By John Bertosa
There is a four-letter word in the English language that I have grown to despise.
I completely loathe this word because it has turned people who use it into deceivers, if not outright liars, 99.9 percent of the time.
And what is this profanity? It’s just the word “just”-- as in “I’m just joking” or “I’m just saying.” It is a safe bet that when someone states “I’m just joking” what they really mean is “I’m making a humorous statement but I’m also mixing in a serious observation which I feel will be more easily accepted if told in a light-hearted manner” and when people say “I’m just saying” what they really mean is “I stand by the simple, obvious meaning of what I just uttered but I also am trying to make another point using allusions, innuendos and/or other wordplay.”
Now, this brings me to this week’s topic here at Subject to Debate -- should we take seriously The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and other comedic observation shows like David Letterman?
And the answer is the jokes should not be taken literally but, yes they should be taken seriously because the shows are not "just" comedy.
One reason these shows should be taken seriously is because people in our society are using the Daily Show to get their news. They aren’t purposefully sitting down with notebook in hand believing every word, but they are picking up on the facts. Why are they doing this? Because political and world events are used as the set-up for the joke, heck, real-life politicians are coming in to sit down and be part of the process.
Case in point -- Over the summer, a very intellectual relative of mine was talking about an episode in which President Bush, traveling overseas, was seen addressing an Eastern European congregation using very colloqiual language. Now my relative didn’t focus on Jon Stewart’s joke about how such English could never properly be translated into Polish or Hungarian, she dwelled on the actually news element.
And then there is an acquaintance of mine, college-educated, who is regularly quoting Bill Maher during political discussions.
All this is in addition to the "real" news shows covering what the Daily Show and The Colbert Report are saying.
Now, intent is another reason this is not “just” joking. Humor in ye olden days used to just be about word play, whether it was a limerick or a “Why did the chicken cross the road.” But from Lenny Bruce in the 1950s through Redd Foxx and Richard Pryor in the 1970s, social observation matured as the popular basis for jokes. These comedians intended to have people think about the different aspects of our society when we laughed at their jokes.
And this humor's maturity has reached a new zenith with the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. No longer are comics just basing their jokes on the news, they are adopting a news format to give their humorous observations.
And when almost all the comedy is focused against one side or the other, it's not "just" joking, it's called preaching. And that is my problem with the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
The writers on those shows see the world from a certain viewpoint and they want to make the argument that you should to.
The only difference between these writers and George Will, Maureen Dowd and Rush Limbaugh is they do a better job of sugar-coating their observations.
So, if you want to defend the Daily Show writers' Freedom of Speech or even go out on a limb and defend their viewpoints, that's fine. But don't act like these are "just" jokes or say these shows don't have political viewpoints and should not be taken seriously.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Emperor has no clothes
By John Bertosa
Those who advocate changing society to accommodate those who embrace the homosexual lifestyle connect it to skin color and the 1960s civil rights movement and gender and the feminist movement.
But making that emotional connection is taking the simplistic, easy way out just like labeling every politician you hate "Hitler" or every war "another Vietnam."
Homosexuality is not hereditary (like skin color) nor is it a basic of nature (like gender is). But it also is not morally wrong. Homosexuality simply is a biological defect.
The human body was intelligently designed or evolved -- depending on whether you are a Bible-clutching conservative or enlightened liberal -- to function at certain levels in nature, and the genetic aspects of an individual which hinder that function are defects. Some are as profound as Down's Syndrome, others pose just minor obstacles, like nearsightedness.
Homosexuality is a defect because people are biochemically attracted to their own gender which limits the continuation of the species. A defect, that is all it is.
There are social aspects to homosexuality separate fromthe biological ones and those are the ones that concern this discussion of gay marriage, but the problem with supporters of gay rights is they cite biology to defend the social aspects. When an opponent of the cultural aspects brings up a point, the proponent alludes to the biological aspect and declares "It's not a choice!!"
But that simplistic outlook is wrong. So, to clearly differentiate, let's draw a black solid line in which everything discussed afterward will be just about the cultural aspects of sexuality, both homo and hetero.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
There, now I dress in button-down shirts and wear Dockers because that's the societal group I choose to associate with just as other heterosexuals choose to wear black concert t-shirts and ripped blue jeans because that is the group they choose to associate with. If dress was based on sexual urges then all heteros would dress alike.
