Melatonin & the Apocalypse

So I'm a horrible insomniac - everybody who knows me is aware of this fact (if you weren't, you might not have been aware that we've had a chimpanzee impersonating our head of state the for last eight years, either, but I digress). Anyway, I've been to the doctor a few times over the past several years for other reasons and have always mentioned the insomnia problem to him. For some reason, however, my doctor has offered little to no help with this problem, which, of course, is just another way of saying, "That rat bastard damn fool won't give me any freakin' drugs!" Yeah, that's what I want. And it's what you want, and it's what the person sitting across the room from you wants and it's what all your kids want, too.

OK, so I went in to see the doctor for a routine checkup on January 5, and while I was there I mentioned the insomnia problem yet again, thinking that maybe the 634th time would be the charm. Instead he did some blood tests and called me back a week later to tell me I had high cholesterol. Great, doc, but, umm . . . I CAN'T FUCKING STAY ASLEEP MORE THAN TWO TO THREE HOURS IN A ROW ALMOST ANY NIGHT OF THE YEAR! That's right: not "any night of the week," but "any night of the motherfuckin' YEAR!" FUCK! What about THAT?

His suggestion? "Have you ever tried melatonin?" Well, I had tried it many years ago, and it had virtually no effect whatsoever. That was then, though, so I thought why not try it again? After all, I used to think that George Will was a douche bag, and now I think he’s a colossal douche bag! So obviously things do change, don’t they? I mean, if the American voter can choose a black dude with almost no political experience over an old, rich white war hero, isn't just about any kind of change possible? Melatonin it would be, I decided.

I am now about to enter my fourth night of the Great Melatonin Experiment, and what have I to show for it? Would you believe a post-apocalyptic ....New Orleans....? Huh? What's that? Yes, that's correct: a post-apocalyptic Big Easy. That's the kind of fucked-up dream I've been having multiple times a night for the last three nights. Two of my ex-girlfriends have made frightening appearances in these dreams, one of whom inhabited a dream for the sole purpose of running me over in her car (I'm still not sure if her intent was to kill me or merely maim me by hitting me with her car; hopefully my subconscious will be quick enough on its feet to squeeze in an inquiry the next time she pops up in my dream). Another dream found me at a restaurant angrily confronting Saints head coach Sean Payton about why he had ordered the stuffed bell pepper instead of fried chicken for lunch. Obviously my subconscious is not nearly as obsessed as I am with trying to find out why coach Payton refused to put in Deuce McAllister in short yardage situations against both Washington and Denver earlier this past season. But out of all the strange dreams I've had the last three nights, none can top one of the dreams I had last night. You see, in this dream I was living in a ....New Orleans.... under martial law . . . because brain-devouring zombies were overtaking the city after a nuclear attack had left the it in ruins. Don't ask me why I wasn't a zombie as well; I mean, it's my subconscious - it's not exactly the most rational entity in the universe we're talking about here! At one point I found myself speeding along ....Airline Drive.... with a police car chasing me, but I absolutely refused to pull over. Could you blame me? I didn't know if it was the regular NOPD or the zombie NOPD that was chasing me - and I don't even know which one scares me more! The whole thing was just completely irrational. At one point I even ducked into the ultra sleazy London Lodge Motel to escape the zombies and ended up turning on the miraculously functioning tv with satellite reception, flipping right past the Red Sox game and onto a porn channel! How preposterous a scenario - I would never choose porn over the Red Sox in real life! Does anything under the influence of melatonin make any sense? Apparently not.

It is 2:39 AM, and the melatonin pill should be going to work very shortly. Based on the last few nights of bizarre dreams and disturbing nightmares one could easily understand my apprehension about what kind of dreams await me later. Throw in the fact that I went straight from being surrounded by thirty small children at a friend's daughter's sixth birthday party to watching The Dark Knight earlier tonight, and I'm beginning to think I should have just gone back to NyQuil and called it a week.

My E-mail To William Kristol

The 0-13 Lions are playing the 9-4 Colts, who have won six in a row, this Sunday in Indianapolis. I think this a splendid opportunity to make a prediction that actually goes right. Who's it going to be?

Quick Post-Election Question

Now that Barack Obama has soundly defeated John McCain in the 2008 United States presidential election, I have just one simple question: can we finally stop paying attention to Joe the Motherfuckin' Unlicensed Lying Scumbag Fucknut Asshole Plumber? Can we? For fuck's sake let's be done with this A-No.1 Asshole once and for fucking all.

