The Republican Party, as we know it, is dead.
Those who believe Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party or has any chance whatsoever in 2012 are delusional. Same for "young starlet" Bobby Jindal.
This past Tuesday, Americans did not elect Obama as president. They elected maturity, openness, and intellect (read: elitism) and hope and change (blah blah blah). They rejected dirty tricks, character attacks, bigotry, and anti-intellectualism. Besides coming to terms with the morality the right constantly trumpets, there is a serious ideological divide within the party.
First, the Christian Right... America's Taliban... Jesus' War Heroes. W fell into this category once he found the Jebus in a bottle o' booze. Palin and Jindal fall into this subset as well. America WILL NOT elect a candidate who believes Jesus rode in on dinosaurs with a magic sword to save Adam and Eve from the evil Muslim apple, nor will they elect an Indian voodoo exorcist. The morals Jesus taught these people must be subtly applied to government to avoid a merge of church and state and religion-based discrimination, not shoved down people's throats like giant angel penii.
Penii is the plural of penis, imho. Note: For some reason, the most homophobic Republicans tend to be the gayest, commonly engaging in anonymous bathroom sex with other men or boys, kind of like George Michael.
Second are the secular bourgeoisie... the money/corporate party. These people are greedy bitches. They don't care about Jesus, unless he owns a hedge fund. Sometimes they pretend to care so the Evangelicals will vote for them. These politicians can range from centrists (old skool McCain, before he was a slimy bastard and just a regular bastard) to more moderate Republicans. These people are good friends with Democrat Blue Dogs because they are basically the same but have to vote a little different out of party loyalty.
Third are the far-right fascists. These politicians get off on using satellite technology to watch you drive to work, go to the bar, and kiss your wife. They also like to have phone sex with you without you knowing it (also known as phone rape). W loved the phone rape. The far-righties would love it if the national guard patrolled your neighborhood with AK-47's, making sure you didn't park on the yellow line.
Fourth are the cuddly libertarians/constitutionalists. They are PISSED at the rest of their party. They just want government to leave them the fuck alone so they can smoke their weed in peace while sitting in rocking chairs facing the doors of their trailers with shotguns in their laps. Big corporations shut them up because their profits would be lower if politicians were honest and trustworthy. This group HATES the rest of their party, to the point where they end up voting for Dems just to spite them. They even have their own party, the Libertarians, who elected Bob Barr this year as their presidential candidate. Ironically, Barr is a mix between a Jesus War Hero and Hitler and is not much of a libertarian at all. Ron Paul, on the other hand, drew record fund-raising and support as a libertarian running in the Republican primary. He was soundly defeated by corporations and the media, after which he returned to wallow in the vaginas of strangers, the lucky bastard.
How will the Republicans consolidate these views and return to success? By denouncing Jesus, embracing their homosexual thoughts, putting away their guns (I said put them away, not throw them in the dumpster), and ignoring the big-money influence of Washington by returning to a realist, Constitution-based, true free market platform.
HAH. They're so boned.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Lunchboxabee
Lunchbox and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee:
On the Constitution
On giving Romney a shower
...lunchbox.
On the Constitution
On giving Romney a shower
...lunchbox.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
'Into the Wild' SUCKS
Penn needed to let the story speak for itself, but instead I felt him force it down my throat. He should have let the sheer power of nature and the lack of society and industrialization compel the audience, instill awe within us, make us consider our lives in perspective to the nature of our society and the society of nature. Unfortunately, this film felt more like a rebellious teenager, not trying to find himself, not fed up with the crap the world feeds him (so incredibly ironic since this film IS the crap the world feeds you), but just being rebellious for the sake of being rebellious, spewing quotes from renowned authors because he can't think for himself, and running away from his life merely because his parents fought a lot... this reduces McCandless' journey and purpose to almost nothing at all. Once again, a visionary's life reduced to shambles by a unbearably pretentious (I hate this word, but it actually applies here) director... Mr. Penn, if "things" are so unimportant, can I have all your money, sir?
I get the point the movie is trying to make, but Penn undermines everything this story has going for it by shoving it all in our faces instead of letting us discover the wonder for ourselves.
I get the point the movie is trying to make, but Penn undermines everything this story has going for it by shoving it all in our faces instead of letting us discover the wonder for ourselves.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Deepak Chopra: Obama and the Call: "I Am America"
Great article by Chopra on Obama
Yea, I'll totally definitely eventually write that review on There Will Be Blood. For now, 9/10.
Yea, I'll totally definitely eventually write that review on There Will Be Blood. For now, 9/10.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Midnight special
Hey everyone, (talking to myself for now) I'm going to see the critically-acclaimed "There Will be Blood" at a screening in D.C. at midnight Saturday night; I'll post a review sometime early next week. Happy New Years! Enjoy.
