Becoming Somebody

I meant to get a post up about this earlier but got sidetracked doing something else. Apparently Ralph Nader is toying with yet another run at the presidency. I’m all for marginal candidates running for office, but we already had a candidate in this race who espoused many of the positions Nader would sight as his strongest. And that candidate, Dennis Kucinich, though vital to our system, failed to garner enough support to remain in the race.

A few weeks ago, I went on and on about the importance of Kucinich’s involvement in the nominating process. And, like Kucinich, I think Nader’s voice is an important one. The public needs to hear more of his message. But Nader is really a one-note candidate. The basis of all his positions, many of which I actually agree with — whether it be economic justice, reduction of military spending and armament, an end to war as an instrument of foreign policy, or single-payer health care — are rooted in the consumer advocating, anti-corporate fighting he does so well. Notice, too, that a lot of his positions line up almost seamlessly with Kucinich’s.

However, unlike Kucinich, Nader gets in the way of real, practical progress by luring the same kind of dipshit, uninformed support that has fueled candidates like Ron Paul. People, young ones in particular, get behind candidates like Nader and Paul because they are, by definition, Anti-whatever happens to be mainstream at the time. These people simply crave anything that is different and try to justify that craving with legitimate political argument. Never mind that these arguments rarely make sense or reflect the interests and values of the person making them.

For instance, young, mostly liberal college studies will talk to you for hours about how great Paul’s libertarianism is when it comes to keeping America out of wars and legalizing drugs, but they ignore or are ignorant to the fact that that same philosophy would eliminate almost every social-welfare program on the books, leaving millions of poor Americans without the assistance they need and deserve. They are attracted to Paul’s candidacy because he seems like a rebel. And the fringes love rebels. It’s as simple as that.

To be totally fair, though, Paul isn’t nearly as bad as Nader because he, like Kucinich, is keeping it in the primaries and not interfering with the general election process.

Nader supporters will talk about his fierce opposition to corporate influence in politics and the way he advocates responsible environmental policies, while in the same breath ignoring the fact that he pulls votes from other, more viable candidates who are actually in position to further these same causes. For some reason, they can’t see how Nader mucks up the general election by taking advantage of the most ridiculous bits of democracy that give equal voice to the insane.

Of course, Nader can hide behind the broad philosophical argument that says Americans deserve to hear all sides and that our elections should be open to anyone meeting the requirements to run. To the extent that people believe in democracy, and I have my problems with the system, they also believe in the merits of that argument. But it fails to acknowledge the real truth of our flawed system, that marginal candidates cannot win, that their existence in the race is symbolic. That is why they belong in the primaries. Rather than fixing our system, it just throws the wrench and the hammer and the glue at it. It doesn’t make things better. It makes them worse. Just look at the 2000 election.

In 2000, Nader earned 2.7 percent of the popular vote*, and exit polling showed that had he not been in the race, 46 percent of his supporters would have voted for Gore, while 31 percent would have sat out the election and 21 percent would have voted for Bush. That would have given Gore a boost of about 1.25 percent and Bush a boost of 0.6 percent. Considering how close that election was, that is a huge margin. Had Nader not run in 2000, Gore’s popular-vote victory would have been more than statistical in key states, and it would have been far more difficult, if not impossible, for the Republicans to have done what they did in Florida.

Knowing this, and being true to the fact that Nader has no chance to win any election, can anyone honestly say that his running benefits democracy? Was his involvement in the past ultimately an aid or a hindrance to fairness and the authenticity of our elections? Did it give voice to more people than it ultimately suppressed?

For anyone thinking about supporting Nader, really consider the way you want to answer these questions. Then ask yourself if the answers you come to speak to the things you want in a political system and a candidate. If they make you raise your eyebrows even slightly, vote for someone else. This election is too important to throw away on a rebel. Some things are more important than being different.

* In the interest of accuracy, I got my figures from this article and cross-referenced them using my own math and several newspaper reports from the 2000 election.

From the time I first became aware of Barack Obama, like many people, during his speech at the ‘04 convention, I’ve had a pretty easy time articulating my rationale for first wanting him to run for president and then, once he entered the race, supporting his candidacy.

