The 'Hate Talk Express' Rolls On

The above is a disturbing and sickening video of John McCain and Sarah Palin supporters waiting to get into a Sarah Palin rally in Pennsylvania. I warn you that some of the language is a little bad, and some of the people/images are hard to watch at times. (the audio starts a few seconds into the video) These are actual McCain/Palin supporters, in public, in broad daylight. It is depressing to say the least.

I'm honestly not going to say much about this. It is flat out disgusting to me. You should just watch the video and decide for yourselves what this all means. I will say that, although McCain and Palin certainly don't support this type of behavior, they encourage it by continually linking Obama to terrorists, having guest speakers at rallies who emphasize Barack's middle name Hussein, saying Obama isn't a patriot, making phone calls to people and telling them he was friends with terrorist leaders, etc. At several Palin rallies the governor will ask 'Who is the real Barack Obama?', to which people in the crowd have been shouting 'terrorist', 'communist', 'arab', 'lynch him', and several racial slurs I refuse to type here, while Sarah Palin and John McCain stand by and laugh. That is out of line and they should publicly condemn those people and have them removed.

It's people like this that make me wish we could recycle white trash.

Kimbo KO'd

I am going to take a cue from John McCain today and not talk about political issues. (You know I still have to get my digs in) Over the weekend, internet backyard brawling sensation Kimbo Slice was handed his first sanctioned Mixed Martial Arts loss against Seth Petruzelli -- in 14 seconds. Slice is (or perhaps was) the only thing keeping the fledgling MMA organization ProElite XC afloat. He had previously garnered big ratings for CBS with his first three fights where he decisively won each with ease. However, with this recent loss, Kimbo's and ProElite's futures are both uncertain.

Why does it matter?

Seth Petruzelli is a UFC dropout, who lost both of his fights in the UFC. (For those that don't know, the UFC is the Ultimate Fighting Championship, ProEliteXC's main competition) Petruzelli jumped ship to ProElite XC fighting when they were basically the only ones who would take him. The fact that Kimbo's first loss comes from a UFC reject is particularly stinging for ProElite. For months, UFC president Dana White and UFC stars Chuck Liddell and Tito Ortiz had been saying that Kimbo Slice was nothing more than an internet bully, and if he ever fought a real fighter he wouldn't stand a chance. Not only did Kimbo fight a UFC fighter, and lose, but it was a fighter that couldn't win a single fight in the UFC.

In Kimbo's defense, he was originally slated to fight MMA legend Ken Shamrock, but Shamrock suffered a cut on the day of the fight while sparring and doctors would not let him fight. ProElite scrambled to find someone to fill in for Shamrock, and Petruzelli jumped at the chance despite the size difference. To Kimbo's credit he accepted a fight against someone he had never seen fight, at the last minute, in a scenario where he knew he had everything to lose. Unfortunately though, he did lose everything.

For most fight fans, the outcome of this fight wasn't a surprise. Kimbo Slice looks tough in his bare-knuckle, backyard-brawls on YouTube, but it's easy for someone with moderate fight skills and experience to beat someone with relatively little. That's all Kimbo is, a man who can take some punches and out power most people on the street. ProElite XC was riding the Kimbo Slice wave of popularity, and now that he's been exposed as - gasp - a mediocre fighter, it will more than likely mean the end of ProElite's ratings and their company as it exists now. It proves once again that being big and powerful won't get you far against someone with superior fight skills and experience.

'Pale-in' comparison to Joe Biden

Let me start by saying that I do not hate Sarah Palin. She seems like a nice enough lady, and despite her overwhelming lack of knowledge, she is relatively harmless - as a governor. I don't think she wants to do evil things, and frankly I doubt she really wanted to be the VP pick. I think she is dealing with a situation she has been forced into, where she is clearly out of her league, and damnit, she is doing the best she can. Unfortunately, when it comes to people's jobs and homes, and people's pension's, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and people's health care, and equal rights for everyone, and our nation's standing in this world, her best just isn't good enough. We deserve better, and John McCain should have given us better. Why wouldn't John McCain pick Condoleezza Rice as his running mate? I'm not her biggest fan, but she is qualified and competent enough. She would be ready to step up to the plate with very little extra preparation. I could have halfway understood a McCain/Rice ticket, and that half would have been strictly on Condoleezza's side.