Therefore, since the only difference between homos and heteros is our sexual urges,the physical appearances homosexuals adopt must also be a choice. The hairstyles, clothing and amount of make-up or lack there of are choices made to associate with a social group. Not genetics.
Now, while my biochemistry pushes me to want sex with women, it does not compel me to marry one. While sexual compatibility is a component, there are numerous other considerations, ranging from intellectual to financial compatibilities. And all of these lead to us having to make a choice of who we marry.
Actually, we don't even have to make such a choice as more and more people are co-habitating without being married. If our sexuality compelled us to marry, then how can this be possible?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I didn't really need the black line there but I liked it so much as a literary tool that I thought I'd use it again to start my summation.
Our society believes we should be judged and accept the rewards and consequences of our choices -- not simply because of who we are. Society should be able to set up laws that push back at people who are 30 years old and choose to go against society norms and try to marry a 10-year-old sheep -- not because these people are black or women but because of the choices they make in our society.
And that is exactly what our society is doing when it decides what parameters need to be met in order to marry. The homosexuality that society addresses is not the biology that takes place in the bedroom but the social choices that bring people to City Hall. .
Our society has accepted those embracing the gay culture as much as it has those embracing the evangelical culture, the Goth culture and the Urban culture.
But on Election Day, the most liberal diverse state (as opposed to Vermont where everyone thinks and looks the same), decided that in the case of changing a pillar of society, it was better to stop pretending that homosexuality in society is the same as race or gender.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I had a little space left so I thought I'd make one side comment, and that's on the rhetorical question "Why would anyone choose to be homosexual?"
There are young people out there who feel completely, utterly alone perceiving a world that persecutes them at every turn. Some are drawn to the military as a way of being part of a supportive group, others join a gang while others commit suicide or lead a self-destructive life. Others see the support that homosexuals get from members of their own social group and they want to join it and not feel so alone any more. They either don't see the real-life persecutions (homosexuals are treated nicely on TV all the time) or they believe it can't be any worse than what they're going through now. I believe this is only a small percentage of the gay community, but a percentage nonetheless.
Those who advocate changing society to accommodate those who embrace the homosexual lifestyle connect it to skin color and the 1960s civil rights movement and gender and the feminist movement.
But making that emotional connection is taking the simplistic, easy way out just like labeling every politician you hate "Hitler" or every war "another Vietnam."
Homosexuality is not hereditary (like skin color) nor is it a basic of nature (like gender is). But it also is not morally wrong. Homosexuality simply is a biological defect.
The human body was intelligently designed or evolved -- depending on whether you are a Bible-clutching conservative or enlightened liberal -- to function at certain levels in nature, and the genetic aspects of an individual which hinder that function are defects. Some are as profound as Down's Syndrome, others pose just minor obstacles, like nearsightedness.
Homosexuality is a defect because people are biochemically attracted to their own gender which limits the continuation of the species. A defect, that is all it is.
There are social aspects to homosexuality separate fromthe biological ones and those are the ones that concern this discussion of gay marriage, but the problem with supporters of gay rights is they cite biology to defend the social aspects. When an opponent of the cultural aspects brings up a point, the proponent alludes to the biological aspect and declares "It's not a choice!!"
But that simplistic outlook is wrong. So, to clearly differentiate, let's draw a black solid line in which everything discussed afterward will be just about the cultural aspects of sexuality, both homo and hetero.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
There, now I dress in button-down shirts and wear Dockers because that's the societal group I choose to associate with just as other heterosexuals choose to wear black concert t-shirts and ripped blue jeans because that is the group they choose to associate with. If dress was based on sexual urges then all heteros would dress alike.
Therefore, since the only difference between homos and heteros is our sexual urges,the physical appearances homosexuals adopt must also be a choice. The hairstyles, clothing and amount of make-up or lack there of are choices made to associate with a social group. Not genetics.
Now, while my biochemistry pushes me to want sex with women, it does not compel me to marry one. While sexual compatibility is a component, there are numerous other considerations, ranging from intellectual to financial compatibilities. And all of these lead to us having to make a choice of who we marry.
Actually, we don't even have to make such a choice as more and more people are co-habitating without being married. If our sexuality compelled us to marry, then how can this be possible?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I didn't really need the black line there but I liked it so much as a literary tool that I thought I'd use it again to start my summation.
Our society believes we should be judged and accept the rewards and consequences of our choices -- not simply because of who we are. Society should be able to set up laws that push back at people who are 30 years old and choose to go against society norms and try to marry a 10-year-old sheep -- not because these people are black or women but because of the choices they make in our society.