I believe his seemingly inherent ability to inspire not just his base of support but people on all sides of an argument to come together for practical purposes is a more valuable trait than HRC’s ability to outline policy details ad nauseum. I think Obama’s worldview — everything from his mixed-race, multi-cultured background to his expressed willingness to engage leaders in countries that have been traditionally viewed as America’s enemies — is more dynamic than HRC’s ruffle-no-feathers, preserve-the-status quo mentality and is also more in line with a thinking man’s approach to foreign affairs. The logical underpinnings of almost all of HRC’s positions just seem entrenched and wonkish to me, and I’ve never felt more strongly about the need to move past that type of politics. It just so happens that there is a candidate in this race who exemplifies almost everything I think the country needs to move past what has plagued it since the late-LBJ era, when the JFK policy hangover cleared and the Gulf of Tonkin/war escalating/riots in Chicago began.

That’s why this campaign season has been, for me, unlike in 2004, more about being for one candidate than it has been about being against another. And it’s been easy to make my case because of it. However, there is another truth behind all this that I have not yet been made to justify or rationalize, that truth being that I genuinely dislike Hillary Clinton.

I can’t put my finger on why she rouses so much hostility in me, because my reasons are not in line with any of the more-popular, right-wing reasons. I agree with a lot of her positions. I don’t find her nearly as shrill and harpish as some other people might. I don’t resent her for anything or think she’s any worse than most other politicians when it comes to accepting funds from lobbyists and corporate interests. I think her willingness to wage a battle for universal health care when she was First Lady is commendable. But, all that said, I still can’t stand her.

When pressed, I often think it’s because I also happen to dislike Bill Clinton a great deal. I don’t dislike his presidency or the things he did in office, mind you. I dislike him, as a person. I think he’s arrogant and narcissistic. I think he’ll say and do anything to make himself look good, regardless of whether or not there is any truth behind what he says. I just don’t buy his line of bullshit, and I think I feel that, because of the nonsense that went on around the impeachment hearings, he has been insulated from fair criticism by members of his party. The thinking seems to be, or it seemed to be for so long until now, that if you say anything bad about Bill Clinton, then you are in step with people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly who sling rhetorical garbage and hope something sticks. As a person interested in holding people accountable for all aspects of their work and not in simply making broad, sweeping generalizations, I resent this polarization.

Therefore, in my mind, I had always felt that my feelings toward Hillary might have been a little close-minded and unfair. I felt that right up through this morning, even though I’ve been watching her campaign and feeling so deeply irritated by it that I’m genuinely worried that I will have to force myself not to abstain from voting should she be the Democratic nominee. But then I read Bob Cesca’s column on The Huffington Post. In it, he articulates the reasons why I dislike HRC in a way that I have been unable to, even though I’ve tried time and again.

Perhaps it is because up until this point, the reasons have been a bit more abstract and below the surface. However, now that we are seeing The Clintons operate under the bright lights of a presidential race, facing their first real challenger since, and I say this generously, the incumbent President Bush in ‘92, all those warts and all that arrogance has bubbled over and allowed us to see that both husband and wife play by the same set of dirty rules.

Rather than rehash the best of what Cesca had to write, I’ll share a nice chunk.

From the relatively insignificant over-use of poll-speak like “we are sending a clear message” simply because polls indicate that voters like candidates who are “sending a clear message”; to the besmirching of a presidential legacy by shamelessly race-baiting in South Carolina; to that bizarre scene in Florida last night, the Clinton-Clinton de facto ticket has become, dare I say, Lieberman-ish in that it represents a style of doing business that, in any other race, we’d be shredding without mercy or regard to party affiliation.

We know that both of the Democratic candidates have an equally strong chance of winning in November. We know that there’s plenty of overlap on the issues. We know that Senator Clinton can recite policy positions just as brilliantly as Senator Obama can induce chills in even the most cynical political junkies. And we know that both candidates will make history. So if it’s more or less a tie in those columns, why should we willingly choose to support the Democrat who’s cribbing political strategy from Karl Rove’s whiteboard?

