Ridiculosity...(Not a word, but it should be)
I have written about this before, so I truly hate to sound like a broken record, but this whole "a pill for every (minor-bordering-on-insignificant) malady that ails you...." nonsense has finally gone too far.
A new commercial has been airing for a medication called "Mirapex", which apparently is to be prescribed for the "disease" known as "restless leg syndrome". I don't know about you, but when my legs get "restless" I simply shift position or take a short walk. I mean, how ridiculous does the very concept of "restless leg syndrome" sound in the first place? Now, if the made-up disease wasn't bad enough, the drug that treats the made-up disease might be even worse.
One of the announced side-effects of taking Mirapex (besides all the usual symptoms of diarrhea, headache, backache, sexual dysfunction, psoriasis, leprosy, scurvy, scrub pox and Athlete's tongue), is this little gem (paraphrasing): "an increased urge to gamble". I'll repeat that: an increased urge to gamble.
So, now taking a medicine for a disease that doesn't really exist can cause you to go out and toss your life savings away at the slot machines? Actually, that's not all that far a leap: if you are taking Mirapex, you've already thrown money away on: a) A doctor who diagnosed you with a made-up "syndrome' that could be cured by getting off your ass and taking the occasional walk, b) paid to purchase a drug designed to address a problem that doesn't exist and which is advertised 120 times day at couple-hundred-grand for every 30 second spot.
This is the biggest problem in American health care today: there is entire generation of folks who believe in this shyte (i.e. restless leg syndrome, chronic dry-eye, and a few others), and who believe that every one of life's little aches, pains and inconveniences should be cured by a tiny little pill, and who gives a good Goddamn about how much it costs? Especially when you're almost old enough to stick the taxpayer for it, and plan to do so in the future?
I'm talking about Baby Boomers, of course.
They want pills for everything: leaky bladders, creaky prostates, to achieve erections, to achieve erections on a schedule, to hide their herpes. That each drug comes with a litany of side-effects, and that many people might take multiple drugs, apparently never occurs to anyone. Particularly not doctors, it seems, who are more than willing to go along with this rip-off. Take Mirapex to treat your fake-restless-leg-syndrome, then gobble some Zocor to alleviate the increased risk of heat attack Mirapex might represent, then a few slabs of Enzyte because Mirapex made you hornier than a faggot in Boy's Town, and so on and so on, as the cycle continues for each new side effect: high blood pressure, blurred vision, uncontrollable sweats, loosened stool.
God only knows what Mirapex will do to you if you take Propecia (a medicine to treat advanced pattern baldness which is so toxic that they actually warn pregnant women not to be in the same HOUSE with a broken tablet of this stuff).
It's no longer about health with these people anymore. It's about vanity and stupidity. And that vanity and stupidity piled on top of the previous generation's (the..ahem..Greatest Generation) propensity to a) live longer than they have any right to and, consequently, b) suck up more Social Security and Medicare money than they ever had a right to, and you can see exactly how phucked this country is going to be in 20 years time vis-a-vis health care.
I have the perfect cure for "restless leg syndrome" -- amputation. Quick, relatively painless, no expensive drugs required, and when it's all over, no more Restless Leg Syndrome, except for that psychological need to believe you can still feel that leg. That, incidentally, was the same mental impulse that led you to believe you had "Restless Leg Syndrome" to begin with.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
A Nation of Laws?
Via TownHall this morning, written by Rebecca Hagelin:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RebeccaHagelin/2007/07/20/%20a_witness_to_newfound_liberty
Ah yes, what a wonderful example of the loopholes in our fabulous Immigration system:
If you’re a Cuban and can evade the Coast Guard, and then float, swim or wash ashore, you can stay -- because you’re politically oppressed and you have powerful lobbies (i.e. Cuban Exiles, the left-over Cold-Warriors) in Congress fighting tooth and nail to let you stay.
If you’re a Mexican or Central American and can sneak through a hole in a fence, wade across a river or manage to survive a day or two in the desert, and you manage to evade the Border Patrol, you can stay, because you’re poor, and you have powerful lobbies in Congress fighting tooth and nail to insure that you do (i.e. both political parties, the small business lobbies, tourism lobbies, labor unions, et. al.).
If you are Chinese, all you need to do is claim that the One Child policy of the People’s Republic is depriving you of your rights (whether you ever actually conceived, planned to conceive, had a child, are pregnant, were forced to have an abortion, or even to be sterilized, is often besides the point; you only have to assert that you were oppressed in this regard), and there will be powerful lobbies in Congress to ensure that you can stay.
In many cases, if you happen to have a skill (say, computer programming) which American companies lack (mostly because they shipped those skilled jobs overseas to begin with, removing the incentive for Americans to take those skills up), you can get an H-1B visa, and then you will have powerful lobbies in Congress who will fight for your right to stay (mostly because you work cheap).
And don’t worry about anything, because the American taxpayer, whose wages you're undercutting and whose communities you are wrecking, will foot the bill for it all. There will be powerful lobbies in Congress to ensure we do, whether we want to or not.
This makes sense? At what point did sympathy for the plight of others and friggin' logic diverge?
One set of immigrants who sneaks into the country is not welcome, and yet another is. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I think it's time we stopped making any kind of distinction and remember that these people BROKE THE GODDAMNED LAW!
Via TownHall this morning, written by Rebecca Hagelin:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RebeccaHagelin/2007/07/20/%20a_witness_to_newfound_liberty
Ah yes, what a wonderful example of the loopholes in our fabulous Immigration system:
If you’re a Cuban and can evade the Coast Guard, and then float, swim or wash ashore, you can stay -- because you’re politically oppressed and you have powerful lobbies (i.e. Cuban Exiles, the left-over Cold-Warriors) in Congress fighting tooth and nail to let you stay.
If you’re a Mexican or Central American and can sneak through a hole in a fence, wade across a river or manage to survive a day or two in the desert, and you manage to evade the Border Patrol, you can stay, because you’re poor, and you have powerful lobbies in Congress fighting tooth and nail to insure that you do (i.e. both political parties, the small business lobbies, tourism lobbies, labor unions, et. al.).
If you are Chinese, all you need to do is claim that the One Child policy of the People’s Republic is depriving you of your rights (whether you ever actually conceived, planned to conceive, had a child, are pregnant, were forced to have an abortion, or even to be sterilized, is often besides the point; you only have to assert that you were oppressed in this regard), and there will be powerful lobbies in Congress to ensure that you can stay.
