Cultural Extinction

I've just finished reading the book: Anti-Americanism, by Jean-Francois Revel. In the book, he lays out the case that the reflexive anti-Americanism of Europeans (with a particular emphasis on his native France) is often simplistic, self-contradictory, ill-informed, and counterproductive.
The most interesting section of the book to me was a chapter about cultural protectionism. The thrust of his argument is that it is impossible to protect a culture by building a wall against outside influences. He specifically argues against the French trying to protect their culture from American influence, but I think the lesson is to be heeded in this country as well (a similar cultural protectionism, or more accurately isolationism is sometimes evident in this country, particularly in certain movements on the right side of the political spectrum). Revel states: "The idea that a culture can preserve its originality by barricading itself against foreign influences is an old illusion that has always produced the opposite of the desired result. Isolation breeds sterility. It is the free circulation of cultural products and talents that allows each society to perpetuate and renew itself." Put another way, building a wall around a culture nearly always leads to cultural stagnation. An example of this cross-pollination of ideas is the rise of existentialism. Nietzsche was influenced by the ideas of the French moralists, and in turn his writings influenced French philosophers like Sartre, Camus, etc. during the following century. Other examples are endless. I think this is a concept often forgotten in times like this when nativism seems to be on the rise.

Video Review: Jesus Camp.

(note: this is probably the least political -in the sense of elections- post I've written so far. But this is kind of the cultural, philosophical, etc. direction the blog will go in the future, particularly after this election cycle ends. A lot of that, I'm sure, will be me trying to apply some degree of rationality to subjects where clearly none exists or is in short supply.)



I've finally gotten around to watching Jesus Camp, I saw it on Youtube over the weekend. A quick aside to anyone who feels the need to leave a comment on a Youtube video: if you are going to claim intellectual superiority or belittle anyone else's intelligence based on their belief system, feel free to at least be able to cobble together coherent sentences decipherable to people familiar with the English language. Other wise it's going to be difficult for people like me to take you seriously. (I'm not talking about misspellings here, I'm talking about a frontal assault on the basic concepts of language and communication.)

Now with that out of the way, this was a very interesting film which was both amusing and saddening at the same time. The film documents the training of small children in an incredibly radicalized form of fundamentalist/pentecostal Christianity. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who haven't been exposed to this kind of movement probably found this film incredibly frightening. Having grown up in a somewhat tamer version of this movement, I wasn't particularly surprised on the whole, but there were parts of the movie that took me by surprise. I think this is because of the complete lack of politicisation I experienced growing up in this movement. I'm not sure if that's because this wasn't as prevalent when I was growing up or if I was just not immersed in it because my father (who was my pastor as well) is a Democrat, who never wanted much to do with the religious right. Most of the kids in the film remind me of some of the kids who attended the Assembly of God-run school that I went to as a child who were brought up to be radicals, far-right Republicans, fundamentalists, and Christians. (and they were taught these traits in exactly that order of importance)

The film starts out with the leader of the camp, whose name escapes me at the moment ( and I really don't feel like looking it up) a seemingly friendly woman who clearly has a gift for working with and connecting to children. It quickly becomes obvious that she is more interested in training up an army of activists than in teaching Sunday School. We start with a meeting at (presumably) her church where she's promoting her summer camp to the kids in attendance. This seems perfectly normal until they bring out the children's "worship dance" team. This struck me as funny since dancing and fundamentalism (which this brand of Christianity falls under the branch of in my classification, though a lot of official Fundamentalist groups would probably bristle at given its fusion with Pentecostalism, but I believe the overlap here is too significant to overlook) have often been seen as natural enemies. I assure you that there was no "worship dancing" in a choreographed sense when I was growing up in the early nineties. The boys seem to be dressed up like soldiers waving sticks around to some of the most un-danceable music you've ever heard. Once this is done with she says to the crowd "let's pray in tongues". This was odd to me because I never saw glossolalia on demand growing up. I heard plenty of people "speaking in tongues" but it was always a spontaneous occurrence. It was also always somewhat unnerving to me as well, but I knew better than to express that opinion at the time. After the service ends we go to a few segments where we meet the kids who will be attending the camp (including one with a horrendous mullet that needs to be seen to be believed. On a tangent here, there should be a law that if you allow your child to get a humiliating hair cut you should be forced to get one too. That's the kind of change you'd see if I was president. We meet the children's families as well. We see one family in the dining room/home-school classroom. The weirdness doesn't take long to start here. While saying grace for their meal they ask God to end abortion and advise Him on what kind of people to put on the Supreme Court. I guess nothing whets the appetite like talking about any kind of surgical procedure. (We will be coming back to abortion many times by the end of the film) After this we see the boy with the mullet "learning" his science lesson from his teacher/mother. Like most of the children in the film he is home-schooled.We see him "learning" that the earth is 6,000 years old and that global warming is not a problem since the "rapture" will happen soon and the "anti-Christ" will take over the earth.( just like the bible does not say.) His text books reminded me of some of the ones we used in the Christian school I went to for 5-years (many of which were put out by Bob Jones University). The scientific illiteracy these kids are left with is not the most chilling aspect of this to me. If you were to destroy all scientific knowledge it would eventually be re-discovered in the distant future. What frightens me is the revisionist history taught to these kids, because if the lessons of history are forgotten then they will all have to be re-learned in a much more difficult fashion. We then cut to another child at the bowling alley where she is seen commanding her bowling ball to make a strike "in Jesus name". Sadly, the power of Christ is apparently no match for this particular bowling ball as it veers off to the right. She then is seen reading a Jack Chick tract! If you're a connoisseur of all things crack-pot you absolutely must take a look at this guy's stuff.

