VOTE!

Anticipating the Worst

John Kerry hosted a discussion last week where he had a round table of experts engage in hysterics regarding the recession and asked them to criticize his party's stimulus, the one he cosponsored. One of their doomsday warnings was that major wars, such as World War II, are preceded by long periods of economic recession. They predicted such an outcome if the current recession lasts, oh say more than two years.

This, in relation to certain things I have been hearing people say, leads me to be concerned. My specific concern is a sensitive one to discuss, however I feel that it is necessary to discuss in the interests of preparedness and prevention. The subject of race riots. If we recall, WWII and most regional conflicts in recent history were preceded by racial unrest or have a racial element to the conflict. Iraq, Darfour, Bosnia, Rwanda.

The things that I have been hearing that worry me are a linking of the effects of the recession on individuals to illegal immigration of Hispanics. I have heard people remark, "why should I be worried about the civil rights of illegal immigrants I can't even find a job myself." To be sure, I have only heard this sentiment coming from racist people who already bemoan bilingual signage. Still, the linking of the bad effects of the recession on individuals, by the individuals themselves, through the issue of illegal immigration, to a specific racial category of people, is what worries me. The immigration debate already inflames gun toting extremists to the point of mobilization. And the Minutemen were in existence when we were still relatively prosperous. I fear the recruitment power the recession will have for violent racist radicals.

This will be the kind of thing that plays out like prior race riots. On the streets in the poor parts of the country people will feel the pressure building every day. That sense of racial tension will never see the light of day in the MSM until the flood waters suddenly burst forth in a regional paroxysm of violence. Local riots will break out and only local outlets will cover them until they become either large, or last multiple days, or become shocking in some other way. Then the national MSM will start saying what had been obvious to 1/4 of the country for months. This will all be a complete shock to white middle class midwesterners who will wake up one morning as the MSM brings their attention to race riots already in progress.



Honestly, I hope it doesn't happen that way. Maybe it will just be local like the riots over the killing of Oscar Grant III. Or maybe the racial tension will never reach critical mass, or maybe the catalyst will never appear. I am just worried at the pace with which racist sentiment against Latinos has changed under the influence of the recession. For practical purposes, we should be concerned with good relations with Mexico because a good portion of their GDP is remittances from the US, and they recently discovered epic shit tons of oil. We should stay friendly with our neighbors.

The Afterglow

I have made the analogy before that the campaign was like being hit on by a drunken sociopath. In the aftermath of the election it seems even more so with various special interest groups and media outlets remembering various promises made by Obama while on the road to the White House. They seem like an expectant lover on the morning after, hopeful that this impulsive decision to get in bed with this beautiful person who said all the right things will turn into a healthy relationship. All the while the recipient of the lover's attention hurriedly prepares to move on with his agenda while assuring the lover that, "that was all pillow talk baby." We can at least hope that Obama doesn't spurn the voters like a one night stand. But he is a politician and I won't hold my breath.

John Stewart made the observation to Obama that the country isn't what it was when he started this race. Truly Obama is inheriting a sloppy shit sandwich from one of the most hated presidents in history. Unfortunately for the discontent, Bush is scheduled to leave office and they will loose a symbol of everything they dislike about U.S. policy. But the problems he created will remain. What happens if Obama fails? Do we loose the meager gains we have made in race relations? Does the country swing wildly back to the politically extreme right? Will there be much left of the country after four years if he can't get a hold on these various crises?

Parts of the country started to reflect Bush's low approval ratings by going blue this election. My question is whether these states who were red in 2004 have an indelible sin on them for causing the last 4 years of unnecessary downward spiraling of the nation. Ohio and Pennsylvania, I am looking at you.

As usual, I have nothing positive to say.