In many cases, if you happen to have a skill (say, computer programming) which American companies lack (mostly because they shipped those skilled jobs overseas to begin with, removing the incentive for Americans to take those skills up), you can get an H-1B visa, and then you will have powerful lobbies in Congress who will fight for your right to stay (mostly because you work cheap).
And don’t worry about anything, because the American taxpayer, whose wages you're undercutting and whose communities you are wrecking, will foot the bill for it all. There will be powerful lobbies in Congress to ensure we do, whether we want to or not.
This makes sense? At what point did sympathy for the plight of others and friggin' logic diverge?
One set of immigrants who sneaks into the country is not welcome, and yet another is. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I think it's time we stopped making any kind of distinction and remember that these people BROKE THE GODDAMNED LAW!
Friday, July 13, 2007
Keith Olbermann is a Ninny...
*Sigh*
It's bad enough that Bill O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes have become all but unwatchable, but does MSNBC have to follow the same path?
My complaint this time is about Keith Olbermann. Now, normally I don't watch Olbermann and his Countdown show because, well, Keith is an idiot. He was an idiot on SportsCenter on ESPN, and whoever decided he was a "serious journalist" should be taken out an neutered. In the most painful fashion imaginable. However, occasionally (like when O'Reilly drops journalism for the tea-leaf reading that is "Body Language Analysis" or his weekly confab with Geraldo) I do pop in to MSNBC, just on the off-chance that something is being discussed which can hold my interest for at least 3 minutes.
Keith Olbermann ain't that tonic, though.
First off, Keith is a one-trick pony; he can do nothing except report bad news from Iraq, complete with infantile analysis and bad puns, to boot. When he isn't doing that, he's crying about O'Reilly. I swear, I have probably popped into Countdown at least half a dozen times in the last month, and every single time Keith does his "Worst of the Week" shtick, Bill O'Reilly always comes in first (or is it last?). He's obsessed with O'Reilly, almost as much as O'Reilly is obsessed with himself.
Secondly, Keith Olbermann is not quite as smart as he likes to think he is, second-grade witticisms aside. In fact, I rather doubt Keith writes much of the crap that he spouts, but that there is an entire division of MSNBC devoted to making him appear at least Rhesus-monkey clever. If there is, every member of the "Make Olbermann Look Smart" team should be fired, because they invariably fail. Horrendously.
It says a lot when the "best" news shows these days happen to be Tucker Carlson and, two days out of five, Chris Matthews -- and that's only because the competition has been so consistently bad since the beginning of the year, at least.
I sort of remember Daniel Patrick Moynahan once complaining about the "Dumbing Down" of America. He was speaking of the schools and the media, and their ability to withhold any actual information from the public. I'm certain the late Senator tunes in from the Great Beyond at 8 p.m. every evening, watches Olbermann, and wincing, gets disgusted because he was right.
*Sigh*
It's bad enough that Bill O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes have become all but unwatchable, but does MSNBC have to follow the same path?
My complaint this time is about Keith Olbermann. Now, normally I don't watch Olbermann and his Countdown show because, well, Keith is an idiot. He was an idiot on SportsCenter on ESPN, and whoever decided he was a "serious journalist" should be taken out an neutered. In the most painful fashion imaginable. However, occasionally (like when O'Reilly drops journalism for the tea-leaf reading that is "Body Language Analysis" or his weekly confab with Geraldo) I do pop in to MSNBC, just on the off-chance that something is being discussed which can hold my interest for at least 3 minutes.
Keith Olbermann ain't that tonic, though.
First off, Keith is a one-trick pony; he can do nothing except report bad news from Iraq, complete with infantile analysis and bad puns, to boot. When he isn't doing that, he's crying about O'Reilly. I swear, I have probably popped into Countdown at least half a dozen times in the last month, and every single time Keith does his "Worst of the Week" shtick, Bill O'Reilly always comes in first (or is it last?). He's obsessed with O'Reilly, almost as much as O'Reilly is obsessed with himself.
Secondly, Keith Olbermann is not quite as smart as he likes to think he is, second-grade witticisms aside. In fact, I rather doubt Keith writes much of the crap that he spouts, but that there is an entire division of MSNBC devoted to making him appear at least Rhesus-monkey clever. If there is, every member of the "Make Olbermann Look Smart" team should be fired, because they invariably fail. Horrendously.
It says a lot when the "best" news shows these days happen to be Tucker Carlson and, two days out of five, Chris Matthews -- and that's only because the competition has been so consistently bad since the beginning of the year, at least.
I sort of remember Daniel Patrick Moynahan once complaining about the "Dumbing Down" of America. He was speaking of the schools and the media, and their ability to withhold any actual information from the public. I'm certain the late Senator tunes in from the Great Beyond at 8 p.m. every evening, watches Olbermann, and wincing, gets disgusted because he was right.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Some Up-Close and Personal Observations...
In the last couple of months, I have had some very close encounters with Arabs. I'm not talking about the guy who runs the gas station or the newsstand, I mean up-close, personal, and business contact, which has caused me to re-evaluate what I guess one would call personal beliefs.
At one time (actually at several points in the recent past) I have wavered on the moral question of whether or not the Muslim world should survive. I mean that in the literal, actual life-and-death sense. My previous experience with Arabs and Muslims, was, indeed,very limited, and most of it was negative; after all, I had witnessed the terror attacks of September 11th, and the sight of 3,000 people murdered in the name of religion and misguided political nonsense will do that to you.
As the horror of that day was fresh in my memory, and my anguish and fear were my primary concerns, I did advocate the genocide of the Muslims. I'm not afraid to admit that, and I think, given the circumstances, it would be understandable, if still disgusting. As the fear and pain subsided, I recognized such ideas to be despicable and impractical and came to the conclusion that it would solve nothing vis-a-vis the problem of Islamic terrorism. I probably wavered between advocacy of outright butchery and some sense of morality.
However, recent history and events have made me reconsider this position (once again!). And this time, the decision is FINAL. No more wavering for me.
The Muslim world is diseased. To any casual Western observer, this should be obvious. Forget the nonsense that we cannot judge a non-Western society by Western values, because this now seems to me one of the dumbest fucking platitudes ever invented. We damn well SHOULD view the non-Western world through the lens of Western values, because when we don't, we give every asshole on the planet an excuse to take advantage of the irrational guilt and stupidity that created the problem (cultural non-judgementalism) in the first place. The disease that runs through the Muslim world is has an entire smorgasbord of symptoms: rank stupidity, cultural backwardness, an irrational fear of women, devotion to a cult of death dressed up as a "tolerant" religion, arrogance, and a by-now genetic inferiority complex.