At this point the children are ready to head off to camp. It has also become obvious to me that these kids are being taught radicalism more than they are being taught Christianity. I believe they for the most part will either grow up to be radical fundamentalist Christians or radical Atheists. (perhaps "radical" is not the right word, because there was very little that was moderate about the man from Galilee. I think "militant" is probably a better word.) I'd be interested to see what percentage of the kids in this film would profess any form of Christianity in 20 years. My guess is that there will be far more who become disillusioned with religion than those who stay with this particular movement. The militancy will still be there, because that's what they have had drilled into them, but the faith aspect is not stressed nearly as much it would seem. It also becomes clear to the viewer by this point that these kids are repeating slogans that they have no clue as to the meaning of like "terminal generation", "spiritual warfare", etc.

As we pan over the camp grounds we notice that a) this camp makes the one in the "Jason" movies seem bright and cheery by comparison and that b) the camp is named "Kids on Fire!". I don't know about you but when I hear the name "kids on fire" I don't think of kids who love Jesus, I think of that picture from Vietnam of the girl who'd been napalmed. I also think that an accurate name for most summer camps would be "Kids Being Molested". Seriously, if you're ever bemoaning the fact that your child hasn't been molested yet, send them to summer camp. One last joke here, I want you to picture in your head what kind of logo you'd draw up for a place called "Kids On Fire". As we progress through the week of the camp, we see a lot of more of the kids repeating what they have been told about "reclaiming America for Christ", etc. with no sign that they understand what that means (I don't know what that means either). What we never see show up is actual biblical learning or any mention of how Jesus lived and taught us to live. This could be because that was edited out of the documentary, but I wouldn't be surprised if this weren't the case. I won't lay out everything that is shown from camp, but a few things really annoyed me. At one point we get an interview with the camp director talking about how she has the "skill" of being able to walk up to a group of 5-year olds on a playground and convince them to accept Jesus. Now, I don't make a habit of walking up to kids on playgrounds, (people tend to be on the lookout for that kind of thing, or at least they should be) but my uncle Gerald had a "skill" of being able to convince kids that age that he could pull his thumb off and put it back on. So convincing the kids to repeat a prayer is not nearly as impressive to me as being able to teach them how their religion says they should live their lives. That is a gift; scaring the bejeezus out of them is not.
A while later we come to the most well-known scene from the film. At the end of one of the services a card-board cut out of George W. Bush is brought out and the kids all reach their hands towards it and begin praying and crying and carrying on. The creep-o-meter really went off the dial here. I realize that they were praying for Bush and not to Bush but it's still a jarring visual. The Bible does say to pray for the leaders of your nation, but somehow I doubt anything like this would have happened if Bill Clinton (or Obama, McCain, Hillary, etc.) were in the White House. After recovering from this we go to the last night of the camp where the children are treated to a guest speaker. At first I'm kind of leery of him because as a rule I tend to distrust skinny preachers. But he seems nice enough and tells the kids how he has something to share with them. At this point I'm optimistic thinking "alright maybe he's going to tell them about Jesus; how he lived, what he did, what he told us to do, because it's off-base to expect anyone to "know Jesus" in an abstract sense when they don't know who the guy was". I'm also thinking "I wonder what's in the case he's holding". He opens the case to reveal......plastic dolls of fetuses at different stages of development! Apparently Christianity is all about being an anti-abortion activist! (note: I refuse to use the euphemisms "pro-life" or "pro-choice") I remember being given a plastic fetus from some group or another when I was in the 6th or 7th grade. Apparently people feel that if kids see the doll, they'll never be able to have an abortion. I happen to know for a fact that this view is a crock. Eventually the kids gather around the speaker and pray and then chant "Righteous Judges!" over and over again in the most creepy manner possible. I'm left to wonder if any of these folks see the irony in this. You don't want your kid going to a public school because of sex ed so you home school them at home like a good percentage of the kids in this film. You don't want your teenager to know about condoms but it's okay to teach 5-7 year olds about abortion in the most graphic possible terms? How can these views be reconciled? Don't any of the kids throw up or ask how the baby got there in the first place? I realize I'm probably expecting too much thought here.
As a bonus feature, we get to watch the kid with the mullet go listen to Ted Haggard ham it up for the documentary cameras from his pulpit. In an unfortunate coincidence, Ted is talking about homosexuality being wrong. I'm not going to go for the easy joke here, other than to point out that he looks very relaxed, yet very energetic at the same time. Overall, I think the incongruity in this instance was a microcosm of the film as a whole.