It is irresponsible to gamble the future and integrity of this country for a few votes. Perhaps Biden was a safe pick for Obama, but when it comes to my future, give me the safe vote over the 'maverick' vote. Joe Biden is smug, and is a jerk sometimes. Period. He is, and I don't like his attitude a lot of times. With that being said, he knows his stuff. Watching that debate, I couldn't help but think that John McCain was sitting at home thanking the gay-hating god he worships that Sarah Palin was the one going against Joe Biden and not McCain himself.

The Issues

Sarah Palin thinks abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape and incest. I refuse to tell a 15 year old girl who was (God forbid, God forbid) raped by some monster that she has to keep this baby because Sarah Palin from Wasilla, Alaska thinks she should keep it. Is Sarah Palin going to help raise that kid? Is she going to help a girl who has to drop out of high school to have the baby, then try to go back and finish high school with a kid at home? Remember, this is a girl who was raped. She didn't make a mistake. She wasn't doing being irresponsible. Let her do with her body what she wants. Even women who plan on having a baby, get pregnant, and change their mind should be allowed to do with their bodies what they want. Whether or not it is right or wrong is between them and God, not them and Sarah Palin. Disgust.

Sarah Palin is in favor of abstinence only sex education. A program in which some schools teach that condoms are ineffective 75% of the time, even when used correctly. (In reality, condoms are 90-98% effective when used correctly) Guess what, when those kids decide to have sex, which many of them will, they decide not to use condoms since they only work 1 out of 4 times. There is also plenty of research out there (that I will let you look up) that shows how comprehensive sex education delays sexual activity and promotes more healthy and safe sex practices, while abstinence only education makes virtually no difference in students' sexual initiation, and tends to lead to more STI transmissions and more unwanted pregnancies. I mean, I don't like to think about kids having sex either, but shouldn't they be informed and safe? If kids are going to be around guns unsupervised, they should be taught how to use them safely. Why should sex be any different?

Sarah Palin said her foreign policy experience was quite extensive, citing the fact that Putin flies over Alaska on his way to Washington. Extensive? Joe Biden is one of the foremost experts in foreign policy in the nation, and his experience involves a lot more than looking up to see someone flying over his head. Sarah Palin didn't even have a passport until 5 years ago. She's been to two foreign countries; Ireland and Kuwait. When she was in Ireland, it was because a plane she was on stopped there for gas, she never even got out.

Sarah Palin had never heard of the 'Bush Doctrine,' and didn't know what it meant. Sarah Palin said that since she didn't travel, she relied on books and magazines to help shape her world view. When asked to name one, she couldn't, and replied, 'Oh, all of them.' Sarah Palin kills moose for sport, not to eat, but for sport. Like Chris Rock said to Larry King, 'Sarah Palin is out killing moose, why is Michael Vick in jail?'

The list goes on. And on. And on. I will spare you more, but I think you get the point.

I give up

Look, I feel sorry for Sarah Palin because she is simply a pawn of John McCain. It was frustratingly clear during her interview with Katie Couric that she didn't know anything, but that she was doing her best in this situation McCain forced her into for the sake of picking up some extra votes. However, the truth remains, she is a political moron. John McCain said the presidency is not conducive to on-the-job training, yet he selects a running mate that has less experience than the man he was criticizing for not having enough experience?!?!

I don't know what else to say. I don't. I think the case againts McCain has grown far beyond intelligent debate. It has gotten to the point where higher ups in McCain's own campaign are calling for the resignation of Sarah Palin, and some of his most famously staunch supporters are calling McCain irresponsible for his choice of running mate. When your own campaign can no longer spin the decision in a positive way, something is wrong.

Barack Obama is not America's savior like some paint him as being. Barack Obama will not fix all of our problems, and he won't turn this nation around. However, I believe he has the best chance of setting the wheels in motion for fixing a lot of the problems we have. John McCain has no plans for any type of significant changes in terms of policy for a nation that George Bush has run into the ground. George Bush has a 28% approval rating, the lowest for any president in recent history, and John McCain's plans and ideas are the exact same as his. Something is wrong here. If you don't like one, you won't like the other.

And for the love of God, it's nuclear.

The Future of Health Care?