The individual events which caused me to change my mind are too numerous to list here, and I won't. Just suffice to say that every Arab/Muslim I've come into contact with the last few months reinforces my belief that the Middle East requires an injection of new DNA. Probably something genetically-engineered to eat sand and crap oil, with about the same level of awareness common to the amoeba. That form of life would be far superior to what calls itself a human being in that part of the world.
This idea was finally crystallized for me last night at, of all places, a minor league baseball game, which I attended with my family. There was a fireworks show at the end of the game, and people had lined up around the stadium to view it. Being on the NYC waterfront, it was also an incredible vantage point to catch the annual Macy's fireworks show, as well as shows in neighboring New Jersey.
I never saw so many headscarves in one place in my life. I never knew there were this many of them on Staten Island, and all of them had a minimum of five kids in tow. They were rude, they were smelly, they were disgusting examples of the selfish human archetype on full display. They had no manners. They acted as if they owned the planet and demanded courtesies they would not even dream of extending to anyone outside their group. There must have been at least 70 women in headscarves in the crowd outside the stadium, and near to the gates where I was that night, and so I guess, were 70 potential suicide bombers (their husbands). Many of them attempted to enter the stadium where the game was being played, without buying tickets, so as to get a better seat for the fireworks show, and some even attempted to crash the gates, complaining loudly of racism and prejudice when they were denied entry just because they hadn't bought a ticket. One moron even commented, upon seeing an Orthodox Jewish family in seating near to the gate, that "Of COURSE they'll let Jews in and keep us out!" Stadium security and New York's Finest kept things in check.
They came in droves, because, well Muslims are enamoured of things that go BOOM, I guess.
I have changed my mind, this time for good. The problem of Islamic terrorism can ONLY be solved when there are no more Islamics. The issue is NOT the West, or Western culture -- the issue is that these folks are outright INSANE . The West has a duty, not only to itself, but to the rest of the planet to advance our system and our values, because these are the only circumstances under which humankind may progress, prosper, and ultimately survive. No more pussy-footing around it; Islam must be dismantled, it must be shown, in unmistakable terms to be morally, ethically, politically, scientifically, economically BANKRUPT. Until that happens, any attempt to bring "democracy" to the Middle East will fail, and we will continue to have 9/11's and Glasgow-style truck bombings.
We should also stop importing these degenerates in such large numbers. Stop the immigration spigot, right the fuck NOW.
This is not hyperbole: the survival of all we hold dear depends directly on whether or not these insane scumbags can be kept in check.
In the last couple of months, I have had some very close encounters with Arabs. I'm not talking about the guy who runs the gas station or the newsstand, I mean up-close, personal, and business contact, which has caused me to re-evaluate what I guess one would call personal beliefs.
At one time (actually at several points in the recent past) I have wavered on the moral question of whether or not the Muslim world should survive. I mean that in the literal, actual life-and-death sense. My previous experience with Arabs and Muslims, was, indeed,very limited, and most of it was negative; after all, I had witnessed the terror attacks of September 11th, and the sight of 3,000 people murdered in the name of religion and misguided political nonsense will do that to you.
As the horror of that day was fresh in my memory, and my anguish and fear were my primary concerns, I did advocate the genocide of the Muslims. I'm not afraid to admit that, and I think, given the circumstances, it would be understandable, if still disgusting. As the fear and pain subsided, I recognized such ideas to be despicable and impractical and came to the conclusion that it would solve nothing vis-a-vis the problem of Islamic terrorism. I probably wavered between advocacy of outright butchery and some sense of morality.
However, recent history and events have made me reconsider this position (once again!). And this time, the decision is FINAL. No more wavering for me.
The Muslim world is diseased. To any casual Western observer, this should be obvious. Forget the nonsense that we cannot judge a non-Western society by Western values, because this now seems to me one of the dumbest fucking platitudes ever invented. We damn well SHOULD view the non-Western world through the lens of Western values, because when we don't, we give every asshole on the planet an excuse to take advantage of the irrational guilt and stupidity that created the problem (cultural non-judgementalism) in the first place. The disease that runs through the Muslim world is has an entire smorgasbord of symptoms: rank stupidity, cultural backwardness, an irrational fear of women, devotion to a cult of death dressed up as a "tolerant" religion, arrogance, and a by-now genetic inferiority complex.
The individual events which caused me to change my mind are too numerous to list here, and I won't. Just suffice to say that every Arab/Muslim I've come into contact with the last few months reinforces my belief that the Middle East requires an injection of new DNA. Probably something genetically-engineered to eat sand and crap oil, with about the same level of awareness common to the amoeba. That form of life would be far superior to what calls itself a human being in that part of the world.
This idea was finally crystallized for me last night at, of all places, a minor league baseball game, which I attended with my family. There was a fireworks show at the end of the game, and people had lined up around the stadium to view it. Being on the NYC waterfront, it was also an incredible vantage point to catch the annual Macy's fireworks show, as well as shows in neighboring New Jersey.
I never saw so many headscarves in one place in my life. I never knew there were this many of them on Staten Island, and all of them had a minimum of five kids in tow. They were rude, they were smelly, they were disgusting examples of the selfish human archetype on full display. They had no manners. They acted as if they owned the planet and demanded courtesies they would not even dream of extending to anyone outside their group. There must have been at least 70 women in headscarves in the crowd outside the stadium, and near to the gates where I was that night, and so I guess, were 70 potential suicide bombers (their husbands). Many of them attempted to enter the stadium where the game was being played, without buying tickets, so as to get a better seat for the fireworks show, and some even attempted to crash the gates, complaining loudly of racism and prejudice when they were denied entry just because they hadn't bought a ticket. One moron even commented, upon seeing an Orthodox Jewish family in seating near to the gate, that "Of COURSE they'll let Jews in and keep us out!" Stadium security and New York's Finest kept things in check.
They came in droves, because, well Muslims are enamoured of things that go BOOM, I guess.
I have changed my mind, this time for good. The problem of Islamic terrorism can ONLY be solved when there are no more Islamics. The issue is NOT the West, or Western culture -- the issue is that these folks are outright INSANE . The West has a duty, not only to itself, but to the rest of the planet to advance our system and our values, because these are the only circumstances under which humankind may progress, prosper, and ultimately survive. No more pussy-footing around it; Islam must be dismantled, it must be shown, in unmistakable terms to be morally, ethically, politically, scientifically, economically BANKRUPT. Until that happens, any attempt to bring "democracy" to the Middle East will fail, and we will continue to have 9/11's and Glasgow-style truck bombings.