And that is exactly what our society is doing when it decides what parameters need to be met in order to marry. The homosexuality that society addresses is not the biology that takes place in the bedroom but the social choices that bring people to City Hall. .
Our society has accepted those embracing the gay culture as much as it has those embracing the evangelical culture, the Goth culture and the Urban culture.
But on Election Day, the most liberal diverse state (as opposed to Vermont where everyone thinks and looks the same), decided that in the case of changing a pillar of society, it was better to stop pretending that homosexuality in society is the same as race or gender.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I had a little space left so I thought I'd make one side comment, and that's on the rhetorical question "Why would anyone choose to be homosexual?"
There are young people out there who feel completely, utterly alone perceiving a world that persecutes them at every turn. Some are drawn to the military as a way of being part of a supportive group, others join a gang while others commit suicide or lead a self-destructive life. Others see the support that homosexuals get from members of their own social group and they want to join it and not feel so alone any more. They either don't see the real-life persecutions (homosexuals are treated nicely on TV all the time) or they believe it can't be any worse than what they're going through now. I believe this is only a small percentage of the gay community, but a percentage nonetheless.
Monday, November 10, 2008
In Defense of Same Sex Marriage
By D.T. Holt
With the passage of proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, California has become the first state to give the right of same sex marriage and then take it away. It is ironic that a single election could include a triumph for the civil rights movement, in the election of Barack Obama as the first African American President, as well as a major setback in the rights of homosexuals, which many see as one of the major civil rights issues of our era.
There seems to be a lot of debate from both sides of gay rights issues as to whether homosexuality is a choice. While it seems ludicrous to think that anyone would choose a sexual orientation with the real potential to make them social outcasts, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is a choice. Why would that make any difference to the argument either for or against gay marriage? Aren’t all relationships between consenting adults by definition a choice? We all choose the person that we will spend our lives with.
Many would say that we should give homosexuals access to the same rights as heterosexual couples, just don’t call it marriage. This is where we get into the idea of civil unions which, theoretically, carry all of the same rights as a marriage but with their own fancy, non-threatening to heterosexuals, name. If the rights are in fact the same, why not just call it a marriage and be done with it? Does our society really have the right to decide which marriages between consenting adults are valid and which are not? I’m not generally a proponent of the fabled “slippery slope” but, isn’t it possible that this paves the way for the return of interracial marriage bans? If two grown men are denied the civil right of marriage because a segment of society sees their relationship as immoral, who’s to say that there aren’t other marriages which large numbers of Americans see as immoral? What about a marriage between a 50 year old man and a 20 year old woman?
For reasons that I have never understood, there seems to be a real fear of the effect same sex marriage will have on so-called traditional marriage. How does a change to the legal definition of an institution inherently threaten that institution? Proponents of gay marriage are in fact attempting to change our legal or civil definition of marriage to be a union between two consenting adults. They are not asking churches who believe that homosexuality is a sin to throw open their doors to the flood of same sex couples looking to take part in the holy sacrament of marriage. Instead, they are simply asking that they be afforded the same rights of any other couple that has decided to legally formalize their relationship.
It is my belief that the aversion to same sex marriage is more about an aversion to homosexuality than it is about some perceived threat to the institution of marriage. To allow gays the same legal rights to matrimony that straight couples enjoy, is to validate what is seen as the homosexual lifestyle. If same sex couples are given the right to marriage it will be tantamount to a societal acceptance of their sexuality as no more remarkable than a straight man with a preference for blonde haired women. Opponents of gay marriage, along with supporters of the separate but equal concept of Civil Unions, are really opposing the acceptance of homosexuals as an ordinary segment of our society. This is an argument that is based in fear of the unknown and an unwillingness to confront the changing social mores that are a necessary part of the evolution of a vibrant, multicultural society.
With the passage of proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, California has become the first state to give the right of same sex marriage and then take it away. It is ironic that a single election could include a triumph for the civil rights movement, in the election of Barack Obama as the first African American President, as well as a major setback in the rights of homosexuals, which many see as one of the major civil rights issues of our era.
There seems to be a lot of debate from both sides of gay rights issues as to whether homosexuality is a choice. While it seems ludicrous to think that anyone would choose a sexual orientation with the real potential to make them social outcasts, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is a choice. Why would that make any difference to the argument either for or against gay marriage? Aren’t all relationships between consenting adults by definition a choice? We all choose the person that we will spend our lives with.