2008 Presidential Election Prediction

The time is almost upon us. In a matter of hours voting booths in the East will be opening for U.S. citizens to elect a new President. The only two candidates with any chance to become the President-Elect are Republican John McCain of Arizona and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Those other people who have declared their candidacy (and will appear on a limited number of ballots as well) will have, unlike in some years past, virtually no impact on this election. That's ok because, really, who the fuck is Bob Barr, anyway? Normally this lack of a third party "spoiler" candidate would make predicting the election results much simpler, but John McCain and Barack Obama have made things considerably more complicated. After all, John McCain is, um . . . well, the dude is fucking ancient. And Barack Obama is – holy shit! – a black dude! With a Muslim-sounding name, no less! What the fuck does he think he's doing running for President? As old as McCain is, at least he's a whitey who served his country in the Spanish-American War or something. And both men are Senators, which means for the first the time since John F. Kennedy in 1960, somebody will move from the Capitol to the White House. Which senator will it be? Let's take a wild guess and say . . . Barack Obama? Yes, at the risk of putting the ultimate jinx on somebody at the worst possible point in the history of this country, I am predicting that Senator Barack Obama will defeat Senator John McCain for the Presidency of the United States of America. Here's how I see it going down.


Despite John McCain's creepy and constants pronouncements of an incredible comeback in Pennsylvania – the kind of bravado that sounds almost as if McCain knows something about a Pennsylvania fix that the rest of us schmucks don't – Obama will win all 19 states, including Pennsylvania, plus the District of Columbia that John Kerry won in 2004 and gave him 252 electoral votes to Bush's 286 in the process. For the sake of argument, however, we will give Obama one (possibly gigantic) vote less than Kerry's 252. Why? Because Maine does not have a winner-take-all electoral system, and John McCain made it a point to campaign hard in one district in Maine in order to insure himself one electoral vote from the state. Here's the breakdown of Obama's almost assured total of 251 electoral votes thus far:

Washington (11)
Oregon (7)
California (55)
Minnesota (10)
Wisconsin (10)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Pennsylvania (21)
New York (31)
Maryland (10)
Washington D.C. (3)
Delaware (3)
New Jersey (15)
Connecticut (7)
Rhode Island (4)
Massachusetts (12)
Vermont (3)
New Hampshire (4)
Maine (3)
Hawaii (4)

Before moving on to John McCain's projected electoral votes, it is important to note that one state – at least according to almost every poll taken in it during this campaign – has decided that there is not a snowball's chance in hell it will be held responsible for another four years of a Republican presidency: Iowa. Often overlooked in coverage of the 2004 election is the fact that Iowa barely went to George W. Bush – 50.06% to Kerry's 49.15%. After four more disastrous years of the Bush presidency, however, Iowans made a clear signal they wanted drastic change by overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama in the Democratic caucuses. The average poll – not the Obama campaign's best-case scenario poll but the average poll – has Obama break-dancing all over John McCain's senile head with a fifteen point lead. Unless there is an incredible number of Iowa Republicans playing practical jokes on pollsters, not even the election-stealing skills of the GOP can take this state away from Obama. This state's seven (7) electoral votes thus give Obama a total of 258, meaning he needs a mere twelve (12) more to win.


George W. Bush won 31 states in 2004, 21 of which are all but guaranteed to go to John McCain tomorrow. Here's a breakdown of the 164 electoral votes John McCain will receive from these 21 states plus Maine's one McCain vote:

Alaska (3)
Idaho (4)
Utah (5)
Arizona (10)
Montana (3)
Wyoming (3)
North Dakota (3)
South Dakota (3)
Nebraska (5)
Kansas (6)
Oklahoma (7)
Texas (34)
Arkansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Tennessee (11)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Alabama (9)
Georgia (15)
South Carolina (8)
West Virginia (5)
Maine (1)

The ten Bush states McCain is not guaranteed to win include the aforementioned Iowa – which, again, barring a miracle, is going to Obama – and nine others: Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Indiana (11), North Carolina (15), Florida (27) and Ohio (20). Again, in order to reach the decisive 270 threshold, Obama has to win just 12 more electoral votes. In other words, all Obama has to do is win Ohio, Florida or Virginia, and he wins the election. Unless they have a brilliant plan to pilfer Pennsylvania and its 21 electoral votes (McCain is down an average of 7.6 points there), the Republicans know the only Kerry-won state they might be able to take away from Obama is New Hampshire – and they probably don't even believe that, either (McCain and his GOP operatives still talk positively about New Hampshire because that's where McCain made his mark in both the 2000 and 2008 primaries, but they know they're down an average of 10.6 points there and are more or less humoring McCain at this point). Nonetheless, if they can make a last-second surge and take New Hampshire, Virginia does not become imperative to steal, er – win; only Florida and Ohio's electoral votes could single-handedly give Obama the election. With my apologies to Sarah Silverman, I think that John McCain will win Florida – legitimately, that is – mainly because of Obama's unusual surname. Ohio, on the other hand, is a bit trickier to call. The average Ohio poll has Obama up by approximately three (3) points, which is inside the margin of error for any poll. If the GOP can prevent enough Ohioans from voting once, they can do it again. Besides, I'm having some doubts about the intelligence of the average Ohio voter considering Joe the Lying Unlicensed Plumber is a resident. Chalk Ohio up for McCain and all those moronic Joes, which then gives McCain a total of 211 – forty-seven (47) behind Obama's 258 and fifty-nine (59) short of the 270 needed to win.


