Does anybody know how you actually kill a Zombie. There are several definitive references for vampires (holly stake through the heart, chop off the head, etc), and authorities seem to agree that a pesky werewolf can be put down with a silver bullet (explains the Lone Ranger), but I’m not sure about Zombies. Shotgun blasts to the head at close range seem to work in the movies. And I seem to remember that removing the head with a spade is recommended. Or is it just to inflict enough physical damage that they can’t continue any more?
The reason I’m asking is that my Democratic friends keep calling, wanting to know.
Showing posts with label clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clinton. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
POLITICS- “I didn’t get into this race because I thought I could avoid this kind of politics..
But I got into this race because I thought I could end it.”
That’s a quote from Barack Obama’s speech last night. This is the essence of his platform. It’s why he doesn’t have to be specific about what he plans to do (though he has). Because the platform he’s running on is more basic than a passel of promises. Promises that won’t be kept in any case. He running on the single promise that he’s not going to do “business as usual”. The kind of business the government has dealt in for so long. The business of lying to the people and acting as if it was an oligarchy, a plutocracy, an imperialist state, a fascist state. He touches those who know what America really stands for. For liberty, for idealism, for individualism that isn’t rooted in cynicism and the idea that only the rich are smart or worthwhile, for stupidity, for our being sold politics the same way we are sold soap, for being married to a political party the same way we are married to a sports team, for betting on the electorate being too dumb to see through the bullshit.
Obama may be peddling bullshit too, but if he is it’s a better brand of bullshit than we’re used to. It’s the prevarication of an obviously smart man who brings the oratory to a level seldom seen in the last 50 years. If, indeed, it is prevarication. But to my mind that isn’t even the main question. The main question is not about the honesty of the candidates (which is always in doubt) but the soul of the American people. I see this election as being more about my faith in American politics as a whole than it is about any particular candidate. Do we really want to have a discussion about the major issues that we face or are we willing to still have the political arena be the same as the sports arena. You can’t have a reasonable discussion of the relative merits of sports teams with many sports fans because they are dogmatic and rigid. They are on the side of their team and, good or bad, win or lose, they have a sort of loyalty that blinds them to reality. We’ve seen what that kind of rigidity allows our leaders to do in the last eight years. In a democracy the people have to be able to discuss, debate, decent, and decry the choices the government makes on their behalf. A democracy (or a republic, for those who think the difference is germane) is dependant on people discussing the choices they have in front of them and deciding the best course for them to take as a people. In a democracy it is simply the job of government to carry out the wishes of the people. Do the people follow their representatives as if they were a kind of nobility, or do the people determine the course the government should take as their servants.
Are we a sovereign people, with a government whose mandate is to carry out our wishes, or are we subjects of our government who have only the job of supporting our leaders? Obama may not truly believe in the former, but both other candidates are obviously supporters of the latter option. Given the option of being a free man who is the tiniest unit of an American government that is representative of the wishes of those tiny units, I take that option over being a subject in the American hegemony any time. It’s the same choice that the founding fathers had to make. To be subject to royalty, or to believe in the common wisdom of the common people and to let every person alone to find their own path to happiness.
I find all the “patriots” who think it is best to support the government in their folly to be laughable. I’ve engaged dozens, perhaps hundreds of them online to see what kind of intellectual foundation they have for their opinions. I have sadly found little to make me challenge my own opinion among them. They tend to be dogmatic, unreasonable, bigoted, anti-intellectual, ignorant, and, in short, living examples of everything the liberals portray them to be. It’s a cause for great sadness for me. I long for a political discussion that involves equally adult, informed, thoughtful discussion of policy. But what I find, all too often, is parroting of mindless arguments on both sides. The trouble with democracy is what Garrison Keillor (accurately) says about humanity, “Half the people you meet are below average”.
That’s a quote from Barack Obama’s speech last night. This is the essence of his platform. It’s why he doesn’t have to be specific about what he plans to do (though he has). Because the platform he’s running on is more basic than a passel of promises. Promises that won’t be kept in any case. He running on the single promise that he’s not going to do “business as usual”. The kind of business the government has dealt in for so long. The business of lying to the people and acting as if it was an oligarchy, a plutocracy, an imperialist state, a fascist state. He touches those who know what America really stands for. For liberty, for idealism, for individualism that isn’t rooted in cynicism and the idea that only the rich are smart or worthwhile, for stupidity, for our being sold politics the same way we are sold soap, for being married to a political party the same way we are married to a sports team, for betting on the electorate being too dumb to see through the bullshit.