Diary of a Mad Black Woman
I published this in my college newspaper a little while back:
(ENJOY.)
Welcome to my culture identity crisis. I don’t get to dance in fancy garb, eat awesome food, or speak a sexy sounding language. I get to bob my head to alternative crap-pop, eat fast food, and say “yooooooooo." I’m disappointed. Whose fault is this? Can I blame my ancestors, who rashly let their European customs slip upon entrance into industrial mediocrity? Or their kids, my grandparents, for teenage rebellion in the form of Americanization? What about myself… have I not vehemently pursued continuing the beliefs and behaviors of my German-Italian-French-Polish-Scottish background?
America has always been the same, I think: lots of people immigrating for the opportunity of a lifetime; the opportunity of living their dreams. Those who come usually work their asses off in pursuit of happiness, whether idealistically or monetarily, but then they have kids.
These “second-generation" Americans, be them of European decent in the 19th and 20th centuries or hailing from every country in the world today, face a dilemma. Parents try to pass on their culture in the face of adversity, pitting family-life, language, religion, and those thinly dispersed acquaintances sharing their experiences against behaviors taught by their children’s teachers and peers and the media.
STAY THE WAY YOU ARE.
We don’t need more stupid gringos running around this damn country. Our population is doomed if our incessant ethnocentrism prevails. Lack of culture and difference is not only boring, it limits humanity’s ability to adapt, and aren’t we in this together?
Yes, I am a “(somewhat)-privileged white boy." Yet I take this for granted and whine about my culture identity crisis, my head bobbing, my fast food, and saying “duuuuude." In other words: Immigrants, I’m talking to you, don’t become one of us. That’s lame and uninteresting, and then I won’t be able to enjoy watching you dance or indulge myself in your awesome food or wonder what you’re saying about me on the Metro.
But, of course, I’m just a mad black woman.
(ENJOY.)
Welcome to my culture identity crisis. I don’t get to dance in fancy garb, eat awesome food, or speak a sexy sounding language. I get to bob my head to alternative crap-pop, eat fast food, and say “yooooooooo." I’m disappointed. Whose fault is this? Can I blame my ancestors, who rashly let their European customs slip upon entrance into industrial mediocrity? Or their kids, my grandparents, for teenage rebellion in the form of Americanization? What about myself… have I not vehemently pursued continuing the beliefs and behaviors of my German-Italian-French-Polish-Scottish background?
America has always been the same, I think: lots of people immigrating for the opportunity of a lifetime; the opportunity of living their dreams. Those who come usually work their asses off in pursuit of happiness, whether idealistically or monetarily, but then they have kids.
These “second-generation" Americans, be them of European decent in the 19th and 20th centuries or hailing from every country in the world today, face a dilemma. Parents try to pass on their culture in the face of adversity, pitting family-life, language, religion, and those thinly dispersed acquaintances sharing their experiences against behaviors taught by their children’s teachers and peers and the media.
STAY THE WAY YOU ARE.
We don’t need more stupid gringos running around this damn country. Our population is doomed if our incessant ethnocentrism prevails. Lack of culture and difference is not only boring, it limits humanity’s ability to adapt, and aren’t we in this together?
Yes, I am a “(somewhat)-privileged white boy." Yet I take this for granted and whine about my culture identity crisis, my head bobbing, my fast food, and saying “duuuuude." In other words: Immigrants, I’m talking to you, don’t become one of us. That’s lame and uninteresting, and then I won’t be able to enjoy watching you dance or indulge myself in your awesome food or wonder what you’re saying about me on the Metro.
But, of course, I’m just a mad black woman.
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address vs. Bush’s 9/11 Address
Some interesting fundamental differences I wrote about for a class essay a little while back:
(ENJOY.)
On November 19th, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered a speech on the Civil War battleground of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania after the bloodiest battle on American soil. It was short, poignant, powerful, studied, and remembered. On September 11th, 2001, America suffered a rare, crippling terrorist attack; an attack unlike we have seen in years, and President George W. Bush delivered a speech to the world. It was longer than Lincoln’s.
Americans looked for comfort in Bush’s words on that fateful day, some sort of reassurance that the United States would be alright, that our freedoms were not in jeopardy. President Bush concluded that our country had been attacked “because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." He was hopeful in his words, calling upon our nation’s strength. “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America." His words unified America as a people, “from every walk of life… for justice and peace…we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world."
Lincoln spoke in honor of those who had fought on the battlefield, praising their determination and cause. He spoke of America’s ideals, “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." President Lincoln himself was humbled through the actions of those who had struggled on those grounds, and he called for those whose lives had been sacrificed not to have been so in futility. Lincoln’s methods of preserving America were a calling to “resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." In other words, in order to keep our precious freedom and way of life, Lincoln speaks of determination and showing, by example, what this country is capable of, idealistically, and to remember this battle forever; not in anger, but in reverence and honor through living for what they who died yearned to live for.