One (of the many) issues both candidates are hesitant to talk about in any detail is health care. There is a good reason for that; neither one of them have a decent plan for improving it. Health care continues to be one of America's biggest problems. Over the last 8 years health spending has skyrocketed to nearly 18% of the national GDP, insurance premiums have more than doubled, the number of uninsured people has increased, and businesses have struggled to keep up with the increasing prices. What's just as scary is that there's no good news from either candidate thus far about any of this improving anytime soon.

Canada is not the answer.

Before I get into both candidates' respective plans, I would like to talk about Canada's health care system for a minute. Many people, especially modern American hippies, love to praise Canada's socialist health care system. The fact is, it's no better than ours. What most people don't realize is that although everyone in Canada is covered by their state run, single-payer system, close to 70% of Canadians have additional private health care because the national plan doesn't afford them adequate coverage.

Also consider that the wait in Canada right now for elective surgery and treatment, on average, is just under 20 weeks. Let me be clear, elective surgery in Canada does not mean nose jobs and breast augmentations like it does in America. If you are in Canada and need a hernia operation, a torn ACL repaired, breast cancer radiation therapy, a fractured hip repaired, surgery on a torn rotator cuff, etc., you are looking at a 4-5 month waiting period. At least. If it's a hernia operation or torn ACL (or a variety of other ailments) you could be waiting as much as 3 years. Granted, these things are not emergencies, but I'll let you tell a woman with breast cancer that her radiation therapy is 'elective' and isn't a pressing matter.

Many Canadians come to the United States for a lot of their major health care needs. The Canadian system is great in that everyone gets some kind of coverage. However, that doesn't mean the coverage is good. Most of the best doctors remain private, so we are not looking at an equal quality of care across the board. Add to that they fact that taxes are higher to help support the plan. Basically, those with any kind of money will pay for health care one way or another, either through taxes or through a private insurance company.

I have much more to say about Canada and its health care system, but I will leave it at that for now.

Obama's Plan

The two main problems with Obama's plan are its subjectiveness and ambitiousness. His plan sounds great - in theory. First of all, I say his plan is subjective because it uses a lot of words like 'reasonable' and 'average' and 'generally accepted.' These are words to be cautious of in any situation regarding something you will be paying for, but it is especially important to look out for them in regard to health care. The vagueness of Obama's health care plan serves two purposes: 1) to make the plan sound good and sell you on it, and 2) to act as an insurance policy giving his administration wiggle room for setting exact terms later. What I find to be 'generally accepted' or 'reasonable' health care might be 'rarely accepted' and 'unreasonable' to Obama's administration, and I don't want to get caught in that trap.

The other main problem is his ambition. Health care for all, even the poor, is a great idea. Perhaps the best idea out there right now in terms of policy of any kind. However, it almost certainly can't work. It definitely cannot happen in Obama's 4 or potentially 8 years as president, and probably not even in the next 15 years. Even if it does, we will find ourselves with a welfare health care system. Those who can afford private health care will still have it, only they will be shouldering an extra tax burden to pay for those who can't, meaning the ones who can barely afford it now won't be able to then.

Also, good doctors will remain private to make the money they are making now, leaving those covered by the national plan with the leftovers. Not to say they would be bad, but they wouldn't be the best. Basically, as with anything, you get what you pay for. If you pay a minimum tax for health care, you will receive minimum service. I could go on forever about socialized health care, but that is all I will say for now.

McCain's Plan

His plan, like almost all of his plans, is to keep things the way they are now - with a twist or two. The first twist is that he has no plan for stopping inflation of prices or for protecting those who are being taken advantage of right now. The other twist is that he plans on taxing private health care for the first time in history. This will increase premiums and deductibles, and force many businesses to offer less comprehensive coverage to employees.

John McCain's ideas about taxing the hell out of the little man never seem to make much sense unless you're like him - rich. This is one thing (among many) that the market will not eventually fix like he says it will. Although I don't care for Obama's plan much, he at least has one and has put a lot of time and thought into it. McCain's lack of even proposing something new shows how disconnected he is with the nation.

So what should we do?

I don't have the answer. My only suggestion would be a sort of hybrid of both plans mentioned above. Leave health care privatized and more or less how it is, however, expand it to include a national, socialized system for children. Children must be insured, regardless of parental coverage. If their parents' plan is better than the national plan, then continue to let them be included in those plans as dependents. However, if they aren't, make sure they have some kind of coverage so that their parents don't pass on treatment for fear of financial repercussions.

