Archive for August, 2008
I was looking thru the list of Obama and McCain’s top 10 favorite songs.
They had Randy Newman and some chick (I guess it’s a chick- it says it’s someone named “Girl Talk”) to comment on the two lists. This stuck out:
Who gets your vote based solely on this list?
GT: If there’s a candidate with Fugees’ “Ready or Not” on his list, I have to vote for him.
RN: McCain has a really likeable list. Then again, Hitler liked some good music, you know?
Randy Newman is a class A moron. Comparing McCain to Hitler? Classy.
“Stupid musicians got no reason…stupid musicians got no reason…stupid musicians got- no reason to liveeeee.” Stick to the lame songs about LA.
Next, it struck me that Obama seems to embody the stereotype of a black man liking racist and misogynistic music from deplorable “artists” like Kanye West. He seems to be trying to secure himself from the attacks he had to deal with at first, that he wasn’t truly black enough to be accepted by black Americans. Do we really think a 47 year old man is loving Kanye and Diddy? His choice of Touch The Sky by West is an odd one, as it’s peppered with vulgarity. Does this sort of thing really sell middle American to an unknown with a background among terrorists and racist anti-American pastors?
Here’s a taste of one of Obama’s favorite songs:
Back when Gucci was the shit to rock,
Back when Slick Rick got the shit to pop,
I’d do anything to say “I got it”.
Damn, them new loafers hurt my pocket.
Before anybody wanted K-West beats,
Me and my girl split the buffet at KFC.
Dog, I was having nervous breakdowns,
Like “Damn, these niggas that much better than me?”
Baby, I’m going on an airplane,
And I don’t know if I’ll be back again.
Sure enough, I sent the plane tickets,
But when she came to kick it, things became different.
Any girl I cheated on, sheets I skeeted on.
I couldn’t keep it home, I thought I needed a Nia Long.
I’m trying to write my wrongs,
But it’s funny these same wrongs helped me write this song.
‘Shit, niggas…I be Obama…word to your mother f’in mothers, bi-otch.’ I can just see him sitting around the house, chatting to Pastor Wright on the phone about how awful America is and how he’s the only hope to transform it from the ground up, blasting P Diddy and Kanye in the background. Maybe he can complete the stereotype and drink some malt liquor while eating a bucket of popeyes? Does playing into this stereotype really help him prove he’s finally ”black enough” to get over the old attacks that he isn’t?
More than anything, it’s annoying in that McCain would be blasted for having a song with vulgar lyrics that uses “niggas” in it (and rightfully so- I want my politicians, so long as they’re in the business of politics, to be political). Why is it okay for Obama to praise racism and vulgarity when McCain would be pushed out of the race for the same thing? Could it be the media cult that will let anything go with their god, The One?
Then again, one of Barack’s top 10 songs is Yes We Can. The song with lyrics that are actually an Obama speech (concocted by David Axelrod, who wrote nearly the same speech for Deval Patrick- which makes it quite ironic…Will.i.am turns a manufactured and recycled political speech into an athem for the Obama-zombies.) Doesn’t it just scream ‘megalomaniac’ to name a speech someone wrote for you as one of your favorite songs? I don’t know about you, but that scares the crap out of me.
Here is the full list from Blender:
1. Ready or Not Fugees
2. What’s Going On Marvin Gaye
3. I’m On Fire Bruce Springsteen
4. Gimme Shelter Rolling Stones
5. Sinnerman Nina Simone
6. Touch the Sky Kanye West
7. You’d Be So Easy to Love Frank Sinatra
8. Think Aretha Franklin
9. City of Blinding Lights U2
10. Yes We Can will.i.am
1. Dancing Queen ABBA
2. Blue Bayou Roy Orbison
3. Take a Chance On Me ABBA
4. If We Make It Through December Merle Haggard
5. As Time Goes By Dooley Wilson
6. Good Vibrations The Beach Boys
7. What A Wonderful World Louis Armstrong
8. I’ve Got You Under My Skin Frank Sinatra
9. Sweet Caroline Neil Diamond
10. Smoke Gets In Your Eyes The Platters
That’s it, I’ve turned into a 14 year old girl.
As I’m pretty much loving this song and the video itself, I’m fairly certain that’s about the only reasonable explanation. What’s next, a subscription to Tiger Beat magazine? Maybe some posters of the Jonas Brothers on the ceiling above my bed, so I can pretend to sleep next to Nick and whatever the other two are called?