So if Obama can't reach 270 through Florida or Ohio, how does he reach it? According to the average poll, there are approximately seven other states up for grabs: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. I'm going to give Missouri, Indiana and North Carolina to McCain since he's up in those three traditionally Republican strongholds anyway. Adding those three states' 37 electoral votes to McCain's total, here's how the race to 270 looks now:

Barack Obama: 258 electoral votes
John McCain: 248 electoral votes

This scenario leaves four states to decide the election: Virginia and its thirteen (13) electoral votes, which haven't gone to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964; moderately conservative Colorado and its nine (9) electoral votes; and the lesser states of New Mexico and Nevada, each of which receives five (5) electoral votes. How will these states play out? Let's start off with possibly the most difficult to call, Virginia. Obama is up by an average of 4.3 points here, 49.8% to 45.5%. The 4.3 difference does fall within the margin of error, and Obama's average is still under 50%, so this state is by no means guaranteed to Obama. The fact that the state appears to be on an anti-Republican trend right now – the citizens recently elected a Democratic Governor (Tim Kaine) and Senator (Jim Webb) Party – indicates that Obama should still take it. But, wait – remember New Hampshire and McCain's delusion that he still has a chance there? Well, that's McCain's delusion, not the Republican Party's: they know McCain's not going to win those four votes, which means they also know that an Obama victory in Virginia would give him 271 electoral votes – or one more than he needs to win the election. C'est la vie to Virginia, Senator Obama (but thanks for the effort, Ms. Bishop – it did not go unnoticed). With those thirteen electoral votes, McCain now takes a 261-258 vote lead – and things begin to look rather shitty, don't they? Then we move on to Colorado. Right now Colorado looks very firmly in Obama's grasp; his average lead in the polls there is 5.5 points, 50.8% to McCain's 45.3%. If that five-point lead still pinned Obama below 50%, there might be reason to give McCain the edge just because Colorado tends to steer conservatively. With Obama's average number over 50%, however, I cannot see McCain overtaking Obama legally or not. Thus, Colorado's nine votes give Obama 267 to McCain's 261.


And then there were two: New Mexico and Nevada, western states each worth five (5) electoral votes. Obama leads in both states in the average poll: in New Mexico the average poll has Obama up 7.3 points (50.3% - 43%), and in Nevada the average poll has Obama up 6.3 points (49.6% - 43.4%). At first glance the New Mexico lead looks more formidable for Obama, but New Mexico had some serious election fraud problems back in 2004 that almost cost a Democratic congressman a seat, not to mention the whole U.S. attorney scandal involving the likely illegal firing of David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney who wouldn't kowtow to Karl Rove's demands to prosecute baseless election fraud cases against Democrats. Something just doesn't smell right; combine that with the fact that New Mexico is right next door to McCain's home state of Arizona, and I can't help but think the GOP is going to sneak away with New Mexico's five votes to give McCain 266. Appropriately, then, it all comes down to Las Vegas and the rest of the state of Nevada. Again, Obama has a 6-point average lead in the polls in Nevada, meaning that McCain stands almost no chance of legitimately winning this state. And as firmly as I believe that the Republican Party is in a class all by itself when it comes to successfully and illegally manipulating the inner workings of the election process, I still think it's too much to believe that they can steal not one, not two, not three, but four states (Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada). Thus Obama takes Nevada, wins the election by a count of 272-266 and then receives a lovely concession phone call from John McCain – two months after he's lost all forty-seven recounts from Colorado and Nevada, that is!


Come on – you didn't think the Republicans would go without yet another dirty fight, did you?



NOTE: There is one factor that I still cannot determine the legitimacy of in this election – cell phones. Yes, that's right, cell phones. The thing is, most political polls do not include cell phone users in its statistics. With an increasing number of young households (that is, households that appear to go for Obama in this election) not being accounted for in many of these polls, there is a chance that the polls that do include cell phone users – which are the ones that usually have Obama ahead by wider margins – could be more accurate than the polls that do not include cell phone users. If this scenario is true, we probably won't see nearly as close of an electoral race as I just predicted. If a small margin of error is very likely to decide many of these battleground states, then the inclusion of these underrepresented voters would play a bigger role than expected. In which case, I would go ahead and give Obama a few more of those borderline states such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico and perhaps even North Carolina or Indiana – and then give Obama the until recently unfathomable electoral landslide victory as well. Obviously I hope tomorrow plays out closer to this situation, but there really is no way to tell.