As such, it’s absolutely astonishing that the Democratic race is as close as it is. If a Republican said something like “Jesse Jackson won here twice” or pledged to grab delegates that don’t exist we’d be choking on our own tongues as we convulsed and gasped in shock-horror. There’s no excuse for forgiving the Rovian games or the DLC calculation. Just because they’re The Clintons doesn’t make it forgivable. … Click here for the full story

You get a sense of the win-at-all-costs desperation that characterizes The Clintons in this video, as well. In it, Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews talk to HRC after her “victory” in the Florida primary. For those living in a cave, Florida was stripped of it’s delegates by the DNC for moving the date of its primary ahead of the date sanctioned by the party, and all the Democratic candidates vowed not to campaign in the state. Whatever you may think about the rules, they were the rules. But after coming up short in the delegate race in Nevada and an getting an ass-beating in South Carolina, Camp Clinton decided to emphasize the importance of the Florida primary. It’s absurd. It’s irritating. It’s crooked politics.

Watch the video for yourself and see what I mean. If you watch one part, fast forward to about 6:10 and take it from there. Olberman, quoting a statement from the Obama camp, asks her to clarify statements she made saying the race for the nomination is a race for delegates, not number of state primaries won. Of course, as HRC trails Obama in pledged delegates, she spins and spins and doesn’t really answer the question. After all, lest we forget, she learned from the master.

In the interest of fairness, after writing harshly about Rudy in what I called an obituary, I also have to acknowledge John Edwards’ decision to drop out of the Democratic race, though I can’t credit Floridians for putting the kibosh on his bid for the White House.

I happen to like Edwards. A lot. In any other year, against any other candidate not named Barack Obama, I would have rallied full bore behind his candidacy. I think he energized his side of the race and made Barack and HRC work a bit harder on their policy positions and messages. For that reason, I’m sad to see him go. He’s also dreamy. We can be honest here, can’t we?

I never thought I’d say this, but, Thank you, Florida.

Thanks to a moronic campaign strategy and the will of a great many near-death retirees, the world can rest easy knowing Rudy Giuliani will not take control of America’s savagely vast, my-dick-is-bigger-than-yours weapons arsenal. That’s right, dear readers, as most of you probably know by now, America’s Mayor (is that the most egregious political misnomer in history?) is dropping out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination after a disastrous, distant-third-place finish in the Florida primary, the only state he ever gave a damn about, unless you consider Israel or the rubble at Ground Zero to be states.

My disdain for Rudy has been well-documented in this blog, and I’m sure the people of Canada are reeling today knowing that I will not be moving north in search of refuge. But my hatred of the man goes beyond my feelings about the fear-mongering, macho-bullshit, tough-guy tactics he employs and the way he never really cared much when his amped-up, testosterone-fueled police force beat the hell out of people, or even shot them to death, for no good reason. It’s not just the way he speaks to the worst in people, their fears and prejudices, and exploits them for his own gain. Well, I mean, I guess it is about those things. But it’s more the way these elements of his character play out in public policy.

Make no mistake, Giuliani unapologetically propagates institutionalized bigotry and hatred of anyone with a limited income or brown skin — African Americans and Hispanics, Iranians, Iraqis, other non-Israeli Middle Easterner. He did it throughout his presidential campaign when he tried to scare us all into thinking Iranians are evil, blood-thirsty monsters eagerly pursuing nuclear weapons. He did it as mayor of NYC when he began a war on marijuana, as innocuous a substance as exists on Earth, that increased drug arrests to more than ten times their previous levels and not only wasted valuable resources but disproportionately affected minority populations, even though government statistics show that marijuana use is far greater among white populations than it is among people of color. It’s New York City. If he really wanted to crack down on drugs, why not start with cocaine or any of the other designer drug that fuel the club culture and the economics surrounding it? Perhaps it’s because those drugs are the weapons of choice among rich, white kids whose parents are Wall Street tycoons and campaign contributors.

For Giuliani, as with all neoconservatives, the issue isn’t genuine security. It’s the creation of the illusion of security. To him, that illusion involves a lot of dead or incarcerated brown people and white people spending money by the fistful. His worldview is an embarrassing reflection of the most vile aspects of the American spirit, and I feel relieved knowing he has been rebuked.

The only thing he ever stood on was the happenstance that placed him in charge of a city during a terrorist attack. Pay no mind to the fact that the image he loved to project — that of him out in the street directing traffic in the moments immediately after the planes hit — was a product of his own arrogance and stupidity, the things that led him to put his Emergency Command Center at the World Trade Center AFTER it had been attacked once and he had been told to put it elsewhere. He was out there not out because of courage and leadership, but because, like all those thousands of frightened people, he had no place else to go. The fact that he tried to use that lie for political gain is deplorable; knowing he failed miserably doing so makes me hopeful that the public saw through the manipulation and that his downfall is not a sign that people care only about what happened to them five minutes ago.