We should also stop importing these degenerates in such large numbers. Stop the immigration spigot, right the fuck NOW.
This is not hyperbole: the survival of all we hold dear depends directly on whether or not these insane scumbags can be kept in check.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Bill Richardson: The Snowball and the Infernal Regions...
Bill Richardson is the latest democrat (small 'd' intentional) to throw his beret (they all wear them, ya know) into the ring for the race to the Presidency in 2008. The current Governor of New Mexico has a stellar resume: Former cabinet-level post (Secretary of Energy), former U.N. Ambassador, former National Security Advisor (I think), spent a term or two in the Congress. All-in-all, being fair, the best-qualified (in terms of actual work) of all the candidates of both parties, to be a nominee.
Unfortunately, he'll never make it.
Because qualifications no longer matter. What matters is that you are able to vilify your political opponents in a way which "energizes your base" while avoiding the pitfall of making people so disgusted that they tune you out. In other words: what really counts in American politics today is which candidate can walk the tightrope between being sort-of-offensive and being too- obviously-offensive.
In the offensive department, we have a whole string of democratic party second-stringers, most of whom (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden) most people have never heard of, nor care about.
In the too-obviously-offensive category we have the democratic superstars; Edwards and Clinton. Barack Obama, despite the fact that he's an obvious pandering, lying sack of you-know-what, at least comes across as a genuinely nice man. Edwards and Clinton can lie to your face, pretend to be whatever you want them to be, say whatever you need them to say, and it's perfectly obvious that they're lying and pandering, but it doesn't matter; the hand-picked crowds love it. They love it even more when they're in full-throttle attack mode, and it never gets more full-throttle then when it comes to Bush-hatred, which goes beyond politics and ideology and is evolving into a mental disorder.
And here is where a guy like Bill Richardson has the proverbial snowball's chance: The political left has become so unbalanced, so infected by pathological-hatred on individual personalities (Bush, Cheney, Gonzoles, Libby, etc), that there is no longer a point at which a candidate can become too-obviously-offensive. The worse picture you can paint, the better.
Bill Richardson is not that kind of guy. He doesn't have that sort of mean in him. He's not programmed to spew venom 24/7 and then claim victim-hood afterwards. He's not constructed for the ad nauseum repetition of absolute lies. He's a decent man.
And that's what will end his run. He can't keep up with the slime machines of Clinton and Edwards. He can't compete with the media-made-sexiness of Obama.
And it's a crying shame, because while he might be a democrat, I can recognize a pretty good guy when I see one, and Bill Richardson seems to be one. As far as government service goes, he's got the pedigree. The only person I can think of who's had that sort of resume in recent times has been Bush pere, and in retrospect, he seems damn-near regal, never mind presidential.
We are about to set a dangerous precedent in this country; this country will probably, in all eventuality, will have been presided over by either a Bush or a Clinton for the last two decades, depending on the outcome of the dimwit's beauty contest. Which is what makes a man like Richardson all the more valuable (and attractive as a candidate), because there's more Bush's and Clinton's in the pipeline, and Edwards and Gore won't go away until someone gives them a final death befitting the undead (a stake through the heart and immersal in holy water).
There's an opportunity here that I'm afraid we just might miss; the opportunity to re-inject civility and intelligence back into our politics, and the chance to avoid the dynastic rule of two incredibly incompetent families.
Unfortunately for you,Bill, we'll probably never get the chance to see you in action.
Bill Richardson is the latest democrat (small 'd' intentional) to throw his beret (they all wear them, ya know) into the ring for the race to the Presidency in 2008. The current Governor of New Mexico has a stellar resume: Former cabinet-level post (Secretary of Energy), former U.N. Ambassador, former National Security Advisor (I think), spent a term or two in the Congress. All-in-all, being fair, the best-qualified (in terms of actual work) of all the candidates of both parties, to be a nominee.
Unfortunately, he'll never make it.
Because qualifications no longer matter. What matters is that you are able to vilify your political opponents in a way which "energizes your base" while avoiding the pitfall of making people so disgusted that they tune you out. In other words: what really counts in American politics today is which candidate can walk the tightrope between being sort-of-offensive and being too- obviously-offensive.
In the offensive department, we have a whole string of democratic party second-stringers, most of whom (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden) most people have never heard of, nor care about.
In the too-obviously-offensive category we have the democratic superstars; Edwards and Clinton. Barack Obama, despite the fact that he's an obvious pandering, lying sack of you-know-what, at least comes across as a genuinely nice man. Edwards and Clinton can lie to your face, pretend to be whatever you want them to be, say whatever you need them to say, and it's perfectly obvious that they're lying and pandering, but it doesn't matter; the hand-picked crowds love it. They love it even more when they're in full-throttle attack mode, and it never gets more full-throttle then when it comes to Bush-hatred, which goes beyond politics and ideology and is evolving into a mental disorder.
And here is where a guy like Bill Richardson has the proverbial snowball's chance: The political left has become so unbalanced, so infected by pathological-hatred on individual personalities (Bush, Cheney, Gonzoles, Libby, etc), that there is no longer a point at which a candidate can become too-obviously-offensive. The worse picture you can paint, the better.
Bill Richardson is not that kind of guy. He doesn't have that sort of mean in him. He's not programmed to spew venom 24/7 and then claim victim-hood afterwards. He's not constructed for the ad nauseum repetition of absolute lies. He's a decent man.
And that's what will end his run. He can't keep up with the slime machines of Clinton and Edwards. He can't compete with the media-made-sexiness of Obama.
And it's a crying shame, because while he might be a democrat, I can recognize a pretty good guy when I see one, and Bill Richardson seems to be one. As far as government service goes, he's got the pedigree. The only person I can think of who's had that sort of resume in recent times has been Bush pere, and in retrospect, he seems damn-near regal, never mind presidential.
We are about to set a dangerous precedent in this country; this country will probably, in all eventuality, will have been presided over by either a Bush or a Clinton for the last two decades, depending on the outcome of the dimwit's beauty contest. Which is what makes a man like Richardson all the more valuable (and attractive as a candidate), because there's more Bush's and Clinton's in the pipeline, and Edwards and Gore won't go away until someone gives them a final death befitting the undead (a stake through the heart and immersal in holy water).