Race and the Race for the White House

Geraldine Ferraro touched off a firestorm this week by stating that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position....And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position." She also stated that he's very lucky to be who he is. The first thing that strikes me as ironic in these statements is that she's offering them while campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Imagine for a second how people would respond to a man running for president on the strength of his spouse's accomplishments. He would be laughed off the stage. The same is probably true of any person who had a similar history to Senator Clinton but who was not Hillary Clinton.
Much of the controversy over Ferraro's remarks in my opinion is not over what she said was true, but the reason she felt the need to say them in the first place. First, what she said is partly true. Let's pretend for a minute that instead of Barack Obama, you have Barry Dunham a white politician with similar credentials. He announces his run for the presidency in early 2007 after two years in the senate. His claims to fame are a great speech 3 years prior and a vision of helping the nation move beyond the divisions of the past. He's a great speaker who talks of "hope" and "bringing people together". Would he have generated the same kind of buzz at the outset of the campaign? Would young voters be energized and inspired by him? Maybe, but I doubt it. He wouldn't have had the same credibility when talking about moving beyond the things that divide us. So in this aspect his race did work to his benefit. I maintain that much of his original appeal sprung from the fact that white people do not find him threatening the way they did with Jackson or Sharpton. So from that standpoint Ferraro's comments were accurate.
However, that is not the reason Obama is beating Hillary. His race got people to pay attention at first due to the novelty factor, but it is his skills as a candidate (the ability to deliver speeches that connect with and move people in particular) that have put him in the front runner position. From the very beginning he has made sure not to allow himself to be pigeonholed as "the black candidate" which had it happened (as it may now be due to the Jeremiah Wright/Louis Farrakhan stuff) would have been the undoing of his campaign. The failure to come to terms with the strengths of Senator Obama as a candidate last December/early January are what doomed her campaign (and it is doomed, at this point I think she's trying to get McCain elected so she can run again in 4 years instead of 8). The correct approach for Hillary to take would have been to fire all of the over-priced cronies running her campaign in the wake of Iowa and to change her message from the fraudulent claims of "35 years of experience" it is based on to a more future-based message. This would have been the honorable way to go. Instead she has done what she does best: divide and (not quite) conquer. She has gone out of her way to fracture the Democratic Party. The strategy has been to play groups against each other: young vs. old, rich vs. poor, black vs. female, black vs. Latino, black vs. Jewish etc. The ugliest aspect of this has been the way her surrogates have played the race card from the bottom of the deck (not the least of which being her husband), so in this context Ferarro's comments make perfect sense. Try to make it a question of who have been victimized worse in our society, white women or black men.(by the way, by almost any standard you can use to determine quality of life in our society, white women have it way better than black men on the whole. It's not even close) The mistake Ferraro made was being too obvious about it. So for all Senator Clinton's talk about Republican dirty tricks, she's done a good deal of their work for them. I'll close by saying this: if I had to pick one standard-bearer for my race/gender, I'd take someone like Barack Obama over someone like Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

Obama's Witnesses

I am now christening the cult-like followers of Senator Obama the "Obama's Witnesses". So if media types start using this term, you heard it here first. I don't have a problem with people passionately supporting their candidate, but the pseudo-messianic aspect is what I'm referring to here. (I am currently collecting quotes related to the Obama's Witness phenomenon and will post them once I've got a good collection to illustrate exactly who I'm referring to.) As one article put it this week, "we have a senator from New York who was born in Illinois running against a senator from Illinois who was born in a manger". I'm half expecting to hear him say "I will unite the country; I will draw all men unto me". So, by all means support your candidate. Donate to him, campaign for him, work the phone lines. Tell me why he's the best guy, but save the metaphysical new-ageish language for someone other than me.

