Now that the election's finally over, we can all breath a sigh of belief. Nah, screw that. Let's bellyache/gloat about the outcome. Democrats can stand around and rub everything in the Republicans' faces. Okay, it's a dick move, but Republicans would've done the same thing. As for Republicans, they can participate in the time honored tradition of grousing about election shenanigans and dirty campaigning. I'm okay with all of that, because some of it might be true. Except one thing. I'm a little sick of people claiming that Democracy is dead. Get real.
This is something that's happening every time there's a contentious election. Several months ago, when Scott Walker fought off a recall vote in Wisconsin, an inconsolable union activist claimed on TV that "Democracy died tonight.". Democracy dying as the result of a vote (the most fundamental act of democracy there is) struck me as supremely ironic. Also, technically it would be democracy committing suicide.
Some Republicans recently opined (Read: tweeted) that democracy committed suicide on Tuesday. So at least they understood that democracy-death by voting is suicide, not homicide. But nailing the manner of death isn't a big improvement. Nothing died. There was no death. Knock that off, it's aggravating as hell. Besides, aren't the Republicans the ones whose destiny isn't reliant on who's in office? Why does one election mean that we are doomed for all time?
Recent history should prove that democracy didn't receive a death blow on Tuesday. I know a lot of people tried to compare this election to 1980, but it's more like 2004. A one-term president struggling with job approval runs for re-election. The opposing party settles on a somewhat square, super rich, unexciting guy from Massachusetts, who also has a reputation for flip-flopping. The party's support for him is actually somewhat lukewarm; they're more passionate about removing the president than voting for their guy. Massachusetts guy loses. Kerry 2004, Romney 2012. Same story.
Back then, it was the Democrats who claimed that the country was lost. From their perspective, I'm sure it was. Republicans owned all three branches. When Howard Dean was made DNC chairman and the torch was passed from Whoever-The-Guy-Who-He-Replaced-Was, John Stewart jokingly praised the peaceful transfer of no power. Two years later the Democrats had the Congress, two years after that they had the White House. I guess it wasn't quite the doomsday scenario they imagined.
All they had to do was stop whining and get their act together. Republicans need to do the same thing. Now I'm not really a Republican or Democrat. My ISideWith.com score told me I was a Libertarian, which is right-ish, but not exactly. But I see value in having two strong parties. I think political competition, when done right, can have a positive results that are comparable to the benefits of free market competition. Granted, neither me nor anyone else has figured out what "when done right" means. But we won't ever figure that out if there aren't at least two vibrant parties.
These constant diatribes about democracy fatalities are just petulance. Republicans believe their ideas are better, but not enough people were convinced. Instead of complaining, they need to regroup, rethink, rebrand, and restrategize. The message they had was not quite enough; not enough people bought it. So now they have to think about what they need to do differently.
There is one way to kill democracy. Just give up. If you don't want democracy to die, get back to work. When you lose, assume it's something you did wrong and fix the problem. Not sure what the new Republican message will be. Don't know yet if I'll like it. But if they can put up a good fight in future elections, democracy won't ever die.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
The Agony of Early Voting, The Joy of Mail-In Voting
The first time I voted early here in Florida was in 2008. It was a Saturday, and I drove downtown to the county clerk's office where the early votes were being taken. I'd never done it before, but the job I had at the time frequently required me to start early and stay late. I figured I wouldn't have time to vote on election day. So I'd just roll in, fill out the ballot, and run on home.
Then I got there and saw a line of people so long I would have thought it was for a Justin Bieber concert. Except that the people in the line were all over 18, which is atypical of a Bieber concert. Also, Justin Bieber was only 14 back then, and apparently was only annoying other Canadians. A few quick inquiries told me that the wait would be hours. But it was this or not vote.
I took a deep breath and got in line. I always have bad luck when I wait in line at a government building (DMV, tax assessor, whatever), because I'm always in line with weirdos. I know normal people have to go to these offices (presumably, everyone does), but they never go at the same time I do. Every time I go, the line is full of creepy-looking, heavy-breathing, basement-dwelling guys. So not only am I waiting an hour or so to get a license or pay taxes, but a bunch of would-be child molesters are breathing down my neck the entire time. It's unpleasant.
However, this particular line was not a bunch of freaks. Several women who worked at the nearby hospital were in line behind me. Immediately ahead of me was a guy who worked at a local internet company. Ahead of him was a local state representative, who had come out to vote with the rest of us schmucks. These were all normal people. I was somewhat amazed.
I noticed several of the candidates working the line, trying to drum up last minute votes. Most of these were candidates for offices that nobody pays attention to. But a few were running to be judges and aldermen. I found this strangely heartening. We may have to march into town halls or courtrooms and bow and scrape and say "your honor" or whatever once they're elected, but for now these would-be pols had to work the line and beg for votes from the hoi polloi. This actually reinforced my belief in democracy.
It didn't last long. Once I got past the politicians, I noticed the freak show. Every activist in town was passing out flyers and other assorted swag to the unsuspecting voters. There are laws against campaigning near a polling place, but the law in Florida says no campaigning within one hundred feet. This line was way longer than one hundred feet, and the activists were staying well away from the entrance.
One guy was there from the local Democratic party. He handed me a slip of paper and said "Here's your Democratic slate. When you go in there, you don't even have to think, just pick the candidates we've listed here.". I took the thing to shut him up, but couldn't help but be a bit stunned that a party representative was encouraging me not to think.
An elderly lady came up next and glared at me with rheumy eyes and shoved a slip of paper at me with one quavering hand. She said something to me in a wheezy voice, but I couldn't make it out. Having always been taught to respect my elders (even the ones that look like they could be zombies), I just nodded politely and took the slip. It was pro-life leaflet saying something about the abortion "holacust.". Republicans, and particularly pro-lifers, spend a lot of time trying to shake the belief that they are ignorant, inbred, crazy people. It's a belief I've always found unfair. She wasn't helping their cause.
I dealt with dozens of similar nutjobs that day. When I finally got to the front of the line (six hours later), I saw a little form that came with the ballot that gave me the option of having my ballot mailed to me next year. "Hell, yes," I thought. Anything to avoid this nightmare again. Since that fateful day, my ballot has been delivered to my mailbox. I also discovered that day why I always bumped into creeps and weirdos at the DMV and the tax assessor's office. Normal people do this stuff over the phone or online or through the mail. Now I get my ballot through the mail too, and the number of oddballs that I bump into has decreased dramatically.
Of course, I completely forgot to vote in 2009. My ballot was just collecting dust on my coffee table for months. One could argue that this reduces turnout. Still, after watching all of the bitching and moaning about early election nonsense in Florida for the 2012 election, I see the value of mailed ballots. No more long waits is just the least of it.
Two years ago, I bought a house in a somewhat nicer area than I had been living in. The market was at rock bottom, so I could afford it. And unlike my previous neighborhood, politicians and party volunteers routinely knock on doors in election season. Every now and then I'll actually talk to one, when I'm in a good mood. I'm rarely in a good mood. Now that the ballot is mailable, if some campaign douche comes by I can laugh in his face and tell him I already voted. Of course, that's a blatant lie. I wait until the last minute to deliver my ballot. But it is effective at getting people to go away.