Obama may be peddling bullshit too, but if he is it’s a better brand of bullshit than we’re used to. It’s the prevarication of an obviously smart man who brings the oratory to a level seldom seen in the last 50 years. If, indeed, it is prevarication. But to my mind that isn’t even the main question. The main question is not about the honesty of the candidates (which is always in doubt) but the soul of the American people. I see this election as being more about my faith in American politics as a whole than it is about any particular candidate. Do we really want to have a discussion about the major issues that we face or are we willing to still have the political arena be the same as the sports arena. You can’t have a reasonable discussion of the relative merits of sports teams with many sports fans because they are dogmatic and rigid. They are on the side of their team and, good or bad, win or lose, they have a sort of loyalty that blinds them to reality. We’ve seen what that kind of rigidity allows our leaders to do in the last eight years. In a democracy the people have to be able to discuss, debate, decent, and decry the choices the government makes on their behalf. A democracy (or a republic, for those who think the difference is germane) is dependant on people discussing the choices they have in front of them and deciding the best course for them to take as a people. In a democracy it is simply the job of government to carry out the wishes of the people. Do the people follow their representatives as if they were a kind of nobility, or do the people determine the course the government should take as their servants.
Are we a sovereign people, with a government whose mandate is to carry out our wishes, or are we subjects of our government who have only the job of supporting our leaders? Obama may not truly believe in the former, but both other candidates are obviously supporters of the latter option. Given the option of being a free man who is the tiniest unit of an American government that is representative of the wishes of those tiny units, I take that option over being a subject in the American hegemony any time. It’s the same choice that the founding fathers had to make. To be subject to royalty, or to believe in the common wisdom of the common people and to let every person alone to find their own path to happiness.
I find all the “patriots” who think it is best to support the government in their folly to be laughable. I’ve engaged dozens, perhaps hundreds of them online to see what kind of intellectual foundation they have for their opinions. I have sadly found little to make me challenge my own opinion among them. They tend to be dogmatic, unreasonable, bigoted, anti-intellectual, ignorant, and, in short, living examples of everything the liberals portray them to be. It’s a cause for great sadness for me. I long for a political discussion that involves equally adult, informed, thoughtful discussion of policy. But what I find, all too often, is parroting of mindless arguments on both sides. The trouble with democracy is what Garrison Keillor (accurately) says about humanity, “Half the people you meet are below average”.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
POLITICS- Obama is Bush and McCain is Clinton
Hillary Clinton’s campaign so far reminds me of what Jack Nickolson said about Jessica Lange after staring with her in THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, “She’s part fawn and part Buick.” Clinton’s campaign has oscillated between trying to show her as softer and more human and the kind of hard-core politics that has been characteristic of the Bush-Clinton-Bush years. And as Obama has taken the lead and the momentum away from her, she seems to be becoming more desperate. The latest example of this is her diatribe on Obama’s fliers.
“Shame on you, Barack Obama!” she screeched during a speech in Cincinnati, Oh. Clinton was upset about literature from the Obama campaign that said that her health care plan would force people to buy insurance and that she was pro-NAFTA. Clinton denied both these charges and then went on to compare Obama to George W. Bush at length, saying that this was the kind of campaign Carl Rove would have waged.
Factually, the Obama flyers don’t really misrepresent Clinton’s views. While she isn’t anxious to say it, universal health coverage does imply that there will have to be penalties for refusing to participate. And the disingenuousness of her anti-NAFTA rhetoric in the blue collar states is quite different than both her husband’s help in passing the bill and her votes to expand the program (an irony I’ve pointed out in the past). But if there is anything that Hillary has learned, it’s that when you get hit, you have to go on the offensive. So right after her attempt to take the high ground at the end of the last debate, she finds herself in the position of comparing her opponent to the president. Right now the indications are that this may be the Democratic Primary equivalent of comparing somebody to Hitler on usenet.