Interesting quotes I read.

"One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington." -Bill Moyers, 2004

"By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into a political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube."- Episcopal Minister and former Republican Senator John Danforth, 2005

Critical thinking 101

+In the last post I mentioned a lot of dirty political stuff going on and in this one I'm going to show how a little bit of critical thinking can go a long way in keeping you from making an idiot out of yourself. Too often we pass on whatever we hear without question, usually because it reinforces something we're already inclined to believe or we got it from a "reputable source" like an email or the radio. The thing I find maddening about this is that you don't have to have a research library or spend precious minutes searching the Internet to know when you're hearing bull shit. Generally I find the best question to ask when hearing any spurious claim is: "does this add up?". While a comprehensive list of logical fallacies heard in every day life would take far more space than I'd care to use right now, I'm going to use a specific example to point out examples. Since the "Who is Barack Obama?" email hoax has been around for a long time and in the news lately I'm going to use it as my example here. I also use this one since most of its claims are what I call "rat poison" lies. Just as rat poison consists of mostly food, with a little poison mixed in, most lies have a little truth (albeit twisted and distorted) mixed in. And any time you mix a lie with the truth you only create a more dangerous lie. The claims have been thoroughly refuted, so I won't go out of my way to point out every factual error just the stuff that should be a red-flag to a thinking person that they're not reading a factual account. So here's the email and then my breakdown will follow.


Who is Barack Obama?Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice. If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about itand share it.We checked this out on "HYPERLINK "http://snopes.com/" \nsnopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.Who is Barack Obama? Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was bornin Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obamaattended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic School." Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical. Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama' s mother, Ann Dunham,introduced his stepson to Islam.Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible but instead the Koran Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!! Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!! .

observations:
-First of all I thought putting the line in there about checking it out on snopes.com was brilliant. Whoever did that clearly knew enough about human nature to know that most people will take their word for it and not check the link themselves. If they were to click on it they would learn that snopes (a reference page for checking out urban legends) completely debunks this story.

-These things always tell you to forward it to everyone you know NOW! The survival of the world depends on it! Never underestimate the power of fear to destroy logic. A similar phenomenon can be observed when politicians use phases like "mushroom cloud over an American city" or "world war 3". This is not said to get you to think rationally but to not entertain any doubts.

-"very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it" So right here we have a pretty good idea who this is intended to appeal to. Note that you are asked to pray about it rather than to think about it. A good prayer for this occasion would be: "Lord, please help me to know when people are full of it. And protect me from anyone who thinks you are so powerless that you need them to be your enforcer here on earth. Amen".

-Have you noticed yet that his full name is used 4 times? I wonder if this is to compare him to the late King Hussein of Jordan. Probably not. Please feel free to not vote if some one's middle name the major issue for you. Keep this in mind: in the nineties "George Bush" was a common name for babies in Kuwait, so a lot of kids in that part of the world probably have similar problems ahead of them

-"Barack Hussein Obama was bornin Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas." - This one cracks me up as well. Did you notice the words ATHEIST and MUSLIM? They thought those might slip past you without the all caps. I think the part that slips through here (and the author's real issue with the Senator) are the words preceding those. Capitalizing WHITE and BLACK would be a little over the top, better to plant the thought in your mind and hope that you care about that kind of thing (And if you do have a problem with that feel free to have a hunting accident or something).

-"His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia." So the guy who is a RADICAL (and presumably very fundamentalist) Muslim marries a divorcee with a child. (Who don't forget, is an ATHEIST infidel) That's a little fishy don't you think? Hopefully the fear hasn't worn off so you're not being rational.