The other huge advantage is that I get to troll the putzes waiting in line. I could just mail the ballot in and not hand deliver it. But that takes away half of the fun. Tonight, I'll go to the poll at the busiest time, when the dinosaurs are waiting in line to vote in an actual polling booth. I'll see hundreds of people who came there straight from work. They'll wait in line for hours while their kids are at home not getting supper because their parents had a democratic urge. And I'll saunter by those long lines, occasionally looking askance at these geniuses doing it the old-fashioned way. I'll relish the hate-filled looks of the masses trapped in that seemingly endless queue. If someone asks me what I think I'm doing, I'll smile sweetly and say "My ballot's right here, suckas!" Then I'll drop my ballot in the slot and bail the hell out.
Of course, the biggest advantage to mail-in ballots would be noise reduction. I've noticed, as always, a frenetic last-ditch effort by both campaigns to snag last minute converts. Pundits jump in front of every camera they can. Television ads jam the airwaves. Tweets clog cyberspace. As the desperation increases, the ridiculousness increases. Crazy predictions, outlandish analysis, and absurd claims bombard us at every turn.
If we all mailed in our votes at least a week in advance, we could seriously reduce the crazy levels. I'm generally supportive of encouraging people to shut up, and this would be an effective way to do that. Not that I'm opposed to people speaking their minds. I just prefer that they say something useful. Most last minute pundit spew is mindless blather, and therefore shut-up-worthy. I prefer to hear thoughtful analysis. Or at least mindless blather with an underlying meaning, which is what I do on this blog. Mail-in voting shuts up the chattering class early and prevents the circus that is early voting lines.
I don't know if other states mail out ballots, but if they did we could reduce the noise level significantly. We could tell the door-to-door campaigners to take a hike. We could render last minute misadventures in punditry obsolete. I would have to give up voter line trolling if everyone mailed it in. But it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for the betterment of America. Besides, I can find other ways to be a dick. Mail-in voting: for a better, quieter, less annoying election.
Then I got there and saw a line of people so long I would have thought it was for a Justin Bieber concert. Except that the people in the line were all over 18, which is atypical of a Bieber concert. Also, Justin Bieber was only 14 back then, and apparently was only annoying other Canadians. A few quick inquiries told me that the wait would be hours. But it was this or not vote.
I took a deep breath and got in line. I always have bad luck when I wait in line at a government building (DMV, tax assessor, whatever), because I'm always in line with weirdos. I know normal people have to go to these offices (presumably, everyone does), but they never go at the same time I do. Every time I go, the line is full of creepy-looking, heavy-breathing, basement-dwelling guys. So not only am I waiting an hour or so to get a license or pay taxes, but a bunch of would-be child molesters are breathing down my neck the entire time. It's unpleasant.
However, this particular line was not a bunch of freaks. Several women who worked at the nearby hospital were in line behind me. Immediately ahead of me was a guy who worked at a local internet company. Ahead of him was a local state representative, who had come out to vote with the rest of us schmucks. These were all normal people. I was somewhat amazed.
I noticed several of the candidates working the line, trying to drum up last minute votes. Most of these were candidates for offices that nobody pays attention to. But a few were running to be judges and aldermen. I found this strangely heartening. We may have to march into town halls or courtrooms and bow and scrape and say "your honor" or whatever once they're elected, but for now these would-be pols had to work the line and beg for votes from the hoi polloi. This actually reinforced my belief in democracy.
It didn't last long. Once I got past the politicians, I noticed the freak show. Every activist in town was passing out flyers and other assorted swag to the unsuspecting voters. There are laws against campaigning near a polling place, but the law in Florida says no campaigning within one hundred feet. This line was way longer than one hundred feet, and the activists were staying well away from the entrance.
One guy was there from the local Democratic party. He handed me a slip of paper and said "Here's your Democratic slate. When you go in there, you don't even have to think, just pick the candidates we've listed here.". I took the thing to shut him up, but couldn't help but be a bit stunned that a party representative was encouraging me not to think.
An elderly lady came up next and glared at me with rheumy eyes and shoved a slip of paper at me with one quavering hand. She said something to me in a wheezy voice, but I couldn't make it out. Having always been taught to respect my elders (even the ones that look like they could be zombies), I just nodded politely and took the slip. It was pro-life leaflet saying something about the abortion "holacust.". Republicans, and particularly pro-lifers, spend a lot of time trying to shake the belief that they are ignorant, inbred, crazy people. It's a belief I've always found unfair. She wasn't helping their cause.
I dealt with dozens of similar nutjobs that day. When I finally got to the front of the line (six hours later), I saw a little form that came with the ballot that gave me the option of having my ballot mailed to me next year. "Hell, yes," I thought. Anything to avoid this nightmare again. Since that fateful day, my ballot has been delivered to my mailbox. I also discovered that day why I always bumped into creeps and weirdos at the DMV and the tax assessor's office. Normal people do this stuff over the phone or online or through the mail. Now I get my ballot through the mail too, and the number of oddballs that I bump into has decreased dramatically.
Of course, I completely forgot to vote in 2009. My ballot was just collecting dust on my coffee table for months. One could argue that this reduces turnout. Still, after watching all of the bitching and moaning about early election nonsense in Florida for the 2012 election, I see the value of mailed ballots. No more long waits is just the least of it.
Two years ago, I bought a house in a somewhat nicer area than I had been living in. The market was at rock bottom, so I could afford it. And unlike my previous neighborhood, politicians and party volunteers routinely knock on doors in election season. Every now and then I'll actually talk to one, when I'm in a good mood. I'm rarely in a good mood. Now that the ballot is mailable, if some campaign douche comes by I can laugh in his face and tell him I already voted. Of course, that's a blatant lie. I wait until the last minute to deliver my ballot. But it is effective at getting people to go away.
The other huge advantage is that I get to troll the putzes waiting in line. I could just mail the ballot in and not hand deliver it. But that takes away half of the fun. Tonight, I'll go to the poll at the busiest time, when the dinosaurs are waiting in line to vote in an actual polling booth. I'll see hundreds of people who came there straight from work. They'll wait in line for hours while their kids are at home not getting supper because their parents had a democratic urge. And I'll saunter by those long lines, occasionally looking askance at these geniuses doing it the old-fashioned way. I'll relish the hate-filled looks of the masses trapped in that seemingly endless queue. If someone asks me what I think I'm doing, I'll smile sweetly and say "My ballot's right here, suckas!" Then I'll drop my ballot in the slot and bail the hell out.
Of course, the biggest advantage to mail-in ballots would be noise reduction. I've noticed, as always, a frenetic last-ditch effort by both campaigns to snag last minute converts. Pundits jump in front of every camera they can. Television ads jam the airwaves. Tweets clog cyberspace. As the desperation increases, the ridiculousness increases. Crazy predictions, outlandish analysis, and absurd claims bombard us at every turn.