Bush too spoke of our country’s ideals. He spoke of the necessary preservation of our freedom and our way of life, and the means by which we would preserve them. “I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice." President Bush emphasized the need for vengeance to prevent repeats of the day’s events. “Our military is powerful, and it’s prepared… America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism." At this point, the president has declared war… but upon whom? “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." He has declared war upon the people in this world who do not approve of our way of life; not a nation, but an idea, and ideas aren’t geographical locations.
Bush’s methods for preserving America’s ideals seem less reasonable than Lincoln’s. Lincoln is excited and eager to continue to foster the growth of our young nation, while remaining strong and true to the principles upon which it was founded. He believes that only through living as Americans may we continue to be America. He believes that living righteously, in and of itself, is enough to preserve our way of life. Bush is not so confident. He does not believe in the inborn power and goodness of the people to overcome evil. He appeals to force to frighten the terrorists, just as they had appealed to force to frighten the citizens of our country. Whether knowingly or not, Bush employs the very same tactics the terrorists are using against America. Bush spoke of fear, anger, sadness, and revenge. “The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings," he said, “fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger." This is what the terrorists wanted. They were searching for a reaction, something that would strengthen their cause and numbers. I’m sure they would have been more impressed, more baffled, and more likely to consider this country a great nation if we sat back, grieved the incredible losses incurred upon us, and went on with our lives as free individuals. But Bush played along, appealing to emotion, stating that “our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts," and saying that no one was safe; “The victims were…secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors."
But must we become terrorists to defeat terrorism? Through our country’s actions over the past five years since the 9/11 attacks, we have lost support from other nations worldwide. Were we wrong in starting a “war on terror"? It seems our actions have further incited hatred against the U.S. and our allies. Would it have been better if Bush had taken Lincoln’s advice- lived for the sake of living, showing through example what our great country is made of, rather than tricking our own countrymen with fear and paranoia into supporting hypocrisy? What if Lincoln had taken Bush’s stance? Would he have combed the confederate states with military rule, hanging every slave-owner he found? Wouldn’t the slave-owners have only gotten angrier and revolted against the North again? So why are we surprised that the “terrorists" do not succumb to our democratic government and surrender to our way of life when we try to beat them into submission? Ethnocentric actions, such as those implemented by President Bush and his war on terror, will not prevail. Culture is a large identity of any human being, and attempting to impose our nation’s government and way of life upon countries that are so fundamentally, morally, socially, politically, and idealistically different than our own is not only naïve and ineffective, its useless. Why should we try to make everyone else like us, when doing so will only decrease the base of knowledge from which humanity can draw, ultimately decreasing our species chance of survival?
Some say Bush’s 9/11 speech was politically partisan, and that he used these horrific events to gain support for his own agendas through fear-mongering. Others continue to support the ongoing battles America fights in the “war on terror". Through the emotional haze which followed these attacks, Bush was able to gain bipartisan support for war against Iraq, a country which was believed to harbor terrorists, and the Patriot Act, an act which was implemented to increase the power of the Department of Justice, protecting the security and safety of Americans through infringing on personal liberties and privacy.
On the other hand, Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation in lieu of the end of the Civil War. This act gave unbridled freedom to a group of individuals who had not experienced freedom before in America. There were no strings attached. This freedom which President Lincoln catalyzed for slaves in the United States was not given at the expense of any personal liberties nor did it infringe upon individual privacies. For Lincoln, it seems freedom was given for free, while Bush gave freedom at a cost.
I remember exactly where I was on that day in 2001, and I’m sure most Americans do, too. I have come to terms with the attacks against our country, and I have resolved within myself the paranoia those attacks bestowed upon this nation. If we let this war on terror drop right now, President Bush is afraid that it will portray our country as weak- because we have not eliminated all of the terrorists in the world. But every day that we continue to pursue these terrorists, more people become terrorists. This war will never end unless we come home and live as our forefathers intended, as true Americans in peace and liberty and happiness and equality, and forgive the attacks upon us. We will never forget- we will remember that grave day forever; but not in anger, instead in reverence and honor through living for what they who died yearned to live for.
(ENJOY.)
On November 19th, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered a speech on the Civil War battleground of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania after the bloodiest battle on American soil. It was short, poignant, powerful, studied, and remembered. On September 11th, 2001, America suffered a rare, crippling terrorist attack; an attack unlike we have seen in years, and President George W. Bush delivered a speech to the world. It was longer than Lincoln’s.
Americans looked for comfort in Bush’s words on that fateful day, some sort of reassurance that the United States would be alright, that our freedoms were not in jeopardy. President Bush concluded that our country had been attacked “because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." He was hopeful in his words, calling upon our nation’s strength. “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America." His words unified America as a people, “from every walk of life… for justice and peace…we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world."