Second, make sure people can receive emergency care. I don't mean emergency room care, I mean legitimate emergency care without digging themselves into a hole that is impossible to overcome. We need to sit down and make a list of covered emergencies, and have ER doctor's sign off on diagnoses. It isn't perfect, but we must try to protect people.

ObaMac vs. McCrosoft

I was watching TV yesterday and I saw the new Microsoft ad where they use an image similar to 'PC' from the Mac ad campaign 'Mac vs. PC.' This struck me as seeming eerily familiar, and then it hit me; Obama and McCain are the new Mac and PC. This may sound a little far fetched, but hear me out.

On one hand we have Mac and Obama, or ObaMac. Both are sleeker, more stylish, more modern, more hip. Both offer new and different systems of operating. Both represent change, redesign, out with the old, in with the new. Their campaigns are similar in that they try appeal to younger generations, and paint their competition as being old and outdated. ObamMac likes to point out their opponent's habitual weaknesses that seem to follow them year after year, and offer the people an alternative that is more people-friendly and fresh. And let's face it, ObaMac supporters are all a little pretentious about their 'candidate.'

Then we have Microsoft (PC) and McCain, or McCrosoft. These are the old go-to guys that have been running things for years. They are wealthy and influential. The majority of people have been supporting them because they are familiar, comfortable, and there was no real quality alternative. They like to brag about their history, reminiscing about their days on the front lines and how they persevered and climbed their way to the top. They don't like to talk about their shortcomings, and instead focus on their opponent's lack of experience and people's unfamiliarity with them.

Shaking things up.

None of this really occurred to me until I saw Microsoft's new ad for the 30th time in 2 days. Microsoft's new ad campaign embraces Macintosh's 'Mac vs. PC' campaign and tries to claim it and use it in their favor. It is striking similar to John McCain's strategy of hijacking Obama's 'change' campaign and using it for himself. Mac's and Obama's campaigns had been so effective that the only way to beat them was to join them in a sense. 'McCrosoft' is trying to redefine itself, and they are using their competition's ideas against them.

Another similarity is that John McCain and Microsoft were both a little jealous of their competition's celebrity-like popularity, so both recently hired or appointed their own celebrities to even the playing field. (Palin for McCain, Jerry Seinfeld, Eva Longoria, Tony Parker, Pharrell Williams for Microsoft) This strategy may work better for Microsoft than McCain, because in the end people need to 'buy' McCain, not Sarah Palin. (I'm sure John McCain hates that)

What does it all mean?

It is too early to tell how these ads and strategies will work out in either case. However, McCain and Microsoft should be aware that no amount of celebrities, new slogans and campaigns are going to fix the actual problems with their 'products.' Mac and Obama should be careful not to get to comfortable with themselves or their platforms. Most importantly, all of the above should keep the people's best interest in mind when campaigning for their money/vote.

It is interesting to see how much more consumer-ized presidential races have become. Candidates are not as worried about informing the public about their views as much as they're worried about winning their vote. This is a scary trend, especially when people get carried away with making the sale. It would be nice if we couldn't find similarities between two battling presidential candidates and two battling big corporations.

Question for Conservatives: How far is too far?

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I understand that for the conservative demographic, John McCain says a lot of things that are appealing, especially in regard to social issues. However, one thing I cannot understand is how a so-called 'Christian' candidate can run the most despicable and dishonest campaign in recorded history and still retain the adoration of people supposedly voting on a moral basis? Look, I'm a democrat, and a Christian, and tend to be more liberal, all of the qualities John Kerry claimed to have. Yet I felt that John Kerry was a dishonest, arrogant, greater-than-thou type of individual, and I couldn't support him in good conscience.

Why is it different for other people? I mean, you know McCain's campaign is bad when Karl Rove, notorious for running filthy campaigns and using questionable tactics, said that McCain's campaign had 'gone too far' in some of their ads against Barack Obama. This is coming from the same man who used to use racist ads in southern states to try and sway people into voting for George Bush in the primaries. But just how dishonest has McCain been?