If we all mailed in our votes at least a week in advance, we could seriously reduce the crazy levels. I'm generally supportive of encouraging people to shut up, and this would be an effective way to do that. Not that I'm opposed to people speaking their minds. I just prefer that they say something useful. Most last minute pundit spew is mindless blather, and therefore shut-up-worthy. I prefer to hear thoughtful analysis. Or at least mindless blather with an underlying meaning, which is what I do on this blog. Mail-in voting shuts up the chattering class early and prevents the circus that is early voting lines.
I don't know if other states mail out ballots, but if they did we could reduce the noise level significantly. We could tell the door-to-door campaigners to take a hike. We could render last minute misadventures in punditry obsolete. I would have to give up voter line trolling if everyone mailed it in. But it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for the betterment of America. Besides, I can find other ways to be a dick. Mail-in voting: for a better, quieter, less annoying election.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Yay! I'm In a Battleground State! My Vote Counts! Now What the Hell DoI Do?
For the first time since I've been old enough to vote, I live in a state that is up for grabs. Florida, a battleground state. More than that, I live in a battleground county in that state. I can actually impact the outcome of the election. But there are three candidates (two that are viable) that I might vote for. And I'm not sure what to do with any of them. One seems better for the economy, another seems better for social issues, and the one that seems most in line with what I want doesn't have a prayer.
I took the test at www.isidewith.com to find out who I'm most in agreement with. I match Gary Johnson on 87% of issues, Mitt Romney on 77%, and Barack Obama on 60%. I only match about 57% of other Florida voters. That last one's not surprising; I match slightly more than half of the people in Florida. It's a battleground state. It's how we roll.
What to do? Here's where I am on each one.
#1 Barack Obama
The economic recovery under Obama has been tepid. I spent six months out of work in 2009, when the Florida economy, largely a real estate and tourism economy, was getting hammered. His attempts to stimulate the economy didn't and haven't had any noticeable effect. The only effect I noticed from his signature achievement, Obamacare, was that my employer at the time (this was after my six month jobless stint) called together the office and notified us that the cost of our health benefits had increased. If we wanted to keep our coverage, we'd have to pay more. If we wanted to pay the same amount, we'd have to choose a lower coverage plan. He gave us as many options as he could, but he confirmed what we all suspected: that this increased cost was due to the passage of Obamacare.
Obama's done reasonably well in certain foreign policy areas (like sending SEALs to shoot people in the face), but I'm uncertain about his commitment to stick by Israel and prevent Iran from getting a nuke. He seems a little uninvolved in Syria, but maybe got too involved in Libya. Many other parts of the world are more unstable than when he entered office, but I'm not sure how much of that can be traced to something he did. Overall, I give his foreign policy a "meh" rating. Some problems were solved, others were not.
On social issues, I tend to be fine with him. Obama's positions on civil liberties seem in line with mine. I'm fine with legalizing marijuana and gay marriage. Obama supports one based on things he's said, and another he must be sympathetic to due to his youthful "choom gang" shenanigans. Also, most of his supporters support marijuana legalization. It's worth noting that my beliefs on this are not due to some sense of social justice. My tolerance for these things is born from vast indifference. Also, I don't see how the government has any business dictating what we do privately. So although I'm apathetic on individual issues, I have a certain Mind-Your-Own-Damned-Business-ishness in my character (#grouchy). So any time government tries to tell someone what to do, my natural response is to tell them to stuff it. And I sure as hell don't want them wasting money trying to stop these things.
You want to smoke weed? Fine. Don't tell me about it. And don't do it near me because that stuff reeks. You want to be gay? Whatever. Don't tell me about it. Actually, lesbians are welcome to tell me about it, but gay dudes aren't. Oink. But there's one place that Obama kind of screwed the pooch. You want to be Catholic? Fine. Government has no business telling Catholics how to be Catholic. Even when it's the 1% of Catholics who don't use birth control. But Obama did sort of try to.
One thing that won't affect my decision is Hurricane Sandy. Even if Obama nails that, it's not good enough. Psychologists who work in human resources have a concept that they call the "Recency effect". It has to do with judging someone by their most recent performance and not their overall performance. Even if Obama's performance with the hurricane is exemplary, I'm not falling into that trap. All four years are relevant.
So, on domestic policy, foreign policy, and social policy, Obama gets a "Meh", "Meh", and "Yeah, Whatever, With a Dash of Sorta Not Because of the Catholic Thing.". I'm not too excited about him, which may explain why he got the lowest rating.
#2 Mitt Romney
I have no doubt that he'll do a better job with the economy. Of course, that bar's pretty low. Despite all of the rhetoric about Bain Capital being a bunch of corporate raiders, I know that venture capital companies specialize in helping new companies grow and helping failing companies turn around. Neither of these is easy, but Romney's success rate was about 80%. Given that startups usually fail and turning around a failing company is, well, problematic, I think that's a pretty decent performance.
But another big part of handling the economy is handling the debt. I don't know if I want taxes raised (although plenty of the rich guys I work for would be fine with it), but cutting taxes seems too risky. He assumes that cuts will cause economic growth and an increase will stifle it, but that's not necessarily consistent with history (Clinton years). And I know that Obama's stimulus involved any number of tax cuts. It didn't seem to accomplish much.
Mitt Romney doesn't seem like a small government guy. His approach to business is sort of a top-down approach. Small government is a bottom-up approach. Let the people build the economy and have government do just enough to keep it going. If the economy is a football game, the government is the referee, not the coach, and certainly not the quarterback.
Not being a small government guy is a problem, because I think only a small government guy has the guts to reform Medicare and Social Security. Bringing spending under control is critical, and these are huge chunks of the budget. The problem is, supporters, like the AARP, would rather see mountains of debt passed to future generations than fix the problem. I'm not convinced Romney or Obama will address this.
On foreign policy, Romney spooks me a bit. I've no problem preventing Iran from getting a nuke or protecting Israel, but some of Romney's positions seem a bit too aggressive. Excessive intervention in the Middle East can cause more trouble than it solves. We've seen this in both the 20th and 21st centuries. On the other hand, some of that may just be posturing. After all, when Obama was elected, he promised to do things like close Gitmo. It didn't happen. He's also increased troops in Afghanistan, and gotten a little crazy with the drones. These are not things he ran on. What this tells me is that a President can make all sorts of promises when he's running, but once he's actually in office reality may set in. What he wants may not be practical, at least not yet. Mitt's positions may be a little aggressive on the campaign trail, but once he actually takes office he may have no choice but to moderate them somewhat.
On social issues, Mitt's positions are fairly far to the right. This is a change from when he was Governor of Massachusetts. As a presidential candidate, he has no problem enforcing laws that impose the values of one group on others. But maybe that's just pandering too. He's changed his mind on various things, but a lot of that was playing to the base during primary season. Now that the right has no choice, we may find him moderating these positions.