Seriously? This was not how I saw 30.
Who was America’s first Republican?
The Republican Party, sometimes called the Grand Old Party, was formed in 1854 with it’s main goal being to eliminate slavery.
John C. Frémont was the first Republican presidential candidate, nominated in 1856, but he lost the election to James Buchanan.
In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected as America’s first Republican president.
Found at TheLongestList
I didn’t notice it until just now, but somehow one of the settings got changed in WordPress, so it wouldn’t allow you to comment without registering…
Apologies for that. It should be back to normal now, and you should be able to comment without becoming a member.
If anyone has any issues, feel free to EMail me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Barack will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Do 95% of Americans even PAY taxes?!?
He’s going to invest $150 billion in new fuels for vehicles…he promises health care for ALL Americans (the same coverage members of Congress have), he promises EVERY American will have money for college…LOL- He just claimed he will bar insurance companies from “discriminating” against sick people!!
How will he do all this while cutting taxes?????
Is he seriously claiming he will use government rule to force insurance companies to accept ALL customers, no matter how sick they are?! If he’s saying what it sounds like, he’s lost his mind.
He says he will pay for every dime by “cutting corporate loopholes and tax savings.” He will go thru the federal budget “line by line” and cut programs that don’t work. But $500 billion worth???
Government programs can’t replace parents.
John McCain doesn’t have the temperment to lead the nation. It’s a debate Obama is ready to have, he says- except he refused to participate in any of the townhall debates McCain proposed and Barack claimed he would join him in.
He attacks McCain for Iraq. Claims McCain won’t even follow bin laden to “the cave where he lives.” What on earth does that mean?
He calls for a timeframe to remove troops from Iraq. Calls it a misguided war. McCain is grasping at the ideas of the past, and we need a president who will look to the future. You don’t defeat a terrorist by occupying Iraq (tho evidence shows we have destroyed al qaeda). He says McCain has strained our traditional alliances and that we can’t help Georgia if this is the case. Dems will keep us safe, he says. Republicans have squandered the legacy built over decades.
He will only send our troops into harm’s way with a sacred commitment to give them all the equipment they need. He will end the war responsibly and rebuild the military. He will use diplomacy to defend against Iran. (funny)
He spends a half hour attacking McCain, then claims that he refuses to never question a person’s [McCain's] patriotism or character. He says there is no red or blue America. “I’ve got new for you John McCain, we all put our country first.” (That is clearly not the case for some.)
More boilerplate…with some of the usual ‘I don’t fit the traditional presidential pedigree.’ Blah blah blah. Same old politics is bad, and I’m not about that [yet all the evidence suggests it's JUST like all the other campaigns and politics as usual.]
Obama thinks you’re stupid. He said that John McCain would give tax cuts to the rich, but that he wouldn’t give a single dime to 100, 000 Americans.
This is a trick. The 100, 000 Americans Barack is talking about paid ZERO income taxes. You cannot give these people a tax cut, because they pay no income tax at all to begin with.
Obama claimed that McCain didn’t know anything about the average American worker. And how could he when he said that he personally thought middle class was defined as someone who makes under $5 million.
This is completely dishonest. McCain was making a joke and trying to make a point when he made the comment in question. McCain even remarked that Obama would distort this comment. Funny, not only is Obama distorting the comment, he’s actually doing it in his acceptance speech at the convention! This is the actual comment in conext:
WARREN: Everybody talks about, you know, taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point, give me a number, give me a specific number. Where do you move from middle class to rich? […]
MCCAIN: How about $5 million? No, but seriously, I don’t think you can, I don’t think seriously that the point is I’m trying to make, seriously, and I’m sure that comment will be distorted but the point is…that we want to keep people’s taxes low, and increase revenues. … So, it doesn’t matter really what my definition of rich is because I don’t want to raise anybody’s taxes. I really don’t.
Change and hope, huh? How about more of the same?
The Washington Post has an article today regarding an evolutionary psychology explanation as to why Amerians are usually more interested in “fluff” rather than “substance.”
As they set up the scenario:
Scandal A: A prominent politician gets caught sleeping with a campaign aide and plunges himself into an ugly paternity dispute — all while his cancer-stricken wife is fighting for her life.