Let's hope this schmuck is correct

Jim Nuzzo, an aide to former President George H. W. Bush, recently told the U.K. Telegraph that "there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin . . . is the new Ronald Reagan."

Really? Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan? Let's hope Sarah Palin really is the future face (she certainly won't ever be the brains, obviously) of the Republican Party - that is, if super-schmuck Jim Nuzzo is correct and Sarah Palin is in fact the next Ronald Reagan - then the Democrats will be able to roll out the corpse of Adlai Stevenson and still take the next election. Outside of her loyal voter base - that is to say, the most completely ignorant, paranoid, women-hating, minority-fearing, gun-toting, blindly loyal nutjobs to hold American citizenship - Sarah Palin is a complete joke. And not a very funny joke at that. Henry Higgins wouldn't know where to begin with Sarah Palin, folks. So I sincerely hope her idiotic supporters get their wish because that would be nothing but good news for the United States.

Senseless, Paranoid Celebrity Endorsement of the Day

Actor, author, and born-again Christian Stephen Baldwin — who Sarah Palin last week referred to as her "favorite Baldwin brother" on "Saturday Night Live" — talks to TODAYshow.com about his faith and support for Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Baldwin's latest project is a work of fiction called "The Death and Life of Gabriel Phillips." [Senseless & paranoid portions set in italics for your convenience; sensible responses set in brackets for your convenience, too]

Q: Why do you think McCain is the best choice for our next president?

A: I think that right now everybody's freakin' out, and for a good reason. The next president of the United States has to look at multiple issues simultaneously. In the prioritization of that, of course it's our economy. We need someone who is prepared and experienced enough to deal with all that's on our plate now.

Q: Is Barack Obama the wrong choice for our country?

A: No, Barack is not the wrong choice. I just don't think he's the right choice. [Interesting distinction] Barack Obama is clearly a smart guy, talented. I think that guys like Obama, like Clinton, have had their eyes on this goal for a long time … becoming President of the United States. I don't believe personally that Barack Obama cares for America as authentically as John McCain. [John McCain said in his autobiography that he did not "decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time."]

Q: Why?

A: He's a politician. [So is John McCain - and for a much longer time]

Q: How is McCain more for America than Obama?

A: He served it 24 years longer. [Of course, John McCain is 26 years older than Barack Obama, giving McCain a decided head-start in his ability to serve in the Senate longer. Similarly, these extra 26 years also give McCain a big head-start in the on-set of dementia and Alzheimer's Disease as well as the recurrence of his melanoma or suffering a heart attack.] He is somebody who has demonstrated within his own party that he would rather do what's right for the people who elected him than what is right for his party. People want change. How is Barack going to do it? I think McCain can bring change.

Q: Do you support McCain/Palin because you are a Republican?

A: I'm a registered Independent. But my brother says it's obvious that I'm a Republican sympathizer. Once I get in the voting booth it doesn't matter. I just think in the now. [Sorry, Stephen - so far there is no evidence that you have the ability to think.]

Q: The New York Daily News last week quoted you calling Barack Obama a "cultural terrorist." Can you explain your statement?

A: If you look up the definition of the words, a terrorist is someone who incites violence. The Bible says that "God knew us and formed us in our mother's wombs." Simply the fact that he's pro-abortion — that to me is a form of terrorism based on the dictionary definition. [No, Stephen, Obama is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Do you "pro-lifers" still not understand the difference? Wow. And, oh, by the way, Stephen: many folks on the religious right believe that Hollywood tv shows and movies incite violence - you know, movies with violence such as The Usual Suspects or Crimetime or Target or Bound By Lies. Does your participation in the production of those movies make you a well-paid terrorist, Stephen?]