There's an opportunity here that I'm afraid we just might miss; the opportunity to re-inject civility and intelligence back into our politics, and the chance to avoid the dynastic rule of two incredibly incompetent families.
Unfortunately for you,Bill, we'll probably never get the chance to see you in action.
John Edwards: The Gift That Keeps on Giving...
I've never liked John Edwards. I've always felt he was a hypocrite and an empty suit, and above all, an arrogant bastard, who's considered opinion is that everyone else on the planet hasn't the same sense that God gave to a retarded Irish Setter.
The phony populism was always easy to spot: the "Two Americas" routine, the "do as I say, not as I do" sort of conspicuous consumption, the hypocritical (and public!) rebuke of Wal-Mart at the very same time he was twisting arms for an X-Box, or whatever it was.
I could hardly believe it could get worse. I was wrong.
By now, we've all heard about the famous $400 haircut. That caused a bit of a stir; a man claiming to be a champion of the poor avails himself of an expensive coiffure and still demands to be taken seriously. It just didn't wash. Especially when Edwards, in defending that haircut, makes a ridiculous statement about his staff making the arrangements and polishes it off with this humdinger (paraphrased):
"I was not personally involved in that haircut. I had nothing to do with it."
That's how stupid he believes you are. The man sat in the barber's chair. It was his hair that was cut. But he wasn't involved.
It's "I didn't inhale" and "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", all over again.
Now we find out that Mr. Edwards, stalwart defender of the poverty-stricken, makes speeches at 40K a pop (twice the official "poverty level" yearly wage, for a family of four, no less!) and was recently paid $55,000 for speech on (what else?) poverty at the University of California, Davis. I rather doubt Mr. Edwards sees the logical problem here. It turns out by the way, that UC Davis is a public university (meaning it is supported by the taxpayer) which has plans to up it's tuition by 7% next year because, well, at 55k a pop for bullshit, it can't afford to educate folks at the old levels of funding.
This comes on the heels of the discovery that after being soundly whipped in his bid for the job of President and John Kerry's lap dog in 2004, Mr. Edwards went to work for a hedge fund. A job for which he was paid (I believe) $2 million a year. He claims that he took the job in order to study the economics of poverty. Let me repeat that -- the economics of poverty. He said that with a straight face, too -- give him credit for balls, at the very least.
He's also got a proven record of utilizing personal tragedy for personal gain. The tragic death of his son in an automobile accident vaulted him into a Senate seat (which he barely sat in, because he began campaigning for the Presidency five minutes after he was sworn in). He's used his wife's recurring cancer to garner sympathy and push his "health care plan" which basically amounts to "band-aids and eyedrops for thee...I can afford real insurance, thank you".
John Edwards: the answer to the question that no one has asked. If someone has asked it, please shoot them -- they cannot be allowed to reproduce.
I've never liked John Edwards. I've always felt he was a hypocrite and an empty suit, and above all, an arrogant bastard, who's considered opinion is that everyone else on the planet hasn't the same sense that God gave to a retarded Irish Setter.
The phony populism was always easy to spot: the "Two Americas" routine, the "do as I say, not as I do" sort of conspicuous consumption, the hypocritical (and public!) rebuke of Wal-Mart at the very same time he was twisting arms for an X-Box, or whatever it was.
I could hardly believe it could get worse. I was wrong.
By now, we've all heard about the famous $400 haircut. That caused a bit of a stir; a man claiming to be a champion of the poor avails himself of an expensive coiffure and still demands to be taken seriously. It just didn't wash. Especially when Edwards, in defending that haircut, makes a ridiculous statement about his staff making the arrangements and polishes it off with this humdinger (paraphrased):
"I was not personally involved in that haircut. I had nothing to do with it."
That's how stupid he believes you are. The man sat in the barber's chair. It was his hair that was cut. But he wasn't involved.
It's "I didn't inhale" and "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", all over again.
Now we find out that Mr. Edwards, stalwart defender of the poverty-stricken, makes speeches at 40K a pop (twice the official "poverty level" yearly wage, for a family of four, no less!) and was recently paid $55,000 for speech on (what else?) poverty at the University of California, Davis. I rather doubt Mr. Edwards sees the logical problem here. It turns out by the way, that UC Davis is a public university (meaning it is supported by the taxpayer) which has plans to up it's tuition by 7% next year because, well, at 55k a pop for bullshit, it can't afford to educate folks at the old levels of funding.
This comes on the heels of the discovery that after being soundly whipped in his bid for the job of President and John Kerry's lap dog in 2004, Mr. Edwards went to work for a hedge fund. A job for which he was paid (I believe) $2 million a year. He claims that he took the job in order to study the economics of poverty. Let me repeat that -- the economics of poverty. He said that with a straight face, too -- give him credit for balls, at the very least.
He's also got a proven record of utilizing personal tragedy for personal gain. The tragic death of his son in an automobile accident vaulted him into a Senate seat (which he barely sat in, because he began campaigning for the Presidency five minutes after he was sworn in). He's used his wife's recurring cancer to garner sympathy and push his "health care plan" which basically amounts to "band-aids and eyedrops for thee...I can afford real insurance, thank you".
John Edwards: the answer to the question that no one has asked. If someone has asked it, please shoot them -- they cannot be allowed to reproduce.
Friday, May 11, 2007
More "All the News"...
Just a quick thought on this subject; how is a newspaper supposed to make money when it gives the news away for free on the Internet?
It should be the first question asked when it's an almost-daily occurrance where a major, print news organization in this country announces a new round of lay-offs, or decides to outsource it's 'local' reporting to a foreign country.
Now, I've blogged a bit about something along these lines in the past, and so has John Derbyshire of the National Review Online. I don't put myself in the same class as Derb, but we had a similar problem;
When I lived in Charlotte, NC, I used to receive the Charlotte Observer, which wasn't much of a newspaper unless you loved NASCAR, seventeen pages of inane church tattle, interspersed with Wal-Mart advertizing. Anyways, I found myself receiving the Observer, even though I never ordered it. Never asked them to deliever it, they never called to ask me if I wanted a subscription --- it just showed up on my doorstep. At first, infrequently, and then with more regularity. No one ever came to my door to ask me to pay for it, and the notes I left to the carrier who was mistakenly delivering it went unheeded.
