Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

3.03.2008

George W. Bush Is One of My Favorite Presidents


I'm not a Republican. I think the war in Iraq, and the Terror War in general, is a monumental, epic, hands-down, mentally-deficient clusterfuck. I don't like globalization. I hate being lied to by my government. Practically everything the sadists and trolls in the White House have done for the past eight years has made me nauseous. Sometimes I think fondly about the good-old-days when unpopular leaders were drawn and quartered, or at the very least decapitated.


Still... I think I'll miss Big Dubya when he's gone.


For one thing, he did more for political satire than any other U.S. president I know of -- not intentionally, of course, but he doesn’t have to try. Whenever words fall out from behind that beady-eyed idiot grin, he put food on the table of every pissed-off comedian and editorialist in the country. Lewis Black and Jon Stewart will be able to retire to haciendas in Belize by the time November rolls around -- and they'll probably have to: once their Texan cash cow gets tossed out of office, the salad days are over. They'll have to go back to digging for jokes instead of just reading the news. We might never have the benefit of another wholesale satirical slaughter like we did when Stephen Colbert tore apart the '06 White House Correspondents' Dinner. The loss of the War Chief will be felt far and wide among the people who make us laugh to keep us from crying.


On a more personal note: I owe a lot to George. I was just starting high school when he came into office, so the foundation of my political awareness was developed in the context of Bush's administration. If I'd grown up under eight years of a different president, I might not have the healthy political cynicism I feel blessed with today.


All governments do shady things for selfish interests. Governments lie; governments murder; governments steal. Sometimes these things can be justified, to whatever small extent possible, by keeping people safe -- but acts of cruelty and stupidity are all too often committed for nothing more than profit. It's a sad and uncomfortable truth-- one that most people would rather not think about -- but it's a truth nonetheless. Fortunately, most administrations have the decency to cover their dirty secrets up, allowing us to maintain a comfortable front of naivety. People want to believe their government is a wise, benevolent guardian who watches over them while they struggle through a dangerous world. As long as the government allows us to feed that idealism and doesn't ask us to suspend our disbelief too much, a few high-level scandals and illegal wars won't be much bother. It's like making a good movie: as long as the acting is convincing and the special effects are distracting, the audience will allow themselves to overlook the holes in the plot and the zipper on the monster costume.


Bush and his henchmen asked way, way too much of their audience. Maybe they were unlucky; maybe it was sheer stupidity; maybe they just had too many skeletons and not enough closets to hide them in. Whatever the case, we've been hit repeatedly with the full scope of how diabolically callous our government can be at its worst. I don't think I need to list all the ways the Bush administration has screwed us during the past eight years--I'm not even sure I could if I wanted to-- but the moral of the story, at least for me, is that I'll never completely trust a government again.

I think it's a good thing. While the government -- ours or any other -- has a lot of potential to do good things for people, it has just as much potential, if not more, to exploit them. It'd be nice to believe that the people in control are looking out for our best interests but, as Our Fearless Leader has so aptly demonstrated, they've got no problem taking complete advantage of the power we've trusted them with.


Thanks George.


-Ryan Miga

1.15.2008

Slate's Hillary Hatefest

Today, Hillary Clinton finds herself in the crosshairs of Slate's scathing trio of articles titled, "Clinton-itis."

John Dickerson starts off with a look at the PR snafus of Clinton's campaign. Following on the heels of Bill Shaheen's--Clinton's ex-campaign adviser--resignation after publicly commenting on Barack Obama's drug use, the article discusses the Clinton team's continuous mishandling of similar situations, which land her extremely negative press.


The next two articles--Christopher Hitchens's "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" (or "I just remembered what I can't stand about her") and Timothy Noah's "Hillary's 'Experience' Lie"--thoroughly cut her down to size, criticizing Clinton's character and exaggerated claims of "experience."

I'm not the biggest Hill-fan to say the least, but I wonder whether other democratic candidates will be receiving such special treatment from the web-zine. After reading each article, which make some poignant observations, the Hillary hating was just a bit too much, especially with Hitchens's bilious tone. Take into account crucial primaries in the next week and a half, and it all just seems a bit unprofessional from a consistently judicious magazine.

I will give credit to Hitchens for opening his article with this Hillarious example:
On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy "experience"—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer... Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking.

Don't block the shot!

While bored on a Tuesday, I took some time and searched YouTube for funny videos. It was most successful. One silly Arnold Schwarzenegger clip in which he attacks and defeats a poorly disguised man in bear suit, check. One cleverly edited cluster of clips from 2006's The Wickerman with Nicholas Cage, check. Then I searched for Bill O'Reilly, typically good material for a chuckle. And I stumbled across this video:



Apparently I'm way behind on this news story. Slate.com has a piece about the incident dated January 5, which covers the story from a insider angle. One reporter was standing next to him at the time. And Bill O'Reilly is selling the "DON'T BLOCK THE SHOT!" T-shirt at his site billoreilly.com.

I guess this is Bill O’Reilly version of hard-hitting journalism.

12.05.2007

The Iowa Derby for Donkeys

The presidential candidate field tends to start off overly saturated. Luckily, America has the Iowa caucuses to narrow down the field for the rest of the country. In many cases, a poor outcome in Iowa can mean the end of a campaign for a candidate. In the 2004 caucuses, Democratic front-runner Howard Dean finished in a dismal third place and then went on to give his infamous "I Have A Scream" speech. Nearly a month later, he dropped out of the race and endorsed John Kerry.

The 2008 Iowa Caucuses are almost a month away, and there is still a great amount of uncertainty regarding the results. If Obama doesn't win Iowa, he really won't have much of a shot winning the nomination. But despite Clinton doing very well in the polls, I think Obama may have a very good shot at winning Iowa.

Here is a brief rundown of how the Democratic Iowa Caucuses work:

Voters have to select their candidate in the first round of voting. If their candidate gets less than 15 percent of the vote then they are not considered a viable candidate and those voters must select someone who is viable.

Several weeks ago, The New York Times released poll results. In Iowa, Clinton was ahead of Obama 25 percent to 22 percent. However, when voters were asked who their second choice was, Obama beat Clinton 24 percent to 16 percent. This could put Obama ahead of Clinton in the second and final round of voting and make him the winner in Iowa.

However, both Obama and Clinton should be looking out for John Edwards. He has a lot of support in Iowa and is pretty much neck and neck with the other two front-runners in Iowa. Edwards is also popular as a second-choice candidate. But if he wins Iowa, he still has a long battle ahead of him. He has spent a lot of time and money in that state and there have been questions regarding his ability to campaign in the following primaries. Yet a win there could also bring in the money that he needs.

Generally speaking, the winner of Iowa wins the nomination. Of course, this isn't always the case. For instance, Bill Clinton lost the Iowa caucus in 1992 to Tom Harkin and he went on to win the presidency. This upcoming caucus could also fall under that category. An Obama or Edwards victory in Iowa with a Clinton nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August. It could be 1992 all over again.