Here's what's creepy about Obama: There's something else going on with this dude. That's part of the mystery of Barack Obama. That is probably what will cause him to lose this election. As much as people love the phenomenal aspect of his message, there's a lot of unanswered issues about this dude. Creepy stuff. His birth certificate … you could call it all hokesy stuff. [OK, Stephen, you're starting to ramble incoherently here. Obama is creepy? Is it the huge ears? The lack of bowling skills? Or is it the last name Obama? I don't get the creepy thing: the guy is a nerdy African-American with a wife and two cute little kids - when did this become creepy? And what is this "mystery" of which you speak? What about Obama is mysterious? Is it the completely manufactured birth certificate issue - you know, the one that even the psychotically right-wing World Net Daily has verified as authentic? What questions could you have about Obama that have not already been answered by him in interviews, debates, biographies, auto-biographies and his actions as an Illinois and U.S. senator? Please, just give me one, dude. And whatever "unanswered questions" about Obama that linger for people such as yourself are not going to be what costs Obama the election. No, what might cost Obama the election is the ignorance of people such as yourself combined with the Republican Party's amazing ability to purge young, poor, minority, elderly - you know, perfectly legitimate and usually Democratic - voters from the voter registration rolls.]

John McCain doesn't have anywhere near the amount of questions in his past as Barack Obama. Not even close. He's got Keating Five. He doesn't have things about his record and history and being that are in question. He's a war hero. He's literally one the last of a dying breed of heroes.

Q: Why did you go public with your political views?

A: My No. 1 concern is that we don't have another 9/11. Here's what Americans don't realize … there are 60 million jihadists on the planet who actively are trying to get together to kill Americans and destroy this nation. This is a quote from General [William G.] Boykin, who I work with. This a fact from knowledge of intelligence. This not a fear/scare tactic. [OK, hold on a second: 60 million jihadists around the world? Where did you get that figure? From retired General William Boykin? Oh, yeah, the guy who said that during a battle in Somalia in 1993 he "knew that my God was bigger than his . . . that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." Oh, yeah, that William Boykin! Yes, quite the unprejudiced source is he. This may not be a "fact from knowledge of intelligence" after all, whatever the fuck that means in the first place.]

I believe that with the platform I have, I have an obligation, as someone who is very proud of this country. With the best of my ability, within reason, without stepping outside of my faith, without being slanderous or crazy or stupid I want to just be able to state what I know to be the truth.

It's not Stephen Baldwin saying, "This is what I think and you should think it, too." Forgetting all religion, John McCain should be the next president of the United States. It just makes more sense in these times for that guy to be president.

It doesn't mean Barack can't surround himself with smart people. But I don't think Warren Buffet should be the treasurer or whatever. Warren Buffet's nuts! Just because he's a freaking billionaire doesn't mean he has common sense. [Warren Buffet has been called many things, Stephen, but "nuts" is not one of them. Besides, didn't John McCain mention Mr. Buffet as a possible candidate for Treasury Secretary as well? The evidence continues to pour in, Stephen, and it continues to show an inability to think on your part.]

Q: Who are you trying to reach with your endorsement?

A: I'm trying to reach the common sense people. To me God's in control; God's going to do his thing. [Keep trying, Stephen; the common sense people are very amused by your attempts at voter outreach. And god's in control now - does this mean you're going to believe god's in control when Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, 2009, effectively saying that he was god's choice? Even if there is a god, we are in control, Stephen.] It's not that there's animosity in my attitude about it. At the end of the day, [different parties] should be able to go have a soda pop [together].

Q: So politics are more of a discussion than a war?

A: It shouldn't be [a war]. But that's not to say that there isn't — between the conservative movement and the liberal movement — a cultural war.

I don't think it's right that in 10 or 15 years, potentially, my son goes to a public school and reads a book about the normality of homosexuality. [There are some people who do not think it is right that their child can go to a public school now and not be informed that, however uncommon, homosexuality is completely natural. The religious aspect of homosexuality has no place in public school; the scientific aspect most certainly does.] I don't think that [belongs] in the public education system. In a political sense, I don't agree with that. It doesn't mean that I think personally that making that lifestyle choice is wrong. The Bible says it's wrong and I believe in the Bible and I stand for that. So part of the danger of living the faith I live is that they're going to shoot the messenger.

Q: Is there a danger is being outspoken about religion and conservative politics in liberal Hollywood?

A: Just call me Stevie Kamikaze. In regard to politics and faith, I just want to state my understanding on a simple pure, common-sense level.

Q: Has there been tension with your family over faith and political views?

A: Let's just say this Thanksgiving, I've hired a professional food-taster — so I don't get poisoned.

Q: Do you go to church with your brothers?

A: No. I go to some freaky waily churches. [At my water baptism, March 2002] Alec was like, "Oh my God, he's a Jesus freak." But Alec is a very dedicated Roman Catholic, Billy has Christian leanings, his wife China Phillips is a huge born-again Christian.

Q: Are celebrity endorsements effective?

A: Of course. If tomorrow there was an MTV two-hour hip-hop show in support of Barack Obama, with P. Diddy, Kanye …

Q: Why would it be hip-hop?

A: Why not?

Q: Why not rock or jam bands?