Whatever the reason, one thing is clear. These last few months of inept campaigning have made Giuliani an obsolete, pathetic figure. By the time the next election cycle rolls around, we will be so far removed from 9/11 that his song simply won’t play. With any luck, when he makes his decision to drop out of the race official, which should come later today in California, it will signal his demise as a potential world leader. If this is indeed the case, I am happy knowing that he has been forced to live out his productive years doing whatever it is he does as head of The Giuliani Partners.

When I have children, should Giuliani ever creep out of the murk of neoconservative leadership consulting to reemerge as a public figure, I will tell them that he is the type of person they should grow up to rally against, that he represents all those things that work to advance injustice and deny decency and truth. I will tell them he is a hate-filled padrone of swine that tried to take over the world and was denied, proof that maybe we’re not as bad as people like him would like us to believe. My hope is that I can tell them this while the news is covering his funeral.

I have to cut my workday short today because of my obligation to fulfill a birthday promise made to my girlfriend. I’m taking her to see Kathy Griffin at Madison Square Garden tonight.

I have to say, in fairness, I’ve watched her specials on Bravo and I think she’s pretty funny. I always love when people make fun of celebrities for being stupid. I’ve also seen her on Larry King and thought she seemed pretty grounded, which is saying a lot for someone who makes her living on reality television. And then there were her Seinfeld cameos. Those were funny too. So I guess, when I really think about it, I’m like a huge fan of her work. Maybe a Kathy Griffin show is the place I’ve been looking for, the place where I will feel the most at home, tucked among women and the tri-state area’s sizable gay community, listening to comedic tales of Hollywood celebutantes gone awry.

I’m not really up to date on all the celebrity gossip stuff, though, so I’m hitting up Perez Hilton and TMZ to prepare. I’d like to be able to get as many jokes and references as possible. I think there’s a basic pool of information to keep track of — Britney is a mess, Amy Whinehouse got caught smoking crack, and everyone else is pregnant — and as long as I have it down I’ll be OK.

The best thing I’ve read so far is about Sean Young, a.k.a. Lois Einhorn, a.k.a Ray Finkel. Apparently, she is a drunken mess these days and made a big scene at the Directors Guild of America Awards last weekend. I wonder if Dan Marino was in attendance. You know, now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense. It is Super Bowl week after all, and we all remember what happened to poor Ray Finkel at the Super Bowl. Laces out, Dan!

Was I the only person who found last night’s State of Union Address a completely missable event? It’s not like I’m not into politics either, as everyone around these parts knows. I just don’t care what that dipshit has to say about anything anymore. What was he going to say that wouldn’t have made me moan, throw my hands at the TV, and make off-color jokes?

So I didn’t bother tuning in. Maybe I had gotten my daily dose of political bombast earlier when I watched Mayor Quimby endorse Barack Obama (click here for video). Maybe I care more about the candidates vying to take over for the dipshit in charge than I do about the dipshit himself. Maybe I’ve just stopped taking George W. Bush seriously. After seven years, he’s proven himself to be nothing more than a punchline in a blue suit and tie. Everything he says is either completely retarded or an outright lie, and I guess I feel that he is in no position to speak to anyone about the state of our union. He’s clueless. And if I wanted to listen to a clueless fascist lie to me for an hour I’d go to church on Sunday. But I don’t. I have better things to do with my time, believe it or not.

Last night, those better things consisted of making a remarkably tasty cheeseless pizza (e-mail me for the recipe) and watching the first two episodes of the final season of The Sopranos. I’m pretty sure that’s the political commentator’s equivalent of saying, “I was doing my hair.”

When I woke up this morning, I had forgotten about last night’s speech altogether and only remembered when I heard someone mention it while I was out walking the dog. When I got back inside, I tried reading about it, but I just don’t care. The best thing I found was from The Huffington Post, courtesy of Microsoft Word’s “AutoSummarize” feature. It told me all I needed to know, and it did so in less than a hundred words. I love the Internets.

Click on the letter for an easy-to-read PDF.

If anyone out there is curious to know whether literary magazines and journals use form letters to notify authors of rejected manuscripts, I can verify that they do indeed use a standard response format. See below for visual evidence.