-"Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world." So his mother the "ATHEIST" sends him to a school that teaches fundamentalist Islam? Come on. Jerry Falwell couldn't have made up something this ridiculous. (but not for lack of trying)

-"keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible" This wouldn't bother me even if it was true, which it is not (I'm sure it was an honest mistake by whoever originated this since I'd bet that that person thinks "they all look alike") Theodore Roosevelt wasn't sworn in on a bible and wanted to take "in God We Trust" off of the currency. Last I checked, he was considered a pretty good president being enshrined on Mount Freakin' Rushmore and all. I personally believe (and I say this as a Christian, a Baptist no less) that all oaths of office should be taken with a hand on a copy of the Constitution, rather than a religious text. But, getting back to the point, do they expect me to believe that this guy does everything in his power to hide the fact that he's a Muslim (even going so far as to join a church) but then demands to be sworn in on a Koran in the middle of the capitol, with cameras everywhere? Yeah, that adds up. That makes about as much sense as a terrorist getting all kinds of safe houses and fake ID's and then showing up at the airport wearing a shirt that says "HI-JACKER" across the front.

-"Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches." Again it seems like a sleeper agent would know better than to draw this kind of attention to himself. Because we all know reciting the pledge and putting your hand over your heart are what makes one a real patriot. There's no way anyone who does these things could ever be a danger to the republic. Anyone who wraps them self in a flag and carries a cross must be on the up-and-up.

"The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out." Gosh, how did I miss that one? Did "the Muslims" hold a press conference or just put out a written statement? Do you suppose they voted on the idea? Or was it just decided by the "King of Muslims"? What have "the Christians" said in response? To claim the Bin Ladens and Husseins of the world represent all (or even most) Muslims is about as rational of claim as saying that the Grand Inquisitor of Spain represents all Christians.

-In conclusion, never let the facts get in the way of irrational fear.

march of the hatchet-men

It's South Carolina time again and you know what that means....all the "values" types and "christian" groups get to enter the fray and the campaign rhetoric goes from "weird" to "what the hell is this guy talking about?". For people like myself who love irony in all its forms this used to be a very entertaining time. In fact just today I got an e-mail from a group run by Tom Delay inviting me to a breakfast dedicated to "restoring God and apple pie" or some other damned thing to America. The idea of the guy who was once referred to by a colleague as "the most corrupt son of a bitch in the history of Washington" hosting a conference about "restoring our values" really puts a smile on my face. And I get the usual nonsense about Hillary, McCain, and Obama in my in-box. (Surprisingly not much anti-Romney stuff. You'd think his mormonism would drive the conspiracy idiots crazy.) This never used to bother me until I started talking to (and hearing about) people who actually believe a lot of this shit. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since I recently heard some one say (and I hope this is a bogus statistic) that 18% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. I'll deal with some of the more outragous stuff in an upcoming post, but some of the stuff I've read said falsely about today's candidates are actually true about some of the best presidents we've had. A good number of the founding fathers never would have made it through the modern meat-grinder that candidates go through.

The Undecided voter, make a decision already.

(note: This post is the first of hopefully a series written by my friend Bob,who is currently working as a contractor in Iraq and is one of the most hard-core political junkies I know.)