Of course, those last two point out something else that's bothered me. He's been compared to a weather vane, and I don't think that's unfair. I have to ask myself if he really means what he says. I have no doubt that he's interested in turning the country around, but is he going to do it like he says? Maybe he's just saying what he needs to say to get elected, but once there he'll do things his own way. If he moderated on foreign policy and social issues, I'd be fine. But if he baits and switches on the economy, I'm not sure I'll like the result.
So, on domestic policy, foreign policy, and social policy, Romney gets a "Yah, sorta", "Meh (but don't go crazy)", and "Don't presume to tell us what to do with our private lives.". I tend to give more weight to the economic issues, which is probably why he got the second highest rating. But my stance on Romney is qualified with a dash of "Is this guy for real, or is he jerking me around?"
#3 Gary Johnson
It's not a surprise that I'm most in line with Gary Johnson. The Libertarian view on government is that the people should decide the direction of the country, and the government should focus on providing a safe and stable environment for the people. The Libertarian view on foreign policy is roughly in line with the "city on a hill" doctrine. America can generally lead by example, and should avoid trying to force people to agree with us. If America is great, other people will want to be like us.
Granted, these are a little over-simplified. And that's my main hang-up with Libertarians. They do seem to oversimplify a bit too much. I'm fine with free markets, but some Libertarians appear to think that it is the magical elixir that cures all ills. I should mention that I find the socialist view that the free market is just snake oil a far more offensive idea. The best way to describe the free market is to paraphrase Mr. Churchill. The free market is the worst form of economy, except for all of the others. It works, but that doesn't mean we can't do better. Some of my Libertarian friends have such great faith in the free market's perfection that it borders on idolotry. Which is ironic, since most of them are atheists. I want the freest markets possible, but I don't want laissez-faire.
In foreign policy, I'm generally in line with the Libertarian policy of avoiding interventions. But sometimes it sounds a little too much like neo-isolationism. We can't go back to the days where the United States only concerned itself with its own affairs, or at least its own hemisphere. When you're about 22% of the global economy and the only real military power in the free world, you can't not be involved. Our role should be as stewards of freedom and the free market, not as pushers of them. But non-involvement is not an option.
This is why I don't call myself a Libertarian. I'm more or less in line with them, but still have a few misgivings. Gary Johnson seems like a fairly typical Libertarian, and my 87% score puts me more or less in line with him. That's the highest score. My rating on domestic policy, foreign policy, and social issues are "Yeah, mostly", "Yeah, mostly", and "That's right, tell 'em where they can shove their rules!". But there's a problem. He can't win, and I'm in a position that I can actually decide who does. Still, I'm toying with the idea of voting for him.
Americans have frequently taken a vending machine approach to politics. When a vending machine doesn't give you what you want, you shake it or give it a kick. When Americans do this to the government, this results in "wildcard" candidates. These are candidates that emerge in times of trouble and are a departure from what came before them. In my lifetime, we made an actor president, we made another actor who was also a weightlifter a governor, and we made another actor who was also a weightlifter and a former Navy SEAL a governor. We also made a junior senator with minimal experience the first black president. Any number of tea-party candidates were wildcard candidates. Some might say all of them. The idea is straightforward; inject some new blood into the establishment.
If a new type of candidate can affect the process, imagine how much a new type of party could. Gary Johnson might not have a prayer of winning, but a good showing could lay the groundwork for a new party. Of course, wildcard parties, like wildcard candidates, can produce mixed results. Sometimes when you shake a vending machine, it just falls over and crushes you. Doing that with the political process might have the same effect. Public Service Announcement: Don't shake a real vending machine.
So I could vote for Gary Johnson. I doubt it will affect this election, but it might build momentum for future elections. If it does, I won't be wasting a vote. But if my ISideWith results are any indication, I think I'm inclined to vote Romney somewhat more than Obama, despite my misgivings on Romney's authenticity. Do too many votes for Johnson in Florida give Obama a win? If Obama produces another four years of "meh" performance, is it worth it if I plant the seeds of a new party? Is the new party really worth it, or will Libertarians just merge with the Republicans and moderate some of the Republican beliefs?
Of course, all of this is qualified by my "Ah, to hell with it" mentality (#grouchy). How much is really going to change, regardless of who gets elected? Answer, probably not that much. I know that real change happens when the people make it happen, not the politicians. We'll have debts until the people demand change. We'll have unnecessary foreign interventions until the people demand change. We'll have excessive regulation until the people demand change. Maybe voting for the non-viable candidate is a small way of demanding change, but I doubt it'll do that much.
I could always just write in a random person. I wonder if I could just put some random name in there, then find that name somewhere in the election results. If I could find a record that had millions of votes for Obama and Romney, thousands, hundreds or dozens for the others, but only one vote for "Joe Blow Schmo" or whatever, at least I could point at that one vote and say "That was me. I did that.".
A lot of people wonder how there can be undecided voters. They assume that this is the result of laziness, stupidity, or some peculiar sense of vanity. I've never been stupid, I am occasionally lazy (it's Florida; margaritas and chicks in bikinis have that effect on me), and I admit to being vain at times. But that's not why I'm undecided. I see two good to fair candidates that I'm not in love with, but I could probably live with, and one guy who seems best but doesn't have a chance. An accident of geography has made my vote valuable. Do I take a chance that Romney's telling the truth about his changes? Do I treat Obama as a safety vote, since the economy has been mediocre, but could have been worse? Or do I play the wildcard, even though it won't affect this election, and might not affect future ones?
I took the test at www.isidewith.com to find out who I'm most in agreement with. I match Gary Johnson on 87% of issues, Mitt Romney on 77%, and Barack Obama on 60%. I only match about 57% of other Florida voters. That last one's not surprising; I match slightly more than half of the people in Florida. It's a battleground state. It's how we roll.
What to do? Here's where I am on each one.
#1 Barack Obama
The economic recovery under Obama has been tepid. I spent six months out of work in 2009, when the Florida economy, largely a real estate and tourism economy, was getting hammered. His attempts to stimulate the economy didn't and haven't had any noticeable effect. The only effect I noticed from his signature achievement, Obamacare, was that my employer at the time (this was after my six month jobless stint) called together the office and notified us that the cost of our health benefits had increased. If we wanted to keep our coverage, we'd have to pay more. If we wanted to pay the same amount, we'd have to choose a lower coverage plan. He gave us as many options as he could, but he confirmed what we all suspected: that this increased cost was due to the passage of Obamacare.
Obama's done reasonably well in certain foreign policy areas (like sending SEALs to shoot people in the face), but I'm uncertain about his commitment to stick by Israel and prevent Iran from getting a nuke. He seems a little uninvolved in Syria, but maybe got too involved in Libya. Many other parts of the world are more unstable than when he entered office, but I'm not sure how much of that can be traced to something he did. Overall, I give his foreign policy a "meh" rating. Some problems were solved, others were not.