Wouldn't you know it? At about the same time I was having this issue, so was Derb. New York Newsday (I believe) was showing up on his doorstep under much the same circumstances. Derb, being a much more dynamic and driven individual, actually took the trouble to find out why. Turns out that in many instances, newspapers will print far more newspapers than they can sell, knowingly, and then just distribute them, to boost circulation numbers in order to set advertizing rates. In this regard, it doesn't matter whether the Charlotte Observer actually sells 300,000 copies a day, so long as it can be said to distrubute that many.
That the practice is, one the one hand, wasteful, and on the other, dishonest, apparently doesn't enter into the equation. In the end, it's counter-productive. But then again, counter-productivity is management's job.
So, in a day and age when newspapers are being produced in order to be given away (for free), when news is given away online (for free), why should we be surprised when the same idiots decide that getting Indian reporters to cover City Hall in Pasadena, California, via the Internet, from the comfort of Calcutta, is such a bad idea?
I'll say this much for the idea; those Indian City Desk writers probably have a better command of English than their American counterparts.
One other thing about the stupidity and hypocricy of the American press; whenever I attempt to read an article that originated in the New York or Los Angeles Times, I am asked to sign on to their site with my e-mail address, presumably so the Times can monitor my reading habits and e-mail me about similar articles which might be of interest (the idea being that if the Times can increase internet hits by bringing back people who can read, and who wish to be semi-informed, their advertizing dollars increase). I can honestly say this; neither the New York Times, nor the Los Angeles Times have ever e-mailed me with a notification of a particular article I might find interesting, nor have they ever made an attempt to contact me to as much as to just say "hello".
My mailbox, both the one online and on the front stoop, however, are full of spam and junk mail. If I had to guess, the sign-in registry for Times articles has nothing to do with news and everything to do with selling my name and address to a bulk-rate spam operation.
I wonder how the Press in this country would react to a little of thier own medicine, and had a little 'investigative journalism' performed against them. The main thrusts of this investigation should be:
- What makes anyone think artificially inflating circulation numbers in order to fleece advertizers is legal or ethical?
- Why is it bad for the government to know my online habits, but the New York Times fairly demands it before I'm allowed to see it's product in a format which is free? The Times has spent years railing about the government using people's online habits as a means by which to invade privacy, but the Times should be allowed to invade my privacy so that they can make money?
To see John Derbyshire's July, 2004 Diary where he mentions the Newsday brouhaha, click here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTVhYmQzZTRmNmZlOTViNjZlN2UzMjM1ZDA5ZDY3Nzg=
It doesn't take much to see why print media is dying in this country.
Just a quick thought on this subject; how is a newspaper supposed to make money when it gives the news away for free on the Internet?
It should be the first question asked when it's an almost-daily occurrance where a major, print news organization in this country announces a new round of lay-offs, or decides to outsource it's 'local' reporting to a foreign country.
Now, I've blogged a bit about something along these lines in the past, and so has John Derbyshire of the National Review Online. I don't put myself in the same class as Derb, but we had a similar problem;
When I lived in Charlotte, NC, I used to receive the Charlotte Observer, which wasn't much of a newspaper unless you loved NASCAR, seventeen pages of inane church tattle, interspersed with Wal-Mart advertizing. Anyways, I found myself receiving the Observer, even though I never ordered it. Never asked them to deliever it, they never called to ask me if I wanted a subscription --- it just showed up on my doorstep. At first, infrequently, and then with more regularity. No one ever came to my door to ask me to pay for it, and the notes I left to the carrier who was mistakenly delivering it went unheeded.
Wouldn't you know it? At about the same time I was having this issue, so was Derb. New York Newsday (I believe) was showing up on his doorstep under much the same circumstances. Derb, being a much more dynamic and driven individual, actually took the trouble to find out why. Turns out that in many instances, newspapers will print far more newspapers than they can sell, knowingly, and then just distribute them, to boost circulation numbers in order to set advertizing rates. In this regard, it doesn't matter whether the Charlotte Observer actually sells 300,000 copies a day, so long as it can be said to distrubute that many.
That the practice is, one the one hand, wasteful, and on the other, dishonest, apparently doesn't enter into the equation. In the end, it's counter-productive. But then again, counter-productivity is management's job.
So, in a day and age when newspapers are being produced in order to be given away (for free), when news is given away online (for free), why should we be surprised when the same idiots decide that getting Indian reporters to cover City Hall in Pasadena, California, via the Internet, from the comfort of Calcutta, is such a bad idea?
I'll say this much for the idea; those Indian City Desk writers probably have a better command of English than their American counterparts.
One other thing about the stupidity and hypocricy of the American press; whenever I attempt to read an article that originated in the New York or Los Angeles Times, I am asked to sign on to their site with my e-mail address, presumably so the Times can monitor my reading habits and e-mail me about similar articles which might be of interest (the idea being that if the Times can increase internet hits by bringing back people who can read, and who wish to be semi-informed, their advertizing dollars increase). I can honestly say this; neither the New York Times, nor the Los Angeles Times have ever e-mailed me with a notification of a particular article I might find interesting, nor have they ever made an attempt to contact me to as much as to just say "hello".
My mailbox, both the one online and on the front stoop, however, are full of spam and junk mail. If I had to guess, the sign-in registry for Times articles has nothing to do with news and everything to do with selling my name and address to a bulk-rate spam operation.
I wonder how the Press in this country would react to a little of thier own medicine, and had a little 'investigative journalism' performed against them. The main thrusts of this investigation should be:
- What makes anyone think artificially inflating circulation numbers in order to fleece advertizers is legal or ethical?
- Why is it bad for the government to know my online habits, but the New York Times fairly demands it before I'm allowed to see it's product in a format which is free? The Times has spent years railing about the government using people's online habits as a means by which to invade privacy, but the Times should be allowed to invade my privacy so that they can make money?
To see John Derbyshire's July, 2004 Diary where he mentions the Newsday brouhaha, click here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTVhYmQzZTRmNmZlOTViNjZlN2UzMjM1ZDA5ZDY3Nzg=
It doesn't take much to see why print media is dying in this country.
Time to Choose?
Appropos of nothing at all, the theme of John Edward's presidential campaign (the Two Americas, redux) entered, quite unbidden, into the darkest recesses of my deviant mind.
The premise as put forward by Mr. Edwards: there is a great divide between rich and poor in this country. The divide is growing on a daily basis, and it is causing much of the social unrest and dislocation that we witness in American life. If only the dividends of the rich could be somehow redistributed (through force, naturally) more equally, then perhaps we'd live in a more peaceful, prosperous society. It's for certain that the American middle class has been sold out, betrayed by it's politicians, it's business leaders and it's own sense of comfort (achieved at the cost of eternal personal debt).