Scandal B: A prominent politician’s signature health-care plan turns out to have been put together badly, and he is forced to confess that the plan will cost taxpayers billions more than expected.
It’s a no-brainer which scandal is likely to catch — and keep — our attention. The interesting question as the presidential election heads into the homestretch is why we care more about some stories that do not affect us directly, even as we tune out other stories that do.
That’s interesting, except it doesn’t hold true at all. Scenario A is considered fluff and something that doesn’t affect us personally, while B is considered substance. They are both clearly substantive issues. It definitely affects us personally in what sort of person John Edwards is. His character clearly plays a pivotal role in sort of overall leader he is, the decisions he would make, etc. If he’d so easily cheat on his cancer-stricken wife, imagine what sort of decisions he’d make in the highest office in the land!
One explanation is that cultural mores attune us to certain stories — we live in an era where gossipy scandals rule. To test this, psychologist Hank Davis at the University of Guelph in Ontario examined hundreds of sensational stories on the front pages of newspapers in eight countries over a 300-year period, from 1701 to 2001.
Remarkably, he concluded that the themes of sensational news were identical not only across the centuries but also in diverse geographic locales — from the United States to Bangladesh, from Canada to Mauritius. The stories that editors put on the front pages of newspapers — presumably stories that interested readers — included headlines such as “Crocodiles Tear Apart Thai Suicide Woman.”
The stories were sometimes about important things and sometimes not, but they nearly always involved the kind of themes that people who are part of small groups like to know about one another: lying and cheating, altruism and heroism, loyalty and disloyalty.
Davis and other evolutionary psychologists argue that the reason John Edwards‘s adultery has more zing in our heads than a dry policy dispute that could cost taxpayers billions of dollars is that the human brain evolved in a period where there were significant survival advantages to finding out the secrets of others. Since humans lived in small groups, the things you learned about other people’s character could tell you whom to trust when you were in a tight spot.
“We are continuing to navigate through the modern world with a Stone Age mind,” Davis said.
In the Pleistocene era, he added, there was no survival value in being able to decipher a health-care initiative, but there was significant value in information about “who needs a favor, who is in a position to offer one, who is trustworthy, who is a liar, who is available sexually, who is under the protection of a jealous partner, who is likely to abandon a family, who poses a threat to us.”
Bologna. This theory assumes that the reason we’d rather discuss Edwards and his issue is because we love gossip and the stupid human brain hasn’t evolved to discuss important issues. That assumption seems completely wrong. I think the more likely assumption would be that people tend to discuss issues they can more easily understand, easily relate to others, and that are similar to things that have happened in their own lives.
Clearly, health care plans are massive, complicated, hard to understand, and hard to relate to others. This is almost definitely the reason that people would rather discuss Edwards cheating on his wife, as opposed to a complicated health care plan that is so obtuse that even those who originally put it together it don’t fully understand it. As for infidelity, it’s something most of us have had some contact with on some level. How many of us have created a health care plan for the nation? How many of us could even follow a health care plan that someone else created?
This theory also assumes that the human brain is relatively simple in the sense that it’s built to deal with problems that only arose 100, 000 years ago. Who says the human brain hasn’t changed since then? If this is true, and it has not changed since then, why would ANY of us create health care plans, let alone discuss, or want to discuss, them? Are those who find health care plans fascinating less evolved or more evolved than the rest of us?
I think both scenarios above are full of substance, and neither are fluff. Character is important even if we never come into contact with the president personally. Why they think that because we’ll never meet the president in person that character is somehow unimportant, I’ve no idea…it doesn’t stand to reason though. Character is vital either way. John Kerry’s activities in Vietnam aren’t fluff, they played a key role in how we thought he would make decisions, how he worked with others, and if he was trustworthy or not- not only on a personal level one-on-one, but to all of us who would need to trust him as our leader in tough times.
Darwinism can explain everything, it seems. It just seems the explanations make no sense at all.
People often talk about serious issues and use the phrase “we can argue over these issues.” This works a lot of the time, as many issues can be argued one way or another. Abortion isn’t one of those issues. Let’s be real- you can’t argue on the side of abortion. Logic tells us that some issues just can’t be argued. You can’t argue that murdering a five year old for playing on your lawn is okay, because the side that argues in support of the killing is either evil or insane. They’re not wrong, because wrong indicates that there’s even an argument to be had, when clearly there’s absolutely no chance for any argument at all.