On social issues, I tend to be fine with him. Obama's positions on civil liberties seem in line with mine. I'm fine with legalizing marijuana and gay marriage. Obama supports one based on things he's said, and another he must be sympathetic to due to his youthful "choom gang" shenanigans. Also, most of his supporters support marijuana legalization. It's worth noting that my beliefs on this are not due to some sense of social justice. My tolerance for these things is born from vast indifference. Also, I don't see how the government has any business dictating what we do privately. So although I'm apathetic on individual issues, I have a certain Mind-Your-Own-Damned-Business-ishness in my character (#grouchy). So any time government tries to tell someone what to do, my natural response is to tell them to stuff it. And I sure as hell don't want them wasting money trying to stop these things.
You want to smoke weed? Fine. Don't tell me about it. And don't do it near me because that stuff reeks. You want to be gay? Whatever. Don't tell me about it. Actually, lesbians are welcome to tell me about it, but gay dudes aren't. Oink. But there's one place that Obama kind of screwed the pooch. You want to be Catholic? Fine. Government has no business telling Catholics how to be Catholic. Even when it's the 1% of Catholics who don't use birth control. But Obama did sort of try to.
One thing that won't affect my decision is Hurricane Sandy. Even if Obama nails that, it's not good enough. Psychologists who work in human resources have a concept that they call the "Recency effect". It has to do with judging someone by their most recent performance and not their overall performance. Even if Obama's performance with the hurricane is exemplary, I'm not falling into that trap. All four years are relevant.
So, on domestic policy, foreign policy, and social policy, Obama gets a "Meh", "Meh", and "Yeah, Whatever, With a Dash of Sorta Not Because of the Catholic Thing.". I'm not too excited about him, which may explain why he got the lowest rating.
#2 Mitt Romney
I have no doubt that he'll do a better job with the economy. Of course, that bar's pretty low. Despite all of the rhetoric about Bain Capital being a bunch of corporate raiders, I know that venture capital companies specialize in helping new companies grow and helping failing companies turn around. Neither of these is easy, but Romney's success rate was about 80%. Given that startups usually fail and turning around a failing company is, well, problematic, I think that's a pretty decent performance.
But another big part of handling the economy is handling the debt. I don't know if I want taxes raised (although plenty of the rich guys I work for would be fine with it), but cutting taxes seems too risky. He assumes that cuts will cause economic growth and an increase will stifle it, but that's not necessarily consistent with history (Clinton years). And I know that Obama's stimulus involved any number of tax cuts. It didn't seem to accomplish much.
Mitt Romney doesn't seem like a small government guy. His approach to business is sort of a top-down approach. Small government is a bottom-up approach. Let the people build the economy and have government do just enough to keep it going. If the economy is a football game, the government is the referee, not the coach, and certainly not the quarterback.
Not being a small government guy is a problem, because I think only a small government guy has the guts to reform Medicare and Social Security. Bringing spending under control is critical, and these are huge chunks of the budget. The problem is, supporters, like the AARP, would rather see mountains of debt passed to future generations than fix the problem. I'm not convinced Romney or Obama will address this.
On foreign policy, Romney spooks me a bit. I've no problem preventing Iran from getting a nuke or protecting Israel, but some of Romney's positions seem a bit too aggressive. Excessive intervention in the Middle East can cause more trouble than it solves. We've seen this in both the 20th and 21st centuries. On the other hand, some of that may just be posturing. After all, when Obama was elected, he promised to do things like close Gitmo. It didn't happen. He's also increased troops in Afghanistan, and gotten a little crazy with the drones. These are not things he ran on. What this tells me is that a President can make all sorts of promises when he's running, but once he's actually in office reality may set in. What he wants may not be practical, at least not yet. Mitt's positions may be a little aggressive on the campaign trail, but once he actually takes office he may have no choice but to moderate them somewhat.
On social issues, Mitt's positions are fairly far to the right. This is a change from when he was Governor of Massachusetts. As a presidential candidate, he has no problem enforcing laws that impose the values of one group on others. But maybe that's just pandering too. He's changed his mind on various things, but a lot of that was playing to the base during primary season. Now that the right has no choice, we may find him moderating these positions.
Of course, those last two point out something else that's bothered me. He's been compared to a weather vane, and I don't think that's unfair. I have to ask myself if he really means what he says. I have no doubt that he's interested in turning the country around, but is he going to do it like he says? Maybe he's just saying what he needs to say to get elected, but once there he'll do things his own way. If he moderated on foreign policy and social issues, I'd be fine. But if he baits and switches on the economy, I'm not sure I'll like the result.
So, on domestic policy, foreign policy, and social policy, Romney gets a "Yah, sorta", "Meh (but don't go crazy)", and "Don't presume to tell us what to do with our private lives.". I tend to give more weight to the economic issues, which is probably why he got the second highest rating. But my stance on Romney is qualified with a dash of "Is this guy for real, or is he jerking me around?"
#3 Gary Johnson
It's not a surprise that I'm most in line with Gary Johnson. The Libertarian view on government is that the people should decide the direction of the country, and the government should focus on providing a safe and stable environment for the people. The Libertarian view on foreign policy is roughly in line with the "city on a hill" doctrine. America can generally lead by example, and should avoid trying to force people to agree with us. If America is great, other people will want to be like us.
Granted, these are a little over-simplified. And that's my main hang-up with Libertarians. They do seem to oversimplify a bit too much. I'm fine with free markets, but some Libertarians appear to think that it is the magical elixir that cures all ills. I should mention that I find the socialist view that the free market is just snake oil a far more offensive idea. The best way to describe the free market is to paraphrase Mr. Churchill. The free market is the worst form of economy, except for all of the others. It works, but that doesn't mean we can't do better. Some of my Libertarian friends have such great faith in the free market's perfection that it borders on idolotry. Which is ironic, since most of them are atheists. I want the freest markets possible, but I don't want laissez-faire.
In foreign policy, I'm generally in line with the Libertarian policy of avoiding interventions. But sometimes it sounds a little too much like neo-isolationism. We can't go back to the days where the United States only concerned itself with its own affairs, or at least its own hemisphere. When you're about 22% of the global economy and the only real military power in the free world, you can't not be involved. Our role should be as stewards of freedom and the free market, not as pushers of them. But non-involvement is not an option.
This is why I don't call myself a Libertarian. I'm more or less in line with them, but still have a few misgivings. Gary Johnson seems like a fairly typical Libertarian, and my 87% score puts me more or less in line with him. That's the highest score. My rating on domestic policy, foreign policy, and social issues are "Yeah, mostly", "Yeah, mostly", and "That's right, tell 'em where they can shove their rules!". But there's a problem. He can't win, and I'm in a position that I can actually decide who does. Still, I'm toying with the idea of voting for him.
Americans have frequently taken a vending machine approach to politics. When a vending machine doesn't give you what you want, you shake it or give it a kick. When Americans do this to the government, this results in "wildcard" candidates. These are candidates that emerge in times of trouble and are a departure from what came before them. In my lifetime, we made an actor president, we made another actor who was also a weightlifter a governor, and we made another actor who was also a weightlifter and a former Navy SEAL a governor. We also made a junior senator with minimal experience the first black president. Any number of tea-party candidates were wildcard candidates. Some might say all of them. The idea is straightforward; inject some new blood into the establishment.