This is standard socialist boilerplate, to be certain, with a dash of southern populism added for spice.
Now, as to what I've been thinking about it;
To begin with, perhaps John Edwards is not the best messenger. After all, the man is a multi-millionaire who made his fortune (allegedly) defrauding the medical and insurance industries, so when John Edwards speaks about universal health care and such, perhaps he's not the best person to ask how it's to be done. His expertise in the health care field is limited to figuring out how to fleece the system for personal gain, not in re-inventing it to provide service for others.
Then there's the matter of Mr. Edward's home. A man who lives in a mansion (and this is not an exaggeration; it is a palatial estate, by any definition of the word, and I haven't seen a political figure with such luxurious digs since Saddam Hussein). Now, the republican right-winger-free-market-capitalist in me says, "Well, Matt, he earned the money to pay for it, we can assume legally, and therefore, why shouldn't he be required to enjoy the fruits of his labor?" Well, true. But then Edwards starts running his mouth about 'the rich" this, and 'the wealthy" that, and it never occurs to anyone that he IS rich. That he IS wealthy. And then it begins to sound hypocritical, because you know that when it comes to redistributing wealth to pay for whatever he wants to give to the lower classes, his wealth will be the first to be protected.
Don't even begin to think otherwise.
And then we come to the second part of my thought process:
Given my personal experiences of the last four years, there is a certain appeal in what he has to say. You do have to make an effort to apply logic to it in order to avoid falling into the trap of believing that a) he actually means it and, b) that the American taxpayer can afford what he speaks of without inciting a second Revolution. Which brings me to the point of this screed.
There is no way to avoid it, but, at some point, the people in this country are going to have to make a choice about their long-term financial security. This choice will be based upon a very simple proposition; at current rates of growth, the Federal tax base will not be able to support both Social Security and some form of extended health care system (Medicare) without tax hikes that will ultimately destroy the tax base, and leave the federal government incapable of doing anything else but providing free Viagra and cutting social security checks for the two wealthiest generations in American history (the remnants of the "Greatest Generation" who have milked the system for far more than they ever paid in, and the selfish "Baby Boomers" who believe the world owes them a living because they went to Woodstock).
Now, it's bad enough that our "economic geniuses" on Wall Street and in the hallowed refuges of the Executive Washroom are shipping our jobs overseas, making those who can find employment work longer hours for less pay and fewer benefits, and bribing our government to allow unfettered illegal immigration in order to re-establish what true liberal policies once eliminated; slavery within the borders of the United States. Eventually, there will be no jobs, for anyone, no paychecks being collected, no taxes generated and all of our wealth shipped to China, Bangladesh and Singapore. And then what will we do? No money for defense, no money for bribing the unproductive, no cash to keep Grandma in Claritin, ultimately, no money for the rest of us. For anything.
So, it's time to make a choice; if you're one of those who believes, like John Edwards, that the government should provide health care to the masses, then you must be prepared to give something up. Like Social Security, perhaps. If you're one of those who believes Social Security has outlasted it's usefulness to American society and should have a stake driven through it's black heart, then you should also realize that it will soon be impossible for any American (except the shrinking ownership class) to afford to have an eye exam or get a cavity filled, and that it is now inevitable that some form of national health care is in the offing. And that it should be paid for...somehow.
In lieu of the Sturm und Drang of the Iraq imbroglio, I have yet to hear anyone bring this topic up. Probably because it isn't 'sexy' and because both sides would rather have the issues left ambiguous in order to gin up grievances for electoral purposes.
but eventually, that sort of choice is going to have to be made. America, start thinking about it; you can be mollycoddled in your old age, or you can be kept healthy enough (perhaps) to reach old age, but not both.
As for John Edwards, brazenly hypocritical doesn't even begin to describe him. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Appropos of nothing at all, the theme of John Edward's presidential campaign (the Two Americas, redux) entered, quite unbidden, into the darkest recesses of my deviant mind.
The premise as put forward by Mr. Edwards: there is a great divide between rich and poor in this country. The divide is growing on a daily basis, and it is causing much of the social unrest and dislocation that we witness in American life. If only the dividends of the rich could be somehow redistributed (through force, naturally) more equally, then perhaps we'd live in a more peaceful, prosperous society. It's for certain that the American middle class has been sold out, betrayed by it's politicians, it's business leaders and it's own sense of comfort (achieved at the cost of eternal personal debt).
This is standard socialist boilerplate, to be certain, with a dash of southern populism added for spice.
Now, as to what I've been thinking about it;
To begin with, perhaps John Edwards is not the best messenger. After all, the man is a multi-millionaire who made his fortune (allegedly) defrauding the medical and insurance industries, so when John Edwards speaks about universal health care and such, perhaps he's not the best person to ask how it's to be done. His expertise in the health care field is limited to figuring out how to fleece the system for personal gain, not in re-inventing it to provide service for others.
Then there's the matter of Mr. Edward's home. A man who lives in a mansion (and this is not an exaggeration; it is a palatial estate, by any definition of the word, and I haven't seen a political figure with such luxurious digs since Saddam Hussein). Now, the republican right-winger-free-market-capitalist in me says, "Well, Matt, he earned the money to pay for it, we can assume legally, and therefore, why shouldn't he be required to enjoy the fruits of his labor?" Well, true. But then Edwards starts running his mouth about 'the rich" this, and 'the wealthy" that, and it never occurs to anyone that he IS rich. That he IS wealthy. And then it begins to sound hypocritical, because you know that when it comes to redistributing wealth to pay for whatever he wants to give to the lower classes, his wealth will be the first to be protected.
Don't even begin to think otherwise.
And then we come to the second part of my thought process:
Given my personal experiences of the last four years, there is a certain appeal in what he has to say. You do have to make an effort to apply logic to it in order to avoid falling into the trap of believing that a) he actually means it and, b) that the American taxpayer can afford what he speaks of without inciting a second Revolution. Which brings me to the point of this screed.
There is no way to avoid it, but, at some point, the people in this country are going to have to make a choice about their long-term financial security. This choice will be based upon a very simple proposition; at current rates of growth, the Federal tax base will not be able to support both Social Security and some form of extended health care system (Medicare) without tax hikes that will ultimately destroy the tax base, and leave the federal government incapable of doing anything else but providing free Viagra and cutting social security checks for the two wealthiest generations in American history (the remnants of the "Greatest Generation" who have milked the system for far more than they ever paid in, and the selfish "Baby Boomers" who believe the world owes them a living because they went to Woodstock).