Many would say that we should give homosexuals access to the same rights as heterosexual couples, just don’t call it marriage. This is where we get into the idea of civil unions which, theoretically, carry all of the same rights as a marriage but with their own fancy, non-threatening to heterosexuals, name. If the rights are in fact the same, why not just call it a marriage and be done with it? Does our society really have the right to decide which marriages between consenting adults are valid and which are not? I’m not generally a proponent of the fabled “slippery slope” but, isn’t it possible that this paves the way for the return of interracial marriage bans? If two grown men are denied the civil right of marriage because a segment of society sees their relationship as immoral, who’s to say that there aren’t other marriages which large numbers of Americans see as immoral? What about a marriage between a 50 year old man and a 20 year old woman?
For reasons that I have never understood, there seems to be a real fear of the effect same sex marriage will have on so-called traditional marriage. How does a change to the legal definition of an institution inherently threaten that institution? Proponents of gay marriage are in fact attempting to change our legal or civil definition of marriage to be a union between two consenting adults. They are not asking churches who believe that homosexuality is a sin to throw open their doors to the flood of same sex couples looking to take part in the holy sacrament of marriage. Instead, they are simply asking that they be afforded the same rights of any other couple that has decided to legally formalize their relationship.
It is my belief that the aversion to same sex marriage is more about an aversion to homosexuality than it is about some perceived threat to the institution of marriage. To allow gays the same legal rights to matrimony that straight couples enjoy, is to validate what is seen as the homosexual lifestyle. If same sex couples are given the right to marriage it will be tantamount to a societal acceptance of their sexuality as no more remarkable than a straight man with a preference for blonde haired women. Opponents of gay marriage, along with supporters of the separate but equal concept of Civil Unions, are really opposing the acceptance of homosexuals as an ordinary segment of our society. This is an argument that is based in fear of the unknown and an unwillingness to confront the changing social mores that are a necessary part of the evolution of a vibrant, multicultural society.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Final Thoughts On The 2008 Presidential Election
By D.T. Holt
This has to stop. Not the election or the campaigning, which will obviously stop after the results have been counted tomorrow night. What has to stop is the way we’ve been doing this for as many presidential election cycles as I can remember. The idea that a candidate can say whatever is necessary to win. That gross mischaracterizations and even outright lies are just part of a “tough campaign.” We have to expect more from our politicians and from ourselves.
It should be obvious to anyone who has been reading this blog that I am pulling for Barack Obama to win this election. While I am encouraged by the polls going into the final day of the campaign, I by no means think that this is a forgone conclusion. These things have a way of being much closer than anyone can predict and it could still go either way. But let’s, for the sake of argument, say that Obama will be elected President of the United States tomorrow night. At some point in the evening, John McCain will address a roomful of faithful supporters with a speech that will start out with something like “I’ve just spoken with Senator Obama and congratulated him on his victory and a well run campaign,” and go on with something along the lines of “I have nothing but respect for Senator Obama and plan to give the next President of the United States my full support,” and maybe something like “in these difficult times, it is more important than ever that Republicans and Democrats alike pull together to reach across the aisle and do the hard work of putting our country back on the right track.”
How can this possibly be what he will say after spending the last three months trying desperately to convince the American people that Barack Obama is a terrorist or a socialist or a redistributionist? If even half of the things that have been suggested about Barack Obama were true, why shouldn’t all of McCain’s supporters take to the streets and refuse to acknowledge a Barack Obama presidency?
The answer that most would give is that campaigns are tough and sometimes things are said during the course of a campaign that wouldn’t normally be said. How can we, as Americans who are asked to believe in this process, accept this answer? How can we all walk away from the divisiveness and the attempts to incite hatred and fear and mistrust? Elections and the future of our country are too important for us to continue to accept the angry rhetoric, the willing manipulation of half truths and the exploitation of an uninformed electorate.
It has to stop. No matter who wins this election, as a country, we have to decide, right here and now, that we will no longer accept this kind of behavior from our candidates. There is a vast difference between advertising and rhetoric which is critical of an opponent’s stances on the issues and that which seeks to defame his character by bending the truth and manipulating any factoid, no matter how inconsequential, in order to cast a shadow of fear or distrust.