If a new type of candidate can affect the process, imagine how much a new type of party could. Gary Johnson might not have a prayer of winning, but a good showing could lay the groundwork for a new party. Of course, wildcard parties, like wildcard candidates, can produce mixed results. Sometimes when you shake a vending machine, it just falls over and crushes you. Doing that with the political process might have the same effect. Public Service Announcement: Don't shake a real vending machine.
So I could vote for Gary Johnson. I doubt it will affect this election, but it might build momentum for future elections. If it does, I won't be wasting a vote. But if my ISideWith results are any indication, I think I'm inclined to vote Romney somewhat more than Obama, despite my misgivings on Romney's authenticity. Do too many votes for Johnson in Florida give Obama a win? If Obama produces another four years of "meh" performance, is it worth it if I plant the seeds of a new party? Is the new party really worth it, or will Libertarians just merge with the Republicans and moderate some of the Republican beliefs?
Of course, all of this is qualified by my "Ah, to hell with it" mentality (#grouchy). How much is really going to change, regardless of who gets elected? Answer, probably not that much. I know that real change happens when the people make it happen, not the politicians. We'll have debts until the people demand change. We'll have unnecessary foreign interventions until the people demand change. We'll have excessive regulation until the people demand change. Maybe voting for the non-viable candidate is a small way of demanding change, but I doubt it'll do that much.
I could always just write in a random person. I wonder if I could just put some random name in there, then find that name somewhere in the election results. If I could find a record that had millions of votes for Obama and Romney, thousands, hundreds or dozens for the others, but only one vote for "Joe Blow Schmo" or whatever, at least I could point at that one vote and say "That was me. I did that.".
A lot of people wonder how there can be undecided voters. They assume that this is the result of laziness, stupidity, or some peculiar sense of vanity. I've never been stupid, I am occasionally lazy (it's Florida; margaritas and chicks in bikinis have that effect on me), and I admit to being vain at times. But that's not why I'm undecided. I see two good to fair candidates that I'm not in love with, but I could probably live with, and one guy who seems best but doesn't have a chance. An accident of geography has made my vote valuable. Do I take a chance that Romney's telling the truth about his changes? Do I treat Obama as a safety vote, since the economy has been mediocre, but could have been worse? Or do I play the wildcard, even though it won't affect this election, and might not affect future ones?
Monday, October 29, 2012
Shut Up About Your Mother
As election season thankfully draws to a close, I suddenly feel the urge to rant about one of my pet peeves of campaigning politicians. Everyone from national candidates to some jackass running for city council of Southwest Podunk seems to feel the need to say various nice things about the women in their lives. I couldn't possibly care less. Don't get me wrong, though. My distaste for hearing anecdotes about wives and mothers and what-not shouldn't be misinterpreted as misogyny. I just think it's a colossal waste of time.
For starters, let's think about politicians lavishing praise on their wives. Both presidential candidates spent far too much time telling us how great their wives are. This was received with uproarious applause at both conventions. Why? It's not terribly unusual for guy like his wife. A guy who doesn't like his wife is usually a douchebag. Of course, this isn't always true. A guy could be married to a woman who likes cats. Or tofu. Or Justin Bieber. But for the most part, any guy who is willing to move in with a woman, share the sheets, give up all decisions on interior decorating, make an effort to put the toilet seat down, and put an unnecessarily expensive ring on her finger, is probably at least reasonably fond of her.
One of the only things more obvious than a guy who loves his wife is a guy who loves his mother. So why are we inundated with endless little stories about how wonderful a politician's mother was? Men who don't like their wives may be douchebags, but men who don't like their mothers are usually sociopaths. Well, unless their mothers beat them. Still, if a man's mother beat him, that's probably what made him a sociopath. Of course we like our mothers. They fed us, clothed us, changed our diapers, and wiped our asses. And if she breast-fed us, she's also the first girl we got to second base with.
There's one other little politician's story that's even dumber. A few have mentioned how great their grandmothers were. Of course, your grandmother was great. The only difference between one grandmother and another is the little pet name we have for her. But it doesn't matter if she's a Gamma, a Nana, a Mam-ma, or a Mi-Ma, she's the one who gives us free stuff. How the hell could we not like that gal? Any guy who doesn't like receiving gifts lacks even the faintest glimmer of self-interest. Usually, the only people who don't have self-interest are dead people. There aren't any corpses running for office. Harry Reid wasn't running this time.
What the hell are these pols trying to tell me? If you tell me that you like your wife, your mother, and your grandmother, all you're telling me is that you're not a douchebag, not a sociopath, and have at least a minimal amount of self-interest. This doesn't qualify someone to be president or mayor or dogcatcher. This means they have the minimum qualifications for being human. So knock it off with your charming little stories, candidates. I'm not impressed. If you want me to vote for you, tell me something you don't have in common with most of the world's men.
For starters, let's think about politicians lavishing praise on their wives. Both presidential candidates spent far too much time telling us how great their wives are. This was received with uproarious applause at both conventions. Why? It's not terribly unusual for guy like his wife. A guy who doesn't like his wife is usually a douchebag. Of course, this isn't always true. A guy could be married to a woman who likes cats. Or tofu. Or Justin Bieber. But for the most part, any guy who is willing to move in with a woman, share the sheets, give up all decisions on interior decorating, make an effort to put the toilet seat down, and put an unnecessarily expensive ring on her finger, is probably at least reasonably fond of her.
One of the only things more obvious than a guy who loves his wife is a guy who loves his mother. So why are we inundated with endless little stories about how wonderful a politician's mother was? Men who don't like their wives may be douchebags, but men who don't like their mothers are usually sociopaths. Well, unless their mothers beat them. Still, if a man's mother beat him, that's probably what made him a sociopath. Of course we like our mothers. They fed us, clothed us, changed our diapers, and wiped our asses. And if she breast-fed us, she's also the first girl we got to second base with.
There's one other little politician's story that's even dumber. A few have mentioned how great their grandmothers were. Of course, your grandmother was great. The only difference between one grandmother and another is the little pet name we have for her. But it doesn't matter if she's a Gamma, a Nana, a Mam-ma, or a Mi-Ma, she's the one who gives us free stuff. How the hell could we not like that gal? Any guy who doesn't like receiving gifts lacks even the faintest glimmer of self-interest. Usually, the only people who don't have self-interest are dead people. There aren't any corpses running for office. Harry Reid wasn't running this time.
What the hell are these pols trying to tell me? If you tell me that you like your wife, your mother, and your grandmother, all you're telling me is that you're not a douchebag, not a sociopath, and have at least a minimal amount of self-interest. This doesn't qualify someone to be president or mayor or dogcatcher. This means they have the minimum qualifications for being human. So knock it off with your charming little stories, candidates. I'm not impressed. If you want me to vote for you, tell me something you don't have in common with most of the world's men.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Clorox - a Uniter, Not a Divider
Brandindex.com recently released a story on the brands preferred by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. You can read it here. But if you're too lazy for that, just look at this chart. If you're too blind to read the chart, follow the damn link.