Now, it's bad enough that our "economic geniuses" on Wall Street and in the hallowed refuges of the Executive Washroom are shipping our jobs overseas, making those who can find employment work longer hours for less pay and fewer benefits, and bribing our government to allow unfettered illegal immigration in order to re-establish what true liberal policies once eliminated; slavery within the borders of the United States. Eventually, there will be no jobs, for anyone, no paychecks being collected, no taxes generated and all of our wealth shipped to China, Bangladesh and Singapore. And then what will we do? No money for defense, no money for bribing the unproductive, no cash to keep Grandma in Claritin, ultimately, no money for the rest of us. For anything.
So, it's time to make a choice; if you're one of those who believes, like John Edwards, that the government should provide health care to the masses, then you must be prepared to give something up. Like Social Security, perhaps. If you're one of those who believes Social Security has outlasted it's usefulness to American society and should have a stake driven through it's black heart, then you should also realize that it will soon be impossible for any American (except the shrinking ownership class) to afford to have an eye exam or get a cavity filled, and that it is now inevitable that some form of national health care is in the offing. And that it should be paid for...somehow.
In lieu of the Sturm und Drang of the Iraq imbroglio, I have yet to hear anyone bring this topic up. Probably because it isn't 'sexy' and because both sides would rather have the issues left ambiguous in order to gin up grievances for electoral purposes.
but eventually, that sort of choice is going to have to be made. America, start thinking about it; you can be mollycoddled in your old age, or you can be kept healthy enough (perhaps) to reach old age, but not both.
As for John Edwards, brazenly hypocritical doesn't even begin to describe him. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
All the News That's, Yada, Yada, Yada...
Check out this blurb from FoxNews.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271577,00.html
Then ask yourself this; at what point does it become impossible NOT to laugh at today's corporate manager?
Outsourcing your LOCAL reporting to Bombay? I shake my head in disgust at both the need to maximize profits, at all costs (including that of credibility), and at the fact that the people who made this decision are also the people who decide what we read in their paper.
It's a sad commentary on the state of the media, at the very least.
Check out this blurb from FoxNews.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271577,00.html
Then ask yourself this; at what point does it become impossible NOT to laugh at today's corporate manager?
Outsourcing your LOCAL reporting to Bombay? I shake my head in disgust at both the need to maximize profits, at all costs (including that of credibility), and at the fact that the people who made this decision are also the people who decide what we read in their paper.
It's a sad commentary on the state of the media, at the very least.
Friday, May 04, 2007
No More Debates, Please...
We've had two Presidential Debates thus far. That is one adjective and one noun too generous, in my estimation.
We had 9 or 10 (it's hard to count people that intellectually small as actual human beings) democrats the week before last, and this week, it was the turn of the 10 or so republicans. This is the state of American politics; 19 people are vying for the chance to spend an estimated $1 billion (of other people's money, of course) to be publicly humiliated, to have every aspect of their lives pried into in a manner which makes a proctological examination seem like a good way to spend the off-evening or two, to run themselves ragged attending prayer breakfasts in Iowa before jetting off for the hog-wrestling in Alabama, and then off to the Jackhammer -Iron Man-Face-Rodeo in San Francisco (all in the same day), all for the purposes of obtaining a job that pays $200,000 a year, and comes with the added benefit that it will age the hell out of you, probably destroy your health, and drive you insane with the amount and vigor of the criticism aimed at you.
But you do get the swanky address and that really boffo helicopter. Oh, and the nuke privleges. Anyways...
What does that tell you about the Presidency, and more specifically, the type of people who run for the office? I could start at "shameless", move on to "hypocritical" and then really get all warmed up with "narcissistic", and I truly wouldn't even be getting started.
But what really gets my goat about this process thus far, is that the quality of candidate seems to have sunk to all-time lows. We can expect the usual nonsense; which democrat can adequately convince you that he or she is the second coming of Lenin (only with compassion and a better wardrobe), as opposed to which republican can convince you with a straight face that they understand concepts like responsibility and propriety. Neither side apparently knows anything about the Middle Class, which they all "speak to", but who are being tossed aside faster than panties on Prom Night. What was totally unexpected, by me, in both debates, was the general lack of anything appealing ---- in all 20 individuals. Never mind ideology, give me someone who isn't molded, reshearsed, focus-grouped and demographically-approved!
Personally, I think instead of debates we should hold steel-cage matches --- first one to emerge with a serious brain injury gets inaugurated.
We've had two Presidential Debates thus far. That is one adjective and one noun too generous, in my estimation.
We had 9 or 10 (it's hard to count people that intellectually small as actual human beings) democrats the week before last, and this week, it was the turn of the 10 or so republicans. This is the state of American politics; 19 people are vying for the chance to spend an estimated $1 billion (of other people's money, of course) to be publicly humiliated, to have every aspect of their lives pried into in a manner which makes a proctological examination seem like a good way to spend the off-evening or two, to run themselves ragged attending prayer breakfasts in Iowa before jetting off for the hog-wrestling in Alabama, and then off to the Jackhammer -Iron Man-Face-Rodeo in San Francisco (all in the same day), all for the purposes of obtaining a job that pays $200,000 a year, and comes with the added benefit that it will age the hell out of you, probably destroy your health, and drive you insane with the amount and vigor of the criticism aimed at you.
But you do get the swanky address and that really boffo helicopter. Oh, and the nuke privleges. Anyways...
What does that tell you about the Presidency, and more specifically, the type of people who run for the office? I could start at "shameless", move on to "hypocritical" and then really get all warmed up with "narcissistic", and I truly wouldn't even be getting started.
But what really gets my goat about this process thus far, is that the quality of candidate seems to have sunk to all-time lows. We can expect the usual nonsense; which democrat can adequately convince you that he or she is the second coming of Lenin (only with compassion and a better wardrobe), as opposed to which republican can convince you with a straight face that they understand concepts like responsibility and propriety. Neither side apparently knows anything about the Middle Class, which they all "speak to", but who are being tossed aside faster than panties on Prom Night. What was totally unexpected, by me, in both debates, was the general lack of anything appealing ---- in all 20 individuals. Never mind ideology, give me someone who isn't molded, reshearsed, focus-grouped and demographically-approved!
Personally, I think instead of debates we should hold steel-cage matches --- first one to emerge with a serious brain injury gets inaugurated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)