Saturday, October 15, 2016
Hi. This is to Trump supporters.
You dislike Hillary. You're not alone. I get it. But if you really hate Hillary, you need to hate Trump even more.
He stole your nomination and now he's giving the election to Hillary. Think about it.
If I was a strong Hillary supporter, I suppose I should say "Thank you." Because there probably isn't another person on the planet that could make people that were otherwise against Hillary, vote for her. For Trump's part, there probably isn't another democratic candidate either that would have enabled Trump to actually be a remotely viable candidate, to say nothing of actually leading in legitimate polls at one point.
This presidential election is the biggest mess in my lifetime. The whole thing smells of a rat.
John Oliver captured it best when he pointed out the parallels between Trump's situation and a 1996 children's book "The Kid Who Ran for President," where the kid ultimately gives a rant speech rebuking the electorate for voting him into office.
I have a question for the grown-ups of America ... Are you out of your minds? Are you expecting me to enforce the constitution? I never even read it. I was absent from school that day. Would you really want me as Commander In Chief of the armed forces? What if somebody attacked the United States? Would you really want me in charge? America must be in really bad shape if you elected me president. You better get it together and find some qualified people to run this country or we'll all be in big trouble.
And South Park's "Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich" series has been brilliant.
Forgetting for a moment that, under a Trump presidency, the economy would crash like ...
... and he probably would start world war three.
... because then he actually has to run the country. And that means living in government housing, conversing with fully clothed women, and traveling in a plane that doesn't even have his name on it.
And South Park's version:
The second Mr. Garrison (The Giant Douche, Trump) realizes he has an actual shot at winning this election, he panics over his lack of a plan and starts self-sabotaging
2. The look on Hillary's face would be even better
If she lost this election, maybe she would finally give America the rant she thinks we deserve for not letting her have it in 2008 like we were supposed to.
Just when we thought things couldn't get worse this election season, we get the soul crushing catastrophe of the second debate.
It was a town hall format and the first audience question was about 'Modeling Appropriate Behavior For Today's Youth?'
This was on opportunity for Hillary. It was a softball she could have hit out of the park. But, predictably, she offered a classic non-answer of rambling campaign talking points. Imagine if, for once, she could have set the talking points aside and got real, along these lines:
"You're right. At times, the last debate could have been rated as MA, for mature audiences. And for my part, I apologize for that. There is no place for it in presidential debates, debates, we must remember, between people seeking the highest office in the land. We are supposed to be the adults here and when it takes the wisdom of children to tell us that we're acting like children, we should listen. I apologize and I promise to do a better job of showing how we, as civilized people, can have wildly differing positions and points of view and still maintain a level of quality discourse."
But robotic Hillary didn't do that. Instead, she didn't say a damned word to that question and just rattled off a laundry list of campaign positions. A swing and a miss.
Maybe there is such a thing as too much preparation.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
We all know what he his - a self-promoter first and foremost - but that is not the important thing. With Trump's support surviving this deep into the election cycle, we have to look beyond the obvious.
What his support speaks to is a great disdain for the corruption and dysfunction of proper politics. Nobody is going to stop supporting Trump because they catch him in a lie. That would be like telling them that pro-wrestling is fake. You miss the point. Of course Trump lies - his supporters know it and they don't care.
Democrats sit on a high horse but they're just doing the same thing with the pretense of protocol and decorum - they are lying and stealing and pandering the old-fashioned way. But really, they are more alike than different.
I sent Bernie money. But is he really even close to what we think he is, or what we want him to be? Probably not.
I don't have the answers either, of course.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
First the disclaimer: I don't watch the show. But I've seen enough of it to know I can't stand it.
My wife has been telling me for a while that the Robertson clan are a homophobic and misogynistic lot, especially the father, Phil, the "Duck Commander" himself. I guess that cat is out of the bag now.