Zer-0bama

During Gov. Lingles speech at the RNC tonight the crowd could be heard chanting "Zero," when Lingle attempted to answer accusations that Sara Palin is inexperienced by pointing out that neither Obama nor Joe Biden has any experience in an executive office. The red herring aside, I was immediately inspired. The number zero and the letter "O" are similarly shaped and to distinguish between the two, people and computers will frequently put a slash through the zero. I thought this could be a clever way for the Republicans to say "No," to Obama while also implying that he has no experience as a leader. It could be spelled as 0bama or as zer0bama and pronounced "Zer-obama." Hands off that, I am going to try to sell the idea to the RNC.

Why Isn't Anyone Talking About All The Earthquakes?

OK, so lots of people are talking aobut the earthquake in Illinois. But what about the ones that have been shaking the ring of fire over the last week or so? Oregon Quake Swarms, Alaska, French Guiana, Maluku, Guatemala.
In the face of clear signs of the apocylapse I am compelled to ask all of you:
What is your zombie plan?

Anyone else have that age old feeling of disenfranchisement?

I was perusing the Cnn.com, as part of my regular late night masochism session, looking for some clues as to what is going on with the electorate. How come the same pundits who are so horribly wrong about policy are surprisingly correct when it comes to predicting elections? As a vehement Ron Pauloholic I was optimistically expecting well above 10% from Ron Paul in the New Hampshire primary. (By the way, can we strip them of their state motto: Live Free or Die because no one truly free would vote for Hilary Clinton, well maybe as a joke?) The acceptable Jack Cafferty echoed that idea before the primary on CNN, though none of his co-workers agreed. As we all know, as well read (five points to anyone who coins a new term to replace "well read" in regards to getting their news from Youtube and Log Cabin videos) politicos, Ron Paul did not even hit 10% in New Hampshire, and has done similarly or worse since, in Wyoming and Michigan. On CNN.com they have some exit polls from Michigan, and one of them asked the voter, who they think is the candidate that will best bring much needed change. Then they broke down who those people voted for. For example, 28% of Republican voters thought John McCain will best bring about much needed change, and 88% of those people voted for McCain. Well, 12% of Michigan Republican primary voters thought Ron Paul would best bring about much needed change (that figure alone angers me for being low.) However, only 48% of those people voted for him. In summary, 6% of the Michigan Republican primary electorate thought that Ron Paul would be the best person to change this country for the better, but decided not to vote for him. Motherwhat? YOU PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ME INSANE!

At one time in our lives we have all either supported a "fringe" candidate, or knew someone who did. If you are one of the people who supported the "fringe" candidate, then you heard, almost every time you tried to proselytize for your boy, "I'm not gonna throw my vote away." If you are not someone who supported a "fringe" candiddate, then you are that asshole who said, "I'm not gonna throw my vote away." Yet they rarely attack that candidate on the issues, on hizzer policy and cred, street or otherwise. I figure this is either because they agree with the candidate but are afraid to vote for himmer, like our Michigan 6%, or they are uninformed of him, a number likely much higher than 6%.
I was watching a fall 2000 Charlie Rose episode on Youtube that had a number of political experts analyzing the first Gore-Bush debate from that election. A couple times they referenced a poll that asked about people's impressions of the candidates, and seemingly used it as evidence of what the candidate actually is. I thin I only explicitly noticed it because I was able to look at these talking heads with a very 20/20 perspective. However, this is an hourly occurrence on every news network, newspaper front page...and most blogs, for that matter. Just because a poll says most people THINK a candidate is something, does not make him so. And for the media to spin in that way, makes it not only self-fulfilling but that number can increase like a snowball, and then simply becomes fact. It is circular logic that doesn't even have a factual base to turn on itself.

There are hundreds of way the propaganda machine, sorry, "media", distorts and hides the truth. There are many ways in which it, eh...for lack of a better word, BRAINWASHES people into voting a certain way. As bad as it is that there are elections being rigged at the polls, after the polls, and before the polls, by not allowing people to vote, elections are also being stolen through propaganda. Remember, why steal something forcefully or stealthily when you can just trick someone into giving it to you?