A: Well because demographically, hip-hop appeals largely or more so to African Americans, and it's already obvious that the African American vote is hugely going to Barack Obama, even within the military. Which is another whole bunch of votes that people haven't weighed into the polling system: 75 to 80 percent of all the military is voting for John McCain. That's a lot of votes. [I don't know what poll you're citing there, Stephen. A recent Faux News poll suggested that 67% percent of military voters are going for McCain; Faux News is unlikely to err on the side of Obama, of course.]

Q: Is Governor Sarah Palin ready to be president?

A: Absolutely. I think Sarah Palin is tougher and smarter than Obama or Joe Biden. Just because they jacked her up with freakin' what's her name? Who's the reporter? [Katie Couric.] That was a setup obviously. [Ok, now you're just making up shit, Stephen. What evidence do you have to support the claim that Sarah Palin is tougher and smarter than Barack Obama or Joe Biden? And now the Katie Couric interview was a set-up? Lemme guess - the "liberal media" conspired with the Obama campaign to ask Palin tough, thought-provoking questions that require expertise on the intricacies of international affairs in order to make Palin look like a complete dumbshit? Hence the all-but-unanswerable "What newspapers and magazines do you read" bomb? Stop it, man. Paranoia does not help an argument at all. All the evidence is in, and, sadly, you and Sarah Palin are running neck-and-neck.]

Q: Can Palin keep keep our country safe?

A: Yes. She has an understanding of that reality. Barack Obama and the Democratic party just want America to think Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was the jihadists. [OK, how did Sarah Palin acquire this expertise to keep our country safe? Was it from whatever newspapers her handlers put in front of her? Was it from looking out upon the vast Russian tundra from her front porch? Was it from talking to minimum-wage immigrant hotel employees? WHAT THE FUCK GAVE THIS SMALL-TOWN, SMALL-MINDED BITCH THE MAGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DAMMIT?!!? Oh, yeah - John McCain did . . . because he said that she was qualified . . . and he has always been "100% truthful" and because he always puts country first, so he would never have to lie about the qualifications of his running mate because he wouldn't have chosen her if she weren't qualified in the first place . . . because he loves America in a way Barack Obama does not and never could . . . and I think he was a P.O.W. at some point . . . because he loves America in a way Barack Obama does not and never could . . . and because, did I mention McCain was a P.O.W. and that Obama hates America? Oh, yeah, one last thing, Stephen: you are correct that the Democratic party wants America to think Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because . . . IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, YOU FUCKING DUMBSHIT! It's a matter of - what did you call it earlier? - "fact from knowledge of intelligence" or something? Yes, Stephen, it is a matter of fact, on the record, etc, etc: IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 . . . you fucking dumbshit.

Q: What do you think the outcome of this election will be?

A: There's a very good chance that John McCain is going to win this election. [No, there's not a very good chance that John McCain is going to win this election. There's always the good chance that the Republican Party will steal the election on McCain's behalf, but there is absolutely no chance that John McCain will fairly and legitimately win this election. Call it god's will or the people's will, but that's the way it is. Now go make another horrendous, low-budget crime drama, Stephen. Thanks for talking.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27362751/

If Barack Obama predicts the future while everybody watches and nobody notices, did it still happen?

July 30, 2008

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama – an African-American with a non-Anglo surname – said in regards to the type of campaign he expected his Republican rival John McCain to run: "Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me." Obama went on to say that the McCain campaign would also say things such as "he's [Obama] not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making.'' [emphasis added]


July 31, 2008

John McCain's campaign manager, the always historically astute Rick Davis, responded to Obama's comments with these harshly critical words: "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong." [emphasis added]


October 4, 3008

Sarah Palin, Republican John McCain's vice-presidential running mate, said these words in three separate speeches: "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country . . . this is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America." [emphasis added]

It could have been a fluke when Barack Obama predicted the disastrous path of the Iraq War with near-absurd accuracy; then he predicted with near-perfect accuracy the McCain campaign's inevitable descent into dishonest fear-mongering as its tactic of choice. Not that it was a bold prediction on Obama's part – after all, doesn't every Republican campaign eventually come to revolve around dishonest fear-mongering? – but it was nonetheless accurate. That particular statement by Sarah Palin, along with a couple of recent McCain television ads that link Obama to Vietnam-era radical-turned-professor William Ayers, are the only pieces of evidence one needs to see in order to confirm the accuracy of Obama's prediction.