I have been following the Presidential election as closely as I can what with being in Iraq and all and heard some commentator refer to the what I believe has become the staple of American politics and that is The Undecided Voter. This particular commentator was talking about how with only two days to go until the Michigan Primary there was something like nine percent of voters who claim to be undecided? This makes me ask the question "Who are these people?" I mean how is it possible for someone to not know with only two days before the election who they are going to vote for? I might remind you that I am referring to people who vote in primaries. These are individuals who by all accounts are the people the most interested, involved, and passionate about the political process. The grassroots activists,party faithful, union members, NRA,NARAL, Veterans groups, religious groups and of course political junkies like myself. These voters are suppose to be among the most involved and informed voters and yet we have large numbers of people who claim right up to going into the polling booth to be "undecided". I would argue that we aren't choosing what ice cream flavor to pick at Baskin Robbins we are choosing a President.My question is how can a voter not know who they are, that's what this comes down to. See if you know who you are and what you believe it is very easy to decide on a candidate. I for example know that I value freedom, personal responsibility, individual liberty and rights, the sanctity of life, and a strong vibrant military. There for I am naturally drawn to the Republican party, after listening to all of the candidates running for office. Hearing the positions and ideas I then narrow down the ones I can't vote for. I first eliminate Ron Paul because while I like his libertarian views on personal freedom and spending I believe he is clueless on the need to aggressively fight the war on terror. Then I eliminate Duncan Hunter who I like on most issue but realize that he cannot win and think that he is a bit to much of an establishment candidate. I then go through all the candidates until I find one that I can support. In this case I chose Governor Mike Huckabee for a myriad of reasons. I knew several weeks before the election that I would cast my vote for the Governor. Now the question I pose to you is how can anyone who plans to vote and is in anyway informed not know who they are going to vote for? While I do understand that candidates taking watered down positions doesn't help in the decision making if you know what you believe its still rather easy to choose.I believe this happens first because people are afraid in some cases to take a firm stand for whatever reason. Second because they are waiting to see which candidate will kowtow to them and whatever set of issues is important too them, and third because too many voters base there votes on how they "feel" about a candidate. A good example of this is the Barack Obama candidacy, here is a man who undoubtedly has great skill as an orator, a lot of charisma, and extreme intelligence. Yet anyone who is honest with themselves will admit that this man has virtually no experience, little back ground, and will need a lot of o.j.t. ( on the job training) and yet he is in contention for the Democratic Party nomination because of how he makes people "feel" haven't we learned our lesson. I mean we got President Bush because Republicans "felt" good about him.Now I believe he has been a decent President and strong leader, but if the GOP in 2000 had based its decision on who would make the best President then John McCain would have been the nominee and would have gone on to beat Al Gore like a drum. Basing how you vote on your feelings can only lead to disaster. We end up with people who make us feel good about ourselves and possibly bypass better leaders.Time and time again I hear people talk about how just days before an election they are undecided and I just want to say "Hey Grow some balls, examine what you believe and make a damned decision already!" after all we are choosing the leader of the free world here, not a Fraternity President. Take a stand people, after all ITS IMPORTANT!

The Sympathy Vote?

I was seriously wrong in my analysis of Hillary Clinton in regards to the January 5th debate. I thought latent sexism would work against her when she responded angrily to Edwards calling her the (paraphrasing) "candidate of the status quo" and then tearing up when asked "how do you do it?". (My impression is that this moment was totally calculated, I can't really back it up that's just what instinct tells me.) I thought these events would combine to be the death blow to her campaign. What I've seen since seems to be the opposite. I've read about 600 articles talking about how she was ganged-up on and bashing Edwards and her critics as "bullies", and talking about how the crying thing helped reveal that she's a real person with feelings (more on that later). I'm seriously expecting to see a youtube video of a ridiculously effeminate crying teen-ager screaming "LEAVE HILLARY ALONE". The thing I failed to take into account is the power of perceived victimhood in our society. I'll give an example. A few months ago I read an article that mentioned how when the novel The Grapes of Wrath was released a lot of criticism came from poor migrant farmers who didn't like being portrayed as helpless victims of circumstance. Contrast that with today. We've gone from a time when actual helpless victims didn't want to be portrayed as helpless victims to a society where even the rich and powerful want to be portrayed as victims in order to gain my sympathy. Let's save our sympathy for people who deserve it: people who are crying for legitimate reasons like hurricane Katrina or loss of loved ones in the war, not people who come out and cry over their political fortunes.
I'm not even necessarily trying to bash Hillary here. If you feel like crying, go ahead I don't feel it should be an issue one way or another. My problem is this: sympathy is no reason to vote for ANYONE. Let's pretend for a minute that the other candidates are bullies who are ganging up on her because of her gender (which I don't believe for an instant any more than I believe attacks on Romney or Obama are based on religion or race, respectively). Do you really think a President of the United States will never have to deal with bullies? Do you think Kim Jong Il or Vladimir (I call him Vladimir) will be moved by sympathy? Another claim that drives me insane is "this emotional moment shows that she really has feelings". If you didn't know she was a real person with feelings you are, to put it nicely, a MORON! They're all real people with feelings (even Rudy, believe it or not). And this seems to be a winning strategy. So now we get to watch her go from being a candidate who talks about the issues and why she has the strongest skills and experience to be an effective president to a campaign that will increasingly feature her trying to be warm and "grandmotherly". And it could work. What does that say about the way we pick a leader? At the same time Bill is stepping up his role as the attack dog, coming out and criticizing Obama (and the criticisms are by and large legitimate). This bothers me because it is beneath the dignity of a former U.S. president. I don't remember Bush 41 demeaning himself in this matter when his son was running. (it could have happened but I don't remember seeing it). I guess I shouldn't be surprised in this development though because dignity has never been a hallmark of the Clinton dynasty.