First I was struck by the utterly unsurprising stuff. For example, Republicans like Fox News. In a related story, the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east. Republicans like the History channel too. The party that's considered more traditional would naturally be more inclined to pay attention to history. Also, the History Channel consists primarily of footage of American soldiers shooting Nazis and Commies and Terrorists and Talibans. Which is something Republicans are naturally inclined to enjoy.
In other non-surprising developments, Republicans like Chick-Fil-a. They rallied around it during the protests a while back when the Chick-Fil-A boss voiced an opinion opposed to gay marriage. Republicans claim it's to support the first amendment. Democrats say it's homophobia. I'm not getting into that, because I already blogged about that on July 26th and I don't like repeating myself.
Democrats like Google. Not surprising. Google has some left-wing cred, primarily because many of it's management types contributed to Obama's reelection campaign. Democrats also like PBS. They claim it's because they like Big Bird and Kermit the Frog and offering educational tools that are available to all, including low income kids. Republicans will say it's government quasi-communism and public broadcasting should go away. I say do what you will with Big Bird and Kermit, but don't touch Oscar the Grouch because he's awesome.
Then I noticed a few things that surprised me. The Democrats like Levi's, but not so much with the Republicans. I thought the Republicans owned the rough and tumble cowboy image. Apparently, they like cowboys, but refuse to dress like them. Republicans also appear to like the Discovery Channel more than Democrats. It's a little confusing, since Democrats have frequently made attempts to paint Republicans as anti-science. Having said that, I know that the best show on the Discovery Channel is Mythbusters, which consists primarily of two guys blowing stuff up. So maybe Republicans are just tuning in for the explosions. I know I do.
Republicans don't appear to like Amazon the way Democrats and Independents do. They liked Amazon's former CEO (not that it was enough to get her elected), but apparently not Amazon. I don't get it. I use Amazon for one reason. I don't like to DRIVE THROUGH TONS OF TRAFFIC AND DODGE NINE MILLION STUPID, DUMBASS KIDS IN THE MALL WHEN I GO CHRISTMAS SHOPPING! Given that Republicans have a reputation (deserved or otherwise) of being older and crankier than Democrats, I would think they'd be with me on this.
But then I noticed the unifying brands. Craftsman and Cheerios are pretty classic American brands, so it's not a surprise that all three groups would rate them highly. But all three groups also rated Clorox highly. Clorox? Sure it's useful and it's been around forever, but it's not something we'd consider exciting. It's a fairly simple chemical we use to perform relatively mundane tasks. How does this rate so highly? It took me awhile, but I finally figured it out. Clorox, in all it's simplicity, helps us perform one of the most valuable tasks there is. And that is...removing fecal matter from men's underwear.
These offensive little stains, commonly known as skidmarks, are recognized as the primary drawback of men wearing tightey-whiteys. Granted, women have their own form of tightey-whiteys, but they are not as well known for their tendency to collect fecal matter. Although they have been linked to an increasing number of camel-toe incidents. Skidmarks in men's underwear can cause all sorts of mayhem. Most notably, their presence can be sort of a deal-breaker in the bedroom. So, in part, we owe continued procreation, a necessary part of the survival of humanity, to Clorox.
That's the revelation. Clorox is one of the foundations of our society, and indeed all humanity. We couldn't exist without it. Two of our most necessary biological functions are procreation and defecation. And without Clorox, the latter would prevent the former. Unless men could find women who like shit stains. They exist, but I think they're all German. Sexual relations with them typically involves a safeword, so it's not for everyone.
My eyes have been opened. Clorox is the secret to human existence, and a solution to many of our society's ills. I think Clorox can produce a better America. For example, members of all three parties have shown an increasing distaste for bullshit. Just go watch a political attack ad. Or a political convention. Or a Justin Bieber video. It's everywhere. So I propose new and improved, bullshit-strength Clorox. Old Clorox paved the way for human expansion, and a new form of Clorox can help us achieve our destiny, by making us less stupid and asinine. Bullshit-strength Clorox. For a better future.
In other non-surprising developments, Republicans like Chick-Fil-a. They rallied around it during the protests a while back when the Chick-Fil-A boss voiced an opinion opposed to gay marriage. Republicans claim it's to support the first amendment. Democrats say it's homophobia. I'm not getting into that, because I already blogged about that on July 26th and I don't like repeating myself.
Democrats like Google. Not surprising. Google has some left-wing cred, primarily because many of it's management types contributed to Obama's reelection campaign. Democrats also like PBS. They claim it's because they like Big Bird and Kermit the Frog and offering educational tools that are available to all, including low income kids. Republicans will say it's government quasi-communism and public broadcasting should go away. I say do what you will with Big Bird and Kermit, but don't touch Oscar the Grouch because he's awesome.
Then I noticed a few things that surprised me. The Democrats like Levi's, but not so much with the Republicans. I thought the Republicans owned the rough and tumble cowboy image. Apparently, they like cowboys, but refuse to dress like them. Republicans also appear to like the Discovery Channel more than Democrats. It's a little confusing, since Democrats have frequently made attempts to paint Republicans as anti-science. Having said that, I know that the best show on the Discovery Channel is Mythbusters, which consists primarily of two guys blowing stuff up. So maybe Republicans are just tuning in for the explosions. I know I do.
Republicans don't appear to like Amazon the way Democrats and Independents do. They liked Amazon's former CEO (not that it was enough to get her elected), but apparently not Amazon. I don't get it. I use Amazon for one reason. I don't like to DRIVE THROUGH TONS OF TRAFFIC AND DODGE NINE MILLION STUPID, DUMBASS KIDS IN THE MALL WHEN I GO CHRISTMAS SHOPPING! Given that Republicans have a reputation (deserved or otherwise) of being older and crankier than Democrats, I would think they'd be with me on this.
But then I noticed the unifying brands. Craftsman and Cheerios are pretty classic American brands, so it's not a surprise that all three groups would rate them highly. But all three groups also rated Clorox highly. Clorox? Sure it's useful and it's been around forever, but it's not something we'd consider exciting. It's a fairly simple chemical we use to perform relatively mundane tasks. How does this rate so highly? It took me awhile, but I finally figured it out. Clorox, in all it's simplicity, helps us perform one of the most valuable tasks there is. And that is...removing fecal matter from men's underwear.
These offensive little stains, commonly known as skidmarks, are recognized as the primary drawback of men wearing tightey-whiteys. Granted, women have their own form of tightey-whiteys, but they are not as well known for their tendency to collect fecal matter. Although they have been linked to an increasing number of camel-toe incidents. Skidmarks in men's underwear can cause all sorts of mayhem. Most notably, their presence can be sort of a deal-breaker in the bedroom. So, in part, we owe continued procreation, a necessary part of the survival of humanity, to Clorox.
That's the revelation. Clorox is one of the foundations of our society, and indeed all humanity. We couldn't exist without it. Two of our most necessary biological functions are procreation and defecation. And without Clorox, the latter would prevent the former. Unless men could find women who like shit stains. They exist, but I think they're all German. Sexual relations with them typically involves a safeword, so it's not for everyone.
