The above image makes me as red-faced-vein-poppin-crazy-with-rage as John McCain. That is the Obama's campaign giant American flag and those are his followers walking around on it, desecrating it.
Of course Senator Obama doesn't have control over the actions of his followers, and these people are in New York, Brooklyn no less, so they hardly count as Americans, but still, it makes me ponder.
As you may recall, I am an independent and have not yet made up my mind who I will vote for come November. Senator Obama is young and represents change, but I don't really know who he is. Senator McCain, on the other hand, is old and erratic, but he is a war hero and has a lot of experience. And he's a Maverick. His running mate, Governor Palin is also a Maverick, but she doesn't have much foreign policy experience. Senator Obama, as far as I can tell, doesn't have a running mate. What's up with that?
Of course I give a lot of consideration to the candidate that I'd prefer to hang out and drink with, but frankly I wouldn't particularly want to drink with either of them. Senator Obama probably sips some kind of exotic cocktail with fizz in the title and McCain likely rambles like grandpa Simpson, then picks a fight, then gets all emotional, then ends up praying to the porcelain god for forgiveness. But I guess the McCain ticket still wins by the drinking criteria. If I'd already had a few beers, I might not mind getting Governor Palin drunk. She'd forget all about that wussy boy husband of hers.
Still, just because she likes to get drunk and fuck doesn't mean she'd make a good vice=president. What to do? What to do? Should I vote for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr instead? They both have some pretty good ideas. But can either of them win?
Anyway, here are some more disturbing photos of suspicious Brooklynites. What are they all doing outside on such a grey day, besides desecrating the flag? Up to no good, if you ask me.
Update: I just learned that Ralph Nader is an Arab. Hmmmmmm. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It's all so complicated.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Mysteries and conundrums
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Monday, October 06, 2008
Little men
Someone please come over and kick me, I've been watching cable news again.
Lately, I'm struck by the pathetic insecurity displayed by so many of the male anchors, correspondents, and guests. The thing that really jumps out at me is how they describe the McCain campaign's strategy of attacking Obama with lies and nasty innuendo as "tough."
Spreading lies and nasty innuendo is not tough. It is sleazy. It is undignified. It is the opposite of tough. It is cowardly.
Why do they associate cowardly sleaze with toughness? My guess is that they are insecure about their manhood. They think that juvenile taunting is the essence of manliness. How could anyone come to see the world in such a way? Were they mercilessly picked on by the tough guys when they were young? Is that why they think bad behavior is a sign of toughness? That's my guess. They have no clue at all what it means to be a man*.
A second question is how so many of these insecure little men manage to get on television. It must be somehow related to Bill Gates's observation that one should be nice to nerds because you'll end up working for one.
And I'll even go all Utopian on your ass and expand on Bill Gates's idea. Everyone should be nice to all children because if we're not they'll grow up to be Republicans, Christian conservatives, or cable tv news blowhards. Gawd, I know, I sound like Sally Struthers, but it's true, it's true.
*It means one was born that way. Being mean to people is not required.