If Barack Obama is elected president, it will be the first time in a long time that the politics of character assassination have failed. Should McCain win the office, we should all take to the streets, not to refuse acknowledgement of his presidency, but to make it known that never again will we allow ourselves to be used in this way. That in the future, we will expect our candidates to rise to a higher standard of debate and convince us of their own worth without calling into question the patriotism of their opponent. We must expect, no, demand that future candidates for office respect not only the country or the office for which they are running, but also the patriotism and sacrifice of their opponent and, above all, the intelligence of the electorate that they seek to represent.
This has to stop. Not the election or the campaigning, which will obviously stop after the results have been counted tomorrow night. What has to stop is the way we’ve been doing this for as many presidential election cycles as I can remember. The idea that a candidate can say whatever is necessary to win. That gross mischaracterizations and even outright lies are just part of a “tough campaign.” We have to expect more from our politicians and from ourselves.
It should be obvious to anyone who has been reading this blog that I am pulling for Barack Obama to win this election. While I am encouraged by the polls going into the final day of the campaign, I by no means think that this is a forgone conclusion. These things have a way of being much closer than anyone can predict and it could still go either way. But let’s, for the sake of argument, say that Obama will be elected President of the United States tomorrow night. At some point in the evening, John McCain will address a roomful of faithful supporters with a speech that will start out with something like “I’ve just spoken with Senator Obama and congratulated him on his victory and a well run campaign,” and go on with something along the lines of “I have nothing but respect for Senator Obama and plan to give the next President of the United States my full support,” and maybe something like “in these difficult times, it is more important than ever that Republicans and Democrats alike pull together to reach across the aisle and do the hard work of putting our country back on the right track.”
How can this possibly be what he will say after spending the last three months trying desperately to convince the American people that Barack Obama is a terrorist or a socialist or a redistributionist? If even half of the things that have been suggested about Barack Obama were true, why shouldn’t all of McCain’s supporters take to the streets and refuse to acknowledge a Barack Obama presidency?
The answer that most would give is that campaigns are tough and sometimes things are said during the course of a campaign that wouldn’t normally be said. How can we, as Americans who are asked to believe in this process, accept this answer? How can we all walk away from the divisiveness and the attempts to incite hatred and fear and mistrust? Elections and the future of our country are too important for us to continue to accept the angry rhetoric, the willing manipulation of half truths and the exploitation of an uninformed electorate.
It has to stop. No matter who wins this election, as a country, we have to decide, right here and now, that we will no longer accept this kind of behavior from our candidates. There is a vast difference between advertising and rhetoric which is critical of an opponent’s stances on the issues and that which seeks to defame his character by bending the truth and manipulating any factoid, no matter how inconsequential, in order to cast a shadow of fear or distrust.
If Barack Obama is elected president, it will be the first time in a long time that the politics of character assassination have failed. Should McCain win the office, we should all take to the streets, not to refuse acknowledgement of his presidency, but to make it known that never again will we allow ourselves to be used in this way. That in the future, we will expect our candidates to rise to a higher standard of debate and convince us of their own worth without calling into question the patriotism of their opponent. We must expect, no, demand that future candidates for office respect not only the country or the office for which they are running, but also the patriotism and sacrifice of their opponent and, above all, the intelligence of the electorate that they seek to represent.
Prediction
By John Bertosa
When this campaign began in earnest at the beginning of the year, I started making mental notes about whether a candidate's actions on a certain day would be the deciding factor on whether they would go on to win or lose the election.
I had a decent-sized list going when I had to throw it all out. That's because the deciding factor ended up being when the stock market started to plummet and the Wall Street bailout was talked about. Because the day before that the polls showed only a 1 percentage point separating Obama and McCain with Obama not getting more than 47 percent of the vote. Also, the Generic Ballot poll for Congress showed Democrats with their smallest lead of the year.
What happenned during those five days in late September were two-fold. One it was the final straw for many voters who were disturbed with the way the country was going and they were turned off to Republicans no matter what.
But the second was how McCain handled it. I'm not saying his suspending campaigning and going to Washington was wrong. It absolutely was the right thing to do. But he didn't follow through. If he would have joined with conservatives in demanding a better plan he would have utterly taken away Obama's accusation that his just policies are just like Bush's. He also would have been the one being pro-active and he also would have endeared himself to working families who didn't like billions of dollars going to corporations.
But he caved into Bush and his Treasury Secretary who had just recently left Wall Street, and the Democratic Senate Majority Leader and the Democratic Speaker of the House.
