horrendous 2007 season Zito was featured in a three-page Esquire magazine spread. Obviously the media simply cannot get enough of Barry Zito – or his unfulfilled potential. There was an obvious trend to the coverage of Barry Zito in the press, however: most pieces have focused on his quirky personality, diverse off-the-field interests and sometimes tabloid-fodder personal life while making mostly passing mention of his baseball accomplishments. And it’s not that Zito was never deserving of such mention; among other things, he donates a great amount of time and money to his Strikeouts for Troops foundation, which gives aid to military veterans’ hospitals across the country (somebody’s gotta do it ’cause we know George W. Bush ain’t). Nonetheless, it is easy to see that most of the ample publicity of Barry Zito was earned by his off-the-field charisma and good looks rather than his on-the-field accomplishments. This notoriety has kept his name – and more importantly his potential – out there for everyone, including baseball general managers, to salivate over.

And now comes John Donovan’s "It’s make-or-break time for pricey Barry Zito" article, in which he declares that Zito "hasn’t had a Zito-like since 2002, when he went 23-5 with a 2.75 ERA for the A’s." Donovan at least has the common sense to follow that ridiculous statement with the more appropriate line, "A lot of people are starting to wonder what Zito-like truly is, whether it’s ’02 and the years before that, or ’03 up to now." Conveniently for you, I’ve provided the answer to that question. There is, of course, one huge fact Mr. Donovan overlooks in this second sentence: there were no "years" (plural) before his magnificent 2002 season; there was only one "year" (singular) before his magnificent 2002 season. In his rookie season of 2000 Zito pitched very well – with numbers more closely resembling the Cy Young year of 2002 than any other season – but he pitched in only fourteen games. As any baseball player or fan could tell you, fourteen games in a rookie season is not much when it comes to determining the future success of a major league ballplayer. Donovan later asks some questions: "Where does Barry Zito, who soon will turn 30, go from here? Back to the elite pitcher he once was? Or into the scrap heap of free-agent busts?" Again, one of these questions assumes that, except for one season, Barry Zito was ever an "elite pitcher" when what more accurately describes him is "elite potential." After the disaster of ’04 and the return to above-average respectability – not elite respectability (see Roger Clemens, Roy Halladay, Roy Oswalt, Jake Peavy and Johan Santana) – the following two seasons, there was enough evidence for every major league general manager to know better than to throw $126 million at Barry Zito.

Unfortunately for the San Francisco Giants, they have only themselves to blame for buying into the inexplicable and unrelenting hype that has surrounded Barry Zito for the five years since his one and only season as an elite major league pitcher.

Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/john_donovan/03/24/zito.future/index.html