Abortion falls into the same category. You cannot, with any rational thought, argue that abortion is okay. This is obvious when the pro-abortion side (they will claim to be “pro-choice,” but the only choice they’re arguing over is the choice to kill a yet to be born child) gives their basic reasons for supporting the murder of innocent children. They say silly things like- ‘the woman wasn’t ready for a child’ or ‘punishing a girl with a baby for making a mistake [having sex] isn’t fair.’ Really, folks? I’m not ready to deal with the results of my actions, so it’s somehow my right to take a life that hasn’t even fully begun? A baby is somehow a punishment for my decision to have sex (Barack Obama actually used this argument, talking about how it wouldn’t be fair if his daughters made a mistake and were burdened with an unwanted child), so it’s okay to kill it?
None of the arguments in support of killing millions of babies simply because the mother doesn’t want them make any sense at all. They all fly in the face of rational thinking. That way live in a society that devalues life to such an extent is truly the edge of insanity. That we even think there’s an argument at all is completely insane. If murdering a 5 year old for trespassing on your lawn is an out-of-this-world crazy idea, aborting a living person because it happens to be inside of your body is worse.
Yet, we somehow live in a world where a minority claim that it’s a woman’s constitutional right (yes, they claim that the US Constitution holds that a woman has a right to murder a baby because it’s inside of her body, when it’s obvious that no such right exists in any part of the constituion) to murder any child she wants…as long as that baby is still in the most vulnerable state it will ever be in- wholly inside the mother’s body, wholly dependent on that mother for its ability to even survive at all. When we’re completely fine with allowing the murder of the most helpless among us, we’ve totally lost our way as a society with any morals whatsoever. There’s just simply no argument to be had here.
I haven’t posted in forever…mainly because I’m in school full time right now (working full time and in school full time), so that’s been tough. Anyway. I saw this video, and well- it’s hilarious, so…
There’s a party tomorrow night for a co-worker’s birthday, Saturday I have some tentative plans, and Monday I start classes again (had this week off), so I will try to post again soon. Hard to find the time lately.
Republicans keep bringing up the fact that Barack Obama had a mere 143 days in the US Senate before he decided to run for the presidency. Now, a lot of people have asked the question, “are 143 days enough experience to lead the nation?” That’s a fair question. It’s actually a very fair question. Experience is an important part of the picture. 143 days in the senate is a very short time. Serving in the Illinois state senate a bit longer than that doesn’t even add much experience to the game.
My question is more about Obama’s ego. It seems an odd thing to enter the US Senate, serve for 143 days, then decide- ‘ya know what, I’m ready for the big time. I want to lead the free world now.’ One, it says a lot about Obama’s character. Many have mentioned Rev Wright and have defended Barack against charges of being an anti-American racist by declaring that he only got close to Wright, because that’s what you do in southside Chicago politics. You don’t have a chance of winning a thing unless you cultivate these necessary relationships. I still argue Obama is a racist, and no sane person who doesn’t harbor deep racism could sit in Wright’s pews for 20 years, but let’s argue that he did do it for political gain as most theorize.
That tells me that Obama is crafting an image. An image that is, from what can tell, partially manufactured and phony. That doesn’t sit well with me at all. It also tells us that Obama has a very big ego. That sort of goes along with the territory of public office, but Barack seems to have an especially inflated ego.
The decision to run for senate after a mere 143 days specifically tells me that Barack has a massive ego. He did promise to fulfill his senate term, which he can’t possibly do if he becomes president. It takes a big ego to blatantly lie to your constituents. It takes a massive ego to go about the country and the world declaring that you were the anti-war candidate who always opposed the war, even tho you were never in the senate to face such a vote, so such claims are rather pointless in the overall scheme of things.
Barack, as his actions speak very loudly, never wanted to serve Illinois in the US Senate. The senate seat was merely a stepping stone in his quest to become The One. The leader of it all. The big cheese. The annointed one. Afterall, he is The One he’s been waiting for.
When you take the 143 short days into consideration, you really start to understand the messianic undertones in the campaign. Along with those pesky drooling cult-like fans of his. The campaign symbol of Barack leading us down a path to glory, the senator but a figure in the clouds, bigger than all of us. It all makes sense in light of his inexperience. Barack Obama truly is the biggest celebrity of them all. And we shall now bow our heads and pray…