Enough is Enough.
(I am only going to discuss some of the more offensive lies from the McCain campaign, for a more comprehensive list, go here)

McCain loves to talk about how much he hates lobbyists. Bullshit. Pardon my language, but it is and there's no nice way of saying it. Please go here. The truth is that McCain has more lobbyists and former lobbyists running his campaign than any other candidate, democrat or republican, in the last year. His top 7 advisers are all former lobbyists.

I am so sick of hearing about Sarah Palin's opposition to the 'Bridge to Nowhere.' The truth is, Sarah Palin supported the bridge - when the government was footing the $200 million bill. She only opposed the bill when congress voted against government funding for the project and Palin and Alaska were forced to finance it themselves.

Recently, on 'The View,' John McCain vehemently insisted that Sarah Palin didn't accept any earmarks while governor of Alaska. Actually, she requested $198 million worth of earmarks, the most money per capita of any state.

John McCain and Sarah Palin both claim that Alaska provides 20% of the energy resources for America. Recent figures totaling America's energy resource providers list Alaska as supplying just over 3%.

McCain blasted Obama for his 'lipstick on a pig' statement, claiming it was a sexist attack on Sarah Palin. However, on Monday, September 15, McCain stated publicly that Obama's comment was innocent and didn't refer to, nor was it an attack on Sarah Palin. This statement comes after a national ad approved by McCain that accuses Obama of using the term in reference to Palin.

A recent McCain ad claims that Obama wants to teach children in schools about sex before teaching them how to read. Actually, Obama does plan on revamping sex education in schools, but for the younger kids, including kindergarteners, he wants to implement a new program that would warn kids about the dangers of sexual predators on and off-line. The program would teach children how to look for inappropriate behavior from adults and how to protect themselves from becoming victims of abuse.

I will not go into detail, because it isn't worth it, but 3 new McCain ads ALL make false claims and misrepresentations about Obama's tax policies. Check it out here.

McCain claims that wind, solar, and water power are the energy sources of the future. However, during his 25+ years in the government he has voted against every bill he came across that would have provided government funding for alternative energy sources research and proliferation, including, you guessed it, wind, solar and water power. Also, his new energy plan contains no funding or means for increasing research or implementation of alternative energy sources.

It is despicable.

Look, I know that words get twisted and facts and quotes get misused in campaigns. Obama has done it. Bush did it a lot. Kerry and Clinton and Gore and every other politician have done it. The difference is that McCain flat out lies. I'm not talking about misquotes, I'm not talking about 'convenient presentations' of facts. I'm talking about flat out lies. He is campaigning strictly to win and in the process he is compromising the well being and integrity of the American public and the future of this country.

The Future of 'Print' Media?

Putting magazine content on the internet is no new idea, but internet content in a magazine? That is exactly what Esquire will be offering next month with limited special editions of their publication. 100,000 of Esquire's roughly 700,000 magazines will feature content 'printed' with 'e-ink' technology. The technology produces small, rudimentary animations within the pages of the magazine, primarily on the front, inside and back covers.

This new breakthrough is the latest example of print media's refusal to concede in the battle with digital media, this time by taking a page out of the opposition's book (or non-book in this case). However, as a long-time fan of print media art and a type of graphic design that is unique to magazines and books, this is an unsettling sign. You may notice in the video that one of the first implementations of this new technology is in a Ford Motors advertisement, a company that invested a considerable amount of money in the development of the technology. Aren't print advertisements in magazines already loud and disorienting enough? And that is before they can flash, move and potentially make noise.

The problem with most new design technologies is the limitless nature of the possibilities. Designers have a wide variety of options available, and often have trouble showing restraint in using them. It is the reason many Flash-based websites don't work. Flash makes it possible to create a lot of eye-popping animations, interactive content, complex navigational structures, etc. But just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Design should augment the content, not distract from it. When designers get carried away with unnecessary bells and whistles, content often gets lost in design. With the advent of this new technology, we may see even more garish ads, story headers, tables of content, etc, within magazines. It may become less like reading a magazine and more like physically flipping through the pages of a website.

I don't know about you, but I read magazines because I want to read magazines. I like the fact that the words, pictures, and graphics in print media are static. I like the fact that I can read an article and look at related photos without a backlight or flashing content. I like the way graphic designers work to create something that grabs and holds your attention without having to change it every 5 seconds. When I want digital content, I will look it up on the computer.