Not that the Republican nominee had an easy week. The New York Times broke a story about McCain’s relationship with female lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The story was based mostly on anonymous sources supposedly from the 2000 McCain presidential bid who allegedly tried to keep the two apart and confronted McCain about the relationship. As the article’s title implies, the story is not so much about whether McCain had an affair but about how presenting himself as a moral paragon might exacerbate any questions about his ethics throughout his long career. It mentions his involvement in the Keating Five scandal and positions he took favorable to Ms. Iseman’s employer, Lowell Paxson. In true “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” Right Wing pundits came to McCain’s aid, casting the article as a smear job by a left wing newspaper. McCain promptly denied that there had been any affair. But it has now been established by a couple of other newspapers that McCain’s statements about never having met Paxson and not having been confronted by his staff aren’t exactly accurate. And the Times has reiterated that the story isn’t about sex, but about ethics. So it looks like the issue has helped McCain with the right wing of his party but hasn't played out yet.
“Shame on you, Barack Obama!” she screeched during a speech in Cincinnati, Oh. Clinton was upset about literature from the Obama campaign that said that her health care plan would force people to buy insurance and that she was pro-NAFTA. Clinton denied both these charges and then went on to compare Obama to George W. Bush at length, saying that this was the kind of campaign Carl Rove would have waged.
Factually, the Obama flyers don’t really misrepresent Clinton’s views. While she isn’t anxious to say it, universal health coverage does imply that there will have to be penalties for refusing to participate. And the disingenuousness of her anti-NAFTA rhetoric in the blue collar states is quite different than both her husband’s help in passing the bill and her votes to expand the program (an irony I’ve pointed out in the past). But if there is anything that Hillary has learned, it’s that when you get hit, you have to go on the offensive. So right after her attempt to take the high ground at the end of the last debate, she finds herself in the position of comparing her opponent to the president. Right now the indications are that this may be the Democratic Primary equivalent of comparing somebody to Hitler on usenet.
Not that the Republican nominee had an easy week. The New York Times broke a story about McCain’s relationship with female lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The story was based mostly on anonymous sources supposedly from the 2000 McCain presidential bid who allegedly tried to keep the two apart and confronted McCain about the relationship. As the article’s title implies, the story is not so much about whether McCain had an affair but about how presenting himself as a moral paragon might exacerbate any questions about his ethics throughout his long career. It mentions his involvement in the Keating Five scandal and positions he took favorable to Ms. Iseman’s employer, Lowell Paxson. In true “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” Right Wing pundits came to McCain’s aid, casting the article as a smear job by a left wing newspaper. McCain promptly denied that there had been any affair. But it has now been established by a couple of other newspapers that McCain’s statements about never having met Paxson and not having been confronted by his staff aren’t exactly accurate. And the Times has reiterated that the story isn’t about sex, but about ethics. So it looks like the issue has helped McCain with the right wing of his party but hasn't played out yet.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
POLITICS- Hillary Clinton Loves Change
Hillary Clinton is the candidate of change and she can prove it because she’s been changing things for the last 35 years. Who has experience in leadership which stretches all the way back to…
…the year 2000.
Completing an extraordinary metamorphosis from political neophyte to polished candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton -- the first first lady ever to run for office -- defeated Representative Rick Lazio yesterday in a closely fought race for Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Senate seat from New York.
I’m beginning to understand why people hate the Clintons. Do they even hear themselves speak? Hillary continues to run on a platform of:
“I’m against the war even though I voted for it.”
“I’m against the war but plan to keep the troops in Iraq.”
“I’m the person to change healthcare because I failed so miserably when I tried to do it the last time.”
“I’m strong enough to stand up to terrorism unless they gang up on me in a debate or ask me how I do it.”
“I’m the experienced candidate who never actually got around for running for anything until just lately.”
And the Democrats are thinking of nominating her. Keeping intact their platform of: turning victory into defeat against all odds,
…the year 2000.
Completing an extraordinary metamorphosis from political neophyte to polished candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton -- the first first lady ever to run for office -- defeated Representative Rick Lazio yesterday in a closely fought race for Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Senate seat from New York.
I’m beginning to understand why people hate the Clintons. Do they even hear themselves speak? Hillary continues to run on a platform of:
“I’m against the war even though I voted for it.”
“I’m against the war but plan to keep the troops in Iraq.”
“I’m the person to change healthcare because I failed so miserably when I tried to do it the last time.”
“I’m strong enough to stand up to terrorism unless they gang up on me in a debate or ask me how I do it.”
“I’m the experienced candidate who never actually got around for running for anything until just lately.”
And the Democrats are thinking of nominating her. Keeping intact their platform of: turning victory into defeat against all odds,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