The media's treatment of Obama's prediction, of course, is the problem. When the story first broke, the mainstream media – like a broken record – presented it from the Republican point of view. "Is Obama being fair?" many in the media asked. "Is it a good strategic move?" others asked. "How does McCain respond to the charge?" was another common theme. Stunningly, almost nobody asked the most important and obvious question: "Based on the recent history of Republican campaigns, is Obama correct to make such a prediction?" Sure, the question is so simple it answers itself; nonetheless, this transparency should not have disqualified it from being asked in the media. In other words, the relevance of the question should not have been negated by the ease with which it could be answered. That question is essential to understanding the Republican philosophy of electioneering and needed to be asked. Naturally, it wasn't.

Now that Obama's prediction has proven to be wholly accurate, the media has returned to the story, hasn't it? Right? Umm . . . no. Returning to the story – and thereby acknowledging its severe lack of competency in covering it from an objective point of view – would be responsible of the "liberal" mainstream media. With the 2000 and 2004 elections as sufficient proof, we should all know by now that the mainstream media is not ready to act as an adult just yet.

Sale Pending: John McCain's Soul

Senator John McCain's obsessive quest for a ninth domicile – which appears to be transforming the senator into the political world's own version of Popeye Doyle every day – is about to take an extremely ugly turn. An MSNBC.com headline last Saturday (Oct. 4) read "McCain plans fiercer strategy against Obama." Wow. We've all seen how nasty and untruthful Republican campaigns become when they don't announce that they're about to launch a "fiercer" campaign (which, as everybody by now should know, is GOP translation for a "reality-challenged, policy-avoiding, personal attack-driven" campaign), so one can only shudder to think what kind of crap the bad boys in the GOP have up their sleeve this time. With its constant whining about unfair treatment from the formerly adoring mainstream media as well as its infantile strategy of repeating lies in the hope that nobody ever notices, the Republican Party is fast approaching self-parody. In other words, don't believe for a second that a doctored photo of Obama with a "666" on the back of his head is out of the question. The Republican Party – and John McCain in particular – is that desperate. Consequently, Senator's McCain's promise to run "a respectful campaign" – reported, appropriately, on April Fool's Day earlier this year – is looking more and more McCain-like every day. That is, it is looking like nothing more than just the latest in a series of flip-flops and outright lies on the part of Senator McCain in a pathetic attempt to fulfill what has become his tragic ambition to become President of the United States of America.

John McCain is a fairly unhappy dude these days. Of course, who could really blame him? He's still trying to win the Vietnam War for one (sorry, Senator: John Rambo went back and won it in 1985, remember?). The mainstream media, which was sharing the senator's favorite donuts with him earlier this year, is not rolling over and presenting every Republican lie as a legitimate campaign matter any longer. In fact, unlike the past two elections, the mainstream media is actually doing its job and debunking at least some of the crap the GOP passes off as fact. But what must enrage John McCain the most right now should be obvious: the man has aspired to be president for a very long time, and he is watching his chances of fulfilling those aspirations vanish before his very eyes – and he has George W. Bush to blame for it. Again. Think about it: McCain had his first chance at the presidency stolen from him by the less than curious "cowboy" and his sleazy team of campaigners from Texas in 2000; now, eight years later, McCain finally has his shot at the presidency – and it's quickly vanishing again because of that same "cowboy" and his sleazy, incompetent administration's failed policies! One can only imagine what is running through the slip-sliding mind of John McCain these days, though I would put good money down that this thought has been bouncing about his head quite a bit: did Bush really screw things up so badly that a white war hero is going to lose a national election to an inexperienced black guy? Really? And I don't suggest that thought to imply that Senator McCain is racist in any way; to the contrary, if he is a realist in any way, the gravity of that scenario must have occurred to him by now, given its unlikelihood even in the year 2008. Combine the aforementioned circumstances with his sacrifice and service in the Vietnam war, and it seems that if anybody should feel entitled to something, it is John McCain to the White House. The man most certainly has paid his dues, much more than his far younger rival. The problem is that McCain, despite having sacrificed so much as POW in Vietnam and serving twenty-six years in Congress, is not entitled to the presidency because of that sacrifice any more than Obama is simply because he is the first African-American to be nominated by one of the two major political parties. Circumstances do count, and the country's circumstances are most definitely not helping John McCain right now. Numerous other factors – including personal charisma, voting records and sheer luck among others – play a part as well, and almost none of these factors is helping McCain, either.