My eyes have been opened. Clorox is the secret to human existence, and a solution to many of our society's ills. I think Clorox can produce a better America. For example, members of all three parties have shown an increasing distaste for bullshit. Just go watch a political attack ad. Or a political convention. Or a Justin Bieber video. It's everywhere. So I propose new and improved, bullshit-strength Clorox. Old Clorox paved the way for human expansion, and a new form of Clorox can help us achieve our destiny, by making us less stupid and asinine. Bullshit-strength Clorox. For a better future.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Infidelity - the Secret to Punditry
The other day, I was reading a little piece on Mediaite.com about how Mark Sanford, former South Carolina, was apparently being a racist. He said that President Obama would be "throwing spears" at the debate, presumably to make up for his poor performance in the first debate. Normally, I'm a bit suspicious of accusations of racism based on code words, but I know that "spear thrower" is a somewhat denigrating phrase used to describe black people. On the other hand, Mark Sanford's mistress was Argentinian, so he can't be that racist.
Then it hit me. What the hell is a man who fooled around on his wife doing as a pundit? Presumably, pundits are people who's word means something. The're not just experts, people have to have reason to believe them, to take their word for things. How is it that people think I'll take the word of a man who can't be trusted by his wife?
But then I remembered that there's nothing new about this. Newt Gingrich works as a pundit for Fox News, and he's renowned for marital excess, even while impeaching other guys for marital excess. Elliot Spitzer was a high-class John for high-class hookers. He still managed to secure a show on CNN, which is now cancelled, and a show on Current TV, which is not cancelled, but nobody watches it because it's on Current TV.
This is a terrible injustice. We are a) trusting the political word of untrustworthy men and b) treating women unfairly. Woman politicians can't get away with this. First of all, I went looking. Woman politicians don't cheat that often. What's more, they can get into huge trouble just for being accused of cheating. Both Sarah Palin (ok, not exactly a politician) and Governor Nikki Haley were accused of infidelity. The accusations were just that, accusations. No proof was ever presented. But they had to do all sorts of damage control. Cheating isn't a resume builder for woman politicians, only men.
Why is this? Well, the demographic that drives advertising dollars (and therefore news media) is men between 25 to 54. And no matter how modernized we men are, we still have a little residual oinkity-oinkishness. I'm one of those medern guys, I know what I'm talking about. We can forgive men who cheat. Apparently, powerful men fooling around enhances their power. Thank you, Kennedy brothers. This apparently makes them strong alpha male types, not man-sluts as they should be. Certain exceptions apply. Oinkiness only allows for heterosexual affairs. Also, the affairs must be sexual, not cybersexual. Gay infidelity (Larry Craig, Jim McGreevey) or bizarro Twitter affairs (Anthony Weiner), don't affirm alpha male status, so no jobs for those guys.
But there's a way to reconcile oinkishness with opportunities for female philandering. All a woman politician needs to do is have a lesbian affair. As long as they're both hot. Like I said, oink. Our oinkiness won't allow for non-hot women pundits anyway. Lesbian philandering will give female politicans increased opportunities in female punditry. Well, right after they retire in disgrace.
Lesbians can break down the barriers for other women. And nothing would produce better ratings than a Republican lesbian arguing with Elliot Spitzer or a Democratic lesbian arguing with Mark Sanford. Or perhaps a Republican lesbian debating a Democratic lesbian. I'm sure that scene has been seen before on TV, but it was probably in a porn movie. If it was on Fox or MSNBC, advertising dollars would go through the roof. The economy would rebound overnight.
I realize, it might be simpler to demand that cheating politicians stay out of the public eye. But then we would miss out on the economic benefits of seeing hot, arguing lesbians on basic cable. So instead, lesbians must break ground for other women. Only girl-girl love can close the infidelity gap. Several female politicians must come out as lesbians, cheat on their husbands, then enter into a illustrious punditry career. Once a few hot lesbian chicks do it, the oinking crowd will get used to the idea. At that point, anyone will be able to fool around and still get a pundit job. Then we will finally have infidelity justice for all.
Then it hit me. What the hell is a man who fooled around on his wife doing as a pundit? Presumably, pundits are people who's word means something. The're not just experts, people have to have reason to believe them, to take their word for things. How is it that people think I'll take the word of a man who can't be trusted by his wife?
But then I remembered that there's nothing new about this. Newt Gingrich works as a pundit for Fox News, and he's renowned for marital excess, even while impeaching other guys for marital excess. Elliot Spitzer was a high-class John for high-class hookers. He still managed to secure a show on CNN, which is now cancelled, and a show on Current TV, which is not cancelled, but nobody watches it because it's on Current TV.
This is a terrible injustice. We are a) trusting the political word of untrustworthy men and b) treating women unfairly. Woman politicians can't get away with this. First of all, I went looking. Woman politicians don't cheat that often. What's more, they can get into huge trouble just for being accused of cheating. Both Sarah Palin (ok, not exactly a politician) and Governor Nikki Haley were accused of infidelity. The accusations were just that, accusations. No proof was ever presented. But they had to do all sorts of damage control. Cheating isn't a resume builder for woman politicians, only men.
Why is this? Well, the demographic that drives advertising dollars (and therefore news media) is men between 25 to 54. And no matter how modernized we men are, we still have a little residual oinkity-oinkishness. I'm one of those medern guys, I know what I'm talking about. We can forgive men who cheat. Apparently, powerful men fooling around enhances their power. Thank you, Kennedy brothers. This apparently makes them strong alpha male types, not man-sluts as they should be. Certain exceptions apply. Oinkiness only allows for heterosexual affairs. Also, the affairs must be sexual, not cybersexual. Gay infidelity (Larry Craig, Jim McGreevey) or bizarro Twitter affairs (Anthony Weiner), don't affirm alpha male status, so no jobs for those guys.
But there's a way to reconcile oinkishness with opportunities for female philandering. All a woman politician needs to do is have a lesbian affair. As long as they're both hot. Like I said, oink. Our oinkiness won't allow for non-hot women pundits anyway. Lesbian philandering will give female politicans increased opportunities in female punditry. Well, right after they retire in disgrace.
Lesbians can break down the barriers for other women. And nothing would produce better ratings than a Republican lesbian arguing with Elliot Spitzer or a Democratic lesbian arguing with Mark Sanford. Or perhaps a Republican lesbian debating a Democratic lesbian. I'm sure that scene has been seen before on TV, but it was probably in a porn movie. If it was on Fox or MSNBC, advertising dollars would go through the roof. The economy would rebound overnight.
I realize, it might be simpler to demand that cheating politicians stay out of the public eye. But then we would miss out on the economic benefits of seeing hot, arguing lesbians on basic cable. So instead, lesbians must break ground for other women. Only girl-girl love can close the infidelity gap. Several female politicians must come out as lesbians, cheat on their husbands, then enter into a illustrious punditry career. Once a few hot lesbian chicks do it, the oinking crowd will get used to the idea. At that point, anyone will be able to fool around and still get a pundit job. Then we will finally have infidelity justice for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)