Straight Talk Express...How Fitting

Abortion rights, economic viewpoints, ideas on alternative energy sources, 2nd amendment interpretations, health care plans, and tax ideas aside, one of my biggest problems with Republicans is their medieval opinion about gay rights, especially in regard to gay marriage. Isn't it funny how a party can claim to be the party of the people, yet take a firm stance against granting certain basic rights to a significant portion of the population? The Republicans' denouncement of gay marriage is yet another reminder of how out of tune they are with most of America.

I think it is perfect that John McCain's tour bus is called 'The Straight Talk Express,' because that's exactly what it is, straight talk. It is a rolling 'not-welcome' wagon to the roughly 25 million Americans who identify themselves as homosexual. 25 million of our brothers and sisters that John McCain, Sarah Palin, and their potential Supreme Court justice selections will not lift a finger to help in terms of equal rights or unprejudiced lawmaking. It is a 'hate talk express.'

Doesn't this all seem familiar?

'Legalizing this type of marriage necessarily involves (the) degradation of conventional marriage, an institution that deserves admiration rather than execration.'

'When people like this marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.'

Sound familiar? The fact is, the above quotes are not about gay marriage at all, but instead are from the 1940's and 1950's and regard interracial marriage. These quotes were from a U.S. senator and a U.S. appeals judge, and there are many others like them. Today, interracial marriage is not only legal but is socially accepted and relatively common, as it should be. I don't think you'd hear any current politician trying to make a case against interracial marriage, and if they did they should be stomped out and deported.

Yet Republicans today are using the exact same arguments against gay marriage that rednecks and bigots were using against interracial marriage 60-70 years ago. Why isn't there more of an outrage?

Who is it hurting?

Why shouldn't my gay and lesbian friends and family members have the same marriage rights that I have? What's the difference to John McCain if I marry my girlfriend or my lesbian friend marries her girlfriend? Does he sleep better knowing that I'm allowed and they aren't?

What he and others who share his viewpoint need to understand is that homosexual couples are going to be together whether they're married or not. He's not going to change their minds. He's not going to discourage their feelings. They will continue to be together, continue to love each other, and continue to be valuable members of society just like any heterosexual person. Why not allow them to be together in the same legal sense we allow everyone else?

What I would like to see more than anything is the end of conservative people's obsession with the private lives of others. Live and let live. Be happy that your neighbor is happy. Don't try to control their private lives, the part of their lives that takes place consensually behind closed doors. If Republicans are the great Christians they claim to be, they should take what Jesus actually taught to heart:

'Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measure to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.'
- Matthew 7.1-5

In a world....without Don LaFontaine

Yesterday (August 2, 2008), America's most famous voiceover, Don LaFontaine (originator of the 'In a world...' phrase at the beginning to movie trailers), passed away at the age of 68 from complications from a blood clot in his lung.

What a lot of people don't realize about him is that he was actually a writer, director, producer, etc. before he got into voice acting, by accident. He had reportedly done voice overs for over 5,000 films and projects, as well as appeared in many commercials and TV promotional spots.

Don is an example of just how many ways one can break into the Hollywood scene. His creativity and unique talent helped propel him to the top of Hollywood, even though most people never even knew his name. He also played a major role in the way movie trailers were designed, with his voice and delivery in mind as they decided how to put the visuals together.

John McCain: The Nazi Maverick?

Toward the end of August, Madonna kicked off her 'Sticky and Sweet' tour in Europe, and not surprisingly, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the show. The controversy is a result of a video that played in the background during her new song 'Get Stupid', where pictures of John McCain were flashed alongside pictures of war, destruction, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, and more importantly, the Nazis and Adolf Hitler. The McCain camp was quick to denounce the video, and Republican gofer Tucker Bounds declared the comparisons 'outrageous' and 'unacceptable'.

Republicans were up in arms about the Nazi comparisons, and appalled that someone, who is not even part of the Obama camp, would make such 'childish' allegations and comparisons. I guess they don't consider their ads comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton as being childish. I didn't hear much complaint from their camp when Republican South Carolina Senator Kevin Bryant put up a picture of Obama and Osama Bin Laden side-by-side on his website, claiming the only difference between the two was 'a little B.S.'

But perhaps there is more to the Nazi comparison than meets the eye. Consider for a moment one of the many interesting points former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, made about McCain and Republicans on Larry King Live. He commented that listening to the ideas of the Republicans during their campaign reminded him of the ideas of Hermann Göring, a former Nazi military leader convicted of a slew of war crimes at Nuremberg.