Thus, when it became apparent that he would not be able to sweep into the White House simply by rotating the words "POW," "maverick," and "reform" in and out of sentences, John McCain was left with two choices: to run – as promised – a clean and respectful campaign based on personal policy records and future policy plans or to run a nasty campaign with many of the same sleazy people using the same dirty tricks that had cost him his first chance at the White House eight years earlier – or, more simply and accurately, to sell his soul for the White House. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is exactly what John McCain is doing. If one simply looks at McCain's actions over the past ten years, it becomes impossible to describe it any other way. It is clear in hindsight that John McCain has been campaigning for at least the past ten years, not just the past two, and that this ongoing campaign has called his character into question countless times now. While there are so many examples of McCain's actions that raise red flags about his character (my favorite is his flip-flop on the Confederate flag issue in South Carolina, a flip-flop he admitted to undergoing strictly for political gain), here is a list of the five most important soul-destroying steps taken by the "maverick" from Arizona in his endless campaign for the White House:

• He voted against the Bush tax cuts – citing the fact that they unfairly benefited the wealthy, a statement he later completely denied having made, of course – every year until 2006, the year prospective presidential candidates began jockeying for their respective party's nomination for the 2008 election. Now, of course, he is dead-set on making those tax cuts permanent.

• In 2002 McCain accurately labeled the late Reverend Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" for his publicly stated belief that the US brought the horror of 9/11 on itself because of its tolerance of homosexuality (among other things, though he curiously forgot to mention intrusively unethical US foreign policy in his list). Four years later – in 2006 again, that is – McCain reversed course and found Falwell politically helpful enough to give the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University.

• In 1998, Senator McCain answered "yes" when asked in a National Right to Life Committee questionnaire if he supported the complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. A year later, near the start of the presidential nominating process, McCain caught conservatives off-guard by announcing that he would not repeal Roe v. Wade, a position he would hold (seemingly) until – you guessed it! – 2006, when he announced in November that "the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade" and return the matter to individual states. Why the sudden about-face? "Because I'm a federalist," McCain explained – except when he's not. To summarize: John McCain was for the repeal of Roe v. Wade before he was against it even though he was also against it before he was for it. Apparently the chicken did come before the egg.

• In April of this year, Senator McCain announced that he respected Barack Obama and therefore would run "a respectful campaign." McCain's wife, Cindy, went so far as to vow that the public would not see any negative campaigning "at all" from her husband because "he is absolutely opposed to any negative campaigning." A few months later, the McCain campaign fired the first shot of negative campaigning in the 2008 election with its television advertisement that attacked Barack Obama for not having "visited Iraq in years" and for having "voted against funding our troops" – all while conveniently leaving out the fact that McCain had voted against funding our troops around the exact same time as well. And the negativity has been piling up ever since. Another television ad that premiered soon afterwards went so far as to blame the high cost of gas on Barack Obama! Soon after the broadcast of that advertisement, the levee broke on McCain's campaign, flooding it with filthy, dishonest negativity. McCain began personally questioning Obama's patriotism; distorting his publicly stated positions on numerous issues, most notably by claiming that Obama wants to invade Pakistan and teach comprehensive sex-education to kindergartners; lying about his own positions and the positions of his running mate Sarah Palin (most egregiously that she was opposed to the "Bridge to Nowhere" – which she was for originally – and that she never requested earmarks as governor of Alaska, which she has); encouraging Governor Palin to lie about her past and distort Senator Obama's policies and personal dealings even more forcefully and dishonestly than himself; approving more television ads that purposely distorted many public statements made by Senator Obama; and finally – most incredibly – blaming Senator Obama for bringing the negative campaigning on himself by not agreeing to take part in a series of "town hall" structured debates!

• Just last week (October 3), John McCain – the same John McCain who cheated on his first wife with his current wife (and a few in between), and who vowed to run a respectful campaign only to start airing dishonest attacks both on television and in personal speeches – told the Des Moines Register that he always tells the "100 percent absolute truth." Really? Yes, really. Where does one begin to psychoanalyze somebody who makes such a blatantly dishonest claim with 100% conviction? Wow.

Now, after all the shameless, vote-grabbing political flip-flops and blatantly hypocritical attacks on his opponent – not to mention a complete lack of personal honesty and a possibly lethal amount of self-righteous self-delusion – John McCain is ready to "take the gloves off" in his fight to secure his dream house. With the loyal disciples of Karl Rove – the man whose dirty tricks doomed McCain's first bid for the White House eight years earlier – on board his Double-Talk Express, John McCain is going to intensify his already obsessive quest for the United States presidency. Considering all of the personally damning evidence, including his own admission in 2002 that he had decided to run for President not out of patriotism, but simply because it had become his ambition to be president – an ambition he had held "for a long time" as it turns out – there is no telling how far Senator McCain will go to achieve this ambition, especially when he promises "a fiercer strategy" to do so.

One hopes the more moderate John McCain will appear on the scene in the nick of time to prevent what's looking more and more like the true John McCain from completing the sale of his soul. The more one observes John McCain's actions, however, the more likely he is to believe that McCain will ultimately finalize the sale of his soul in order to fulfill his long-time goal of occupying the one house he and his wife cannot buy.

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.