Anyway, even without all that (and the incredibly disgusting reaction), I was out. Why? Because this show celebrates ignorance and stupidity. These clowns aren't stupid, nor ignorant (save for some obvious areas). They have college degrees. They themselves are the "elites" they so despise as Huff Post notes:
While there is nothing sinister about succeeding in business, this is not any rags to riches story of everyday familiar "bumpkins" benefiting from the perceived enhanced mobility of American society. It is a well planned out, and relatively rare group of astute individuals who have achieved uncommon financial success.
But rather than presenting a true picture of how hard work, education, and business savvy can be roads to success, the show instead glorifies poor language skills, ignorance, laziness, and poverty, crafting a contrived story of "common folk" making it big through implied dumb luck. It's all bullshit and it's insulting. The right-wing, Tea-Party, and backwoods Confederates who love the show are the people who should really be offended. The Robertsons are mocking them, much in the same way that Dan Whitney ("Larry the Cable Guy") wasn’t actually trying to appeal to rednecks, but to mock them.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
For many years, I have overlooked the NRA stepping outside the gun-rights issue. They fall into the same trap as the media, where they assume the gun-rights issue is exclusively linked to a right-wing agenda and the Republican party platform. Every time they send me another right-wing tirade, totally unrelated to gun-rights, I have to will myself to let it go. With the appointment of James Porter as its new President I simply can't do it any more.
As a parting shot, I do want to defend the NRA to a point, or at least explain the history that I recall about their path toward a harder-line. Way back in the eighties, the NRA tried a more moderate approach. What you always hear about the NRA is that they should "compromise" more and accept "common sense laws." They tried that back then and each time they "compromised" the result was that one law was never enough. Every new regulation was looked at as a "first step" by the anti-gun side. The NRA compromised but the anti-gun side never did. They simply took each new law as progress and wanted more "compromise" by the NRA. This led to the NRA membership pushing back. The NRA membership wanted an end to what they saw as a steady erosion of gun rights. The NRA members pushed for a more hard-line and no-compromise stance. So those that now claim the NRA should compromise more, should recall that when the NRA was doing so, it wasn't a two-way street and it is the members of the NRA, the supporters of gun-rights, that asked the NRA to be more hard-line. We got here because the anti-gun side refused to compromise and simply wanted to pile on more bans and regulations of no particular value in reducing gun violence and suggesting a path toward an eventual ban of all private gun ownership.
So, NRA: Talk about gun rights issues. Be hard-line. Fine. But I can't abide the NRA stepping outside gun rights issues and attaching to an overall right-wing agenda. 31% of Democrats support gun-rights. More people identify as Democrat than Republican. An equal amount or more identify as Independent. The deeper the NRA goes down an exclusively Republican path, the smaller their numbers. By excluding Democrats and Independents, the NRA is cutting out nearly 50% of gun-rights supporters... it's foolishness.
For the record, I still support gun rights. I'm just going to have to do so through other means than the NRA-ILA.
Monday, April 29, 2013
For me, I found a slight sense of satisfaction from the beating Reddit took for the r/FindBostonBombers subreddit in which Reddit users attempted to solve the Boston bombing, to embarrassing effect. I have been of the opinion that Reddit, and the whole "crowdsourced" band wagon at large, have been overdue for a serious reality check. However, I realize even this fiasco isn't going to slow down Reddit or the momentum for "crowdsourced" information.
There's an interesting psychology in how people tend to trust sites like Reddit that reminds me of conspiracy theory psychology known as “motivated reasoning:"
The Millennial Generation (age 18-30) rely on user-generated content (USG) to make decisions. Online opinions [like those on Reddit] have a greater impact on their decisions than recommendations from friends and families. By contrast, Boomers (born between roughly 1946 and 1964) are almost twice as likely to favor recommendations from friends and family over UGC.
The popularity of Reddit (in particular) shows just how badly this has gotten, how much people mistrust mainstream information sources, even when the beloved "crowdsourced" information proves to be so bad.
I don't see that changing after the Boston Marathon witch hunt. This is a deep mistrust. Traditional media has got work to do to get back in the good graces of younger people.
For my part, I think this episode provides good reason to take a second look at the trend toward assuming because data is crowdsourced, it must be accurate. And further, in case you were still not sure, it's time to accept the truth that Reddit is full of shit.