Lincoln spoke in honor of those who had fought on the battlefield, praising their determination and cause. He spoke of America’s ideals, “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." President Lincoln himself was humbled through the actions of those who had struggled on those grounds, and he called for those whose lives had been sacrificed not to have been so in futility. Lincoln’s methods of preserving America were a calling to “resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." In other words, in order to keep our precious freedom and way of life, Lincoln speaks of determination and showing, by example, what this country is capable of, idealistically, and to remember this battle forever; not in anger, but in reverence and honor through living for what they who died yearned to live for.
Bush too spoke of our country’s ideals. He spoke of the necessary preservation of our freedom and our way of life, and the means by which we would preserve them. “I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice." President Bush emphasized the need for vengeance to prevent repeats of the day’s events. “Our military is powerful, and it’s prepared… America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism." At this point, the president has declared war… but upon whom? “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." He has declared war upon the people in this world who do not approve of our way of life; not a nation, but an idea, and ideas aren’t geographical locations.
Bush’s methods for preserving America’s ideals seem less reasonable than Lincoln’s. Lincoln is excited and eager to continue to foster the growth of our young nation, while remaining strong and true to the principles upon which it was founded. He believes that only through living as Americans may we continue to be America. He believes that living righteously, in and of itself, is enough to preserve our way of life. Bush is not so confident. He does not believe in the inborn power and goodness of the people to overcome evil. He appeals to force to frighten the terrorists, just as they had appealed to force to frighten the citizens of our country. Whether knowingly or not, Bush employs the very same tactics the terrorists are using against America. Bush spoke of fear, anger, sadness, and revenge. “The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings," he said, “fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger." This is what the terrorists wanted. They were searching for a reaction, something that would strengthen their cause and numbers. I’m sure they would have been more impressed, more baffled, and more likely to consider this country a great nation if we sat back, grieved the incredible losses incurred upon us, and went on with our lives as free individuals. But Bush played along, appealing to emotion, stating that “our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts," and saying that no one was safe; “The victims were…secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors."
But must we become terrorists to defeat terrorism? Through our country’s actions over the past five years since the 9/11 attacks, we have lost support from other nations worldwide. Were we wrong in starting a “war on terror"? It seems our actions have further incited hatred against the U.S. and our allies. Would it have been better if Bush had taken Lincoln’s advice- lived for the sake of living, showing through example what our great country is made of, rather than tricking our own countrymen with fear and paranoia into supporting hypocrisy? What if Lincoln had taken Bush’s stance? Would he have combed the confederate states with military rule, hanging every slave-owner he found? Wouldn’t the slave-owners have only gotten angrier and revolted against the North again? So why are we surprised that the “terrorists" do not succumb to our democratic government and surrender to our way of life when we try to beat them into submission? Ethnocentric actions, such as those implemented by President Bush and his war on terror, will not prevail. Culture is a large identity of any human being, and attempting to impose our nation’s government and way of life upon countries that are so fundamentally, morally, socially, politically, and idealistically different than our own is not only naïve and ineffective, its useless. Why should we try to make everyone else like us, when doing so will only decrease the base of knowledge from which humanity can draw, ultimately decreasing our species chance of survival?
Some say Bush’s 9/11 speech was politically partisan, and that he used these horrific events to gain support for his own agendas through fear-mongering. Others continue to support the ongoing battles America fights in the “war on terror". Through the emotional haze which followed these attacks, Bush was able to gain bipartisan support for war against Iraq, a country which was believed to harbor terrorists, and the Patriot Act, an act which was implemented to increase the power of the Department of Justice, protecting the security and safety of Americans through infringing on personal liberties and privacy.
On the other hand, Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation in lieu of the end of the Civil War. This act gave unbridled freedom to a group of individuals who had not experienced freedom before in America. There were no strings attached. This freedom which President Lincoln catalyzed for slaves in the United States was not given at the expense of any personal liberties nor did it infringe upon individual privacies. For Lincoln, it seems freedom was given for free, while Bush gave freedom at a cost.
I remember exactly where I was on that day in 2001, and I’m sure most Americans do, too. I have come to terms with the attacks against our country, and I have resolved within myself the paranoia those attacks bestowed upon this nation. If we let this war on terror drop right now, President Bush is afraid that it will portray our country as weak- because we have not eliminated all of the terrorists in the world. But every day that we continue to pursue these terrorists, more people become terrorists. This war will never end unless we come home and live as our forefathers intended, as true Americans in peace and liberty and happiness and equality, and forgive the attacks upon us. We will never forget- we will remember that grave day forever; but not in anger, instead in reverence and honor through living for what they who died yearned to live for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