After Anderbo rejected The Sounds I Hear last Thursday, I sent them The Often Unheralded Affect of Burnt Bagels and Weak Coffee. And while they took longer than fifteen hours to turn me away this time, they still told me where I can stick my story and how far. OK. It wasn’t that harsh, but, regardless of the tone, yours truly is still unpublished.

I have two more submissions I’m waiting to hear back on, one at The Hub and another at One Story. I’m not expecting good things. Maybe I should read The Secret.

Will we ever advance far enough as a society that we will see hunting as barbaric and cruel, a fringe activity of whitetrash and rednecks, the type of thing done by people likely to join their state’s militia? For those hoping the answer to that question is, Yes, I have bad news.

I was perusing ESPN.com and came upon a new blog, Hunting365. Apparently, this guy Lynn Burkhead is some kind of “outdoorsman,” which I take as code for someone who goes to church, likes NASCAR and high school football, is afraid gay marriage will cause him to suddenly covet his dog and other animals sexually, believes the Civil War is still being fought, and kills peaceful animals for pretty much no reason at all.

Now I’ve never met Burkhead, so I don’t know if any of those characterizations are accurate. And I’m sure people like Burkhead think I’m some sort of liberal, hippie whack-job.

I mean, how could anyone not eat meat, right? And how could anyone not think it’s sweet to kill stuff with a high-tech precision bow and arrow set?

However, based on his bio, which I found on the website of some organization called the Outdoor Ministry Network, I’d wager my guesses into his character are not too far off. Here are a few snippets from the aforementioned bio (emphasis added):

Lynn Burkhead is a blessed man who is many things.

First and foremost, the Denison, Texas resident is a passionate follower of the Creator God, and His Son, Jesus Christ.

(You never want to piss off the Creator God and His Son, Jesus Christ by saying, of the many things you are, a proud husband and father come first and foremost. The Creator God and His Son, Jesus Christ, are jealous as a motherfucker.)

Lynn has served the body of Christ as a bi-vocational pastor, a church staff member, and as a Sunday morning Bible study teacher, his life’s passion is reaching and discipling men.

(That doesn’t sound gay.)

With authentic, high quality, and soul searching writings, Bible studies, adventure outings, and multi-media presentations, Lynn aims to speak the language of an outdoorsman’s heart, while helping him find, follow, and leave behind eternal tracks.

(Wait? What? Are they talking about The Creator God and His Son, Jesus Christ, again?)

Now I’m not suggesting Burkhead be banned from believing what he believes, doing what he does, or talking about that stuff to similarly insane people. It makes me wonder, though, why ESPN needs this type of batshit-crazy yahoo on its staff. Don’t think he’s batshit crazy based on the bio snippets above? Take a look at these excerpts from his first blog post (emphasis added):

In the spring, turkey hunting will be a prominent feature of H365, as yours truly and a host of camo-clad hunting brethren continue the pursuit of these cagey birds.

(Nope. Nothing gay-sounding here.)

From Osceolas in Florida to Easterns across the Deep South and Midwest to Rios and Merriams out west, we’ll go all out in this space to help you tag a trophy tom this spring. And perhaps, even help you exorcise a sharp spurred, long-bearded demon haunting your dreams since giving you the slip last spring.

(I have nothing pithy to add, but this struck me as something a crazy person would say. For the record, a long-bearded demon haunting you in your sleep is NOT gay.)

Because if you’re like me, your days are not only driven by such things as faith, family, and making sure that the bills get paid — they are also driven by the primal pursuit placed into the breast of man by his Creator — a passion for hunting.

(The Creator God and His Son, Jesus Christ, love men and hate animals. Hence his placing the drive toward the primal pursuit — a passion for hunting — into the breast of man. Did I mention that none of this sounds even remotely gay?)

OK. So let me get this straight. First ESPN suspends Dana Jacobson for saying Fuck Jesus on her own time. Now they give this guy a position of prominence in their sports-media empire. Did Fox News wrestle ESPN from Disney? Or has Disney just lost its fucking mind? Either way, I’m thinking my visits to ESPN.com will be fewer and farther between.

Honestly, that’s a lie. I plan to visit Burkhead’s blog all the time just so I can make fun of it.

And I’m starting over. It’s too sterile. I want to punch you in the face in the span of three thousand to five thousand words, not rock you in my arms and feed you a bottle. Time to load up the gloves. I’ll be done when I’m done.