One of Göring's most famous ideas and quotes is from Gustav Gilbert's Nuremberg Diary, and reads as follows:

'It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'
- Nuremberg Diary

I realize that calling McCain a Nazi is a bit extreme. However, Ventura raises an interesting point in comparing the Republicans' campaign tactics to Göring's ideas. Consider how many times McCain has mentioned how he is better able to 'keep us safe from future attacks,' how he is 'more qualified to protect the country from terrorists,' more qualified and willing to 'hunt them down in Afghanistan, and get us out of Iraq,' and how he questioned Obama's patriotism when he said Obama 'would rather lose a war and win an election.'

The Republicans constantly remind us of an ominous threat to our country from overseas, and use McCain's political experience to reassure the people that he is the right man to help us. McCain himself also likes to continually bring up the fact that Obama and Democrats are 'soft' on the war on terror, even though Obama pushed for more troops in Afghanistan while McCain supported a new, distracting conflict in Iraq. They use this idea of impending attacks as a distraction from things like energy and the economy, things which John McCain has no widely respected plans to fix. In an interview with Fortune Magazine in June, McCain was asked what the biggest threat to the economy is, to which he replied:

'Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.'
- Fortune Magazine/CNN Money

That's forgetting that fact that McCain adviser Charlie Black said, on record, that a new attack on America would 'be a big advantage for McCain.' These 'politics of fear' tactics the Republicans are using certainly hearken back to the Nazi strategies of scaring the people and exploiting their insecurities, and we should keep a watchful eye on the way they are preying on our fears and emotions, rather than our opinions and reasoning. We should not fall victims to their scare tactics, and instead hold them accountable for the way they mismanaged this country for 8 years and demand to know their plans for this country that don't involve war or terror.

From Salem to Selma

There are two things I think most of us can agree on about the state of racism in this country; it is (unfortunately) still alive, but it is slowly dying and becoming less prominent. We finally have a black presidential nominee, secretary of state, supreme court justice, etc. In this time of increasing racial acceptance and relative harmony, there has been a rise in social and racial consciousness. But when does it go too far, to the point of retrogression?

When I first saw previews for the movie 'Hancock', I was excited to see that a new Will Smith movie was coming out. I am the biggest Will Smith fan in the world outside of Philadelphia, and couldn't wait to see Will's depiction of this unwitting superhero. However, about a week after its release I came across an interesting blog post entitled 'Hancock: The First Ni**a Superhero!' (You'll have to scroll down to see that particular post, but I highly recommend reading it). Now, I am not much for conspiracy theories, as this post claims to be. However, I felt like Jasiri X made a lot of very acute and perceptive points about the possible racist undertones of the film, to the point where I just couldn't support it. (Sorry Will)

Jasiri X's post is indicative of a post-civil-rights-movement trend in America where people have become hypersensitive to racism, and started using a much more powerful magnifying glass through which they look at the media. However, this closer examination of the media is not always as poignant as Jasiri X's observation, and lately this hypersensitivity has manifested itself in what seem like 'racist witch hunts'. I was reminded of this fact again during the Republican National Convention coverage. I saw a blog post regarding this clip featuring Ben Stein's take on the election, and how Ben Stein was a racist for his remarks about Barack Obama. (I regrettably cannot find that post right now)

Despite my disdain for most conservative republican analysts, Ben Stein is actually a fair, intelligent, and usually objective analyst who is good about not letting his personal biases get in the way of his objective opinion. If you watch the clip, he was giving his honest opinion about why people may not vote for Obama, especially when many prejudice Americans see him as an 'angry black man'. He even goes on to say how he hates saying it and that he 'abhors racism', but that doesn't make it into the blog posts.

Racism is like drugs; if you look for it hard enough, you'll find it somewhere, and your search for and use of it is going to work against everything good in your life and everything good in the life of those around you. In my opinion there is no quality a person can have that is more offensive or despicable than racism or sexism, and I think it is a good sign that people are looking out for bigotry and hatred and challenging those with ignorant and hurtful material. However, we must be careful not to create a society where we are quick to blame and make people afraid to speak their mind or feel like they must censor their ideas.

Looking too hard for racism is just as dangerous as not looking hard enough.