Maybe, the election will reveal I was wrong about the turning point of the election. Maybe it will be when Obama accidentally revealed his economic goals to a plumber in Ohio. But I don't think so.
Overall, this has really been a boring race, with few lead changes and thus few changes in campaign tactics. However, I have learned some things through the media and my liberal friends.
-- Obama's idea of a running a post-partisan campaign is to break a promise about accepting federal campaing funding and the limitations that come with it, imply that one of his opponents is a pig, and throw reporters off his plane if their papers hadn't endorse him.
-- That liberal politicians shouldn't be held to the higher standard they've set for themselves but conservatives should be criticized.
-- We should never forget that after the Twin Towers were rammed in 2001 Bush kept reading a storybook to kids. And we should never remember that as the stock and credit markets began to plummet, Obama decided to shoot hoops.
-- Joe Biden taught me that unlike how Bush handled the beginning of this financial crisis, President Roosevelt got on TV when the Great Depression first hit and looked the public in the eye and told them the problems they were facing. (I used to think that Hoover was president when the Depression started in the late 1920s and TVs weren't mainstream until the 1960s). Oh, and Biden also taught me that J-O-B-S has three letters and Obama assured me he will campaign in all 57 states.
-- I was already taught by liberals that conservatives are stupid for saying "misunderestimate." or saying there's an "e" in "potato".
-- Now, I also already had learned over the last eight years that if you can find a reason to criticize the actions, or inaction, of a Republican leader then do it but remain silent if you can't find a reason. In this campaign, my liberal friends have taught me that if you can find a reason to praise a Democrat, then do it but if you can't find a reason then... well... criticize a Republican.
When this campaign began in earnest at the beginning of the year, I started making mental notes about whether a candidate's actions on a certain day would be the deciding factor on whether they would go on to win or lose the election.
I had a decent-sized list going when I had to throw it all out. That's because the deciding factor ended up being when the stock market started to plummet and the Wall Street bailout was talked about. Because the day before that the polls showed only a 1 percentage point separating Obama and McCain with Obama not getting more than 47 percent of the vote. Also, the Generic Ballot poll for Congress showed Democrats with their smallest lead of the year.
What happenned during those five days in late September were two-fold. One it was the final straw for many voters who were disturbed with the way the country was going and they were turned off to Republicans no matter what.
But the second was how McCain handled it. I'm not saying his suspending campaigning and going to Washington was wrong. It absolutely was the right thing to do. But he didn't follow through. If he would have joined with conservatives in demanding a better plan he would have utterly taken away Obama's accusation that his just policies are just like Bush's. He also would have been the one being pro-active and he also would have endeared himself to working families who didn't like billions of dollars going to corporations.
But he caved into Bush and his Treasury Secretary who had just recently left Wall Street, and the Democratic Senate Majority Leader and the Democratic Speaker of the House.
Maybe, the election will reveal I was wrong about the turning point of the election. Maybe it will be when Obama accidentally revealed his economic goals to a plumber in Ohio. But I don't think so.
Overall, this has really been a boring race, with few lead changes and thus few changes in campaign tactics. However, I have learned some things through the media and my liberal friends.
-- Obama's idea of a running a post-partisan campaign is to break a promise about accepting federal campaing funding and the limitations that come with it, imply that one of his opponents is a pig, and throw reporters off his plane if their papers hadn't endorse him.
-- That liberal politicians shouldn't be held to the higher standard they've set for themselves but conservatives should be criticized.
-- We should never forget that after the Twin Towers were rammed in 2001 Bush kept reading a storybook to kids. And we should never remember that as the stock and credit markets began to plummet, Obama decided to shoot hoops.
-- Joe Biden taught me that unlike how Bush handled the beginning of this financial crisis, President Roosevelt got on TV when the Great Depression first hit and looked the public in the eye and told them the problems they were facing. (I used to think that Hoover was president when the Depression started in the late 1920s and TVs weren't mainstream until the 1960s). Oh, and Biden also taught me that J-O-B-S has three letters and Obama assured me he will campaign in all 57 states.
-- I was already taught by liberals that conservatives are stupid for saying "misunderestimate." or saying there's an "e" in "potato".
-- Now, I also already had learned over the last eight years that if you can find a reason to criticize the actions, or inaction, of a Republican leader then do it but remain silent if you can't find a reason. In this campaign, my liberal friends have taught me that if you can find a reason to praise a Democrat, then do it but if you can't find a reason then... well... criticize a Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)