the election comes to south park

i am sure most of you are aware of the comedy central show south park, and i am also sure that at least a few of you are aware or saw last wednesdays all new south park having to do with the election. what amazed me was the the concession speech of john mccain and the speech given by barack obama were the last two things to end tuesday night, but happened to be the opening scene of wednesdays south park episode. this impressed me because of the quickness which they got those scenes incorporated into the new episode, quotes and all.

south park which started over ten years ago used to be nonsensical plots incorporated with bathroom humor. to quote seinfield “not that there’s anything wrong with that”. as south park has matured so have its plot lines. they have managed to use their humor in unison with topical events in everything from britney spears to the 2008 election.

wednesdays episode as previously stated had to do with the election, but focused on the aftermath. south park catured the extreme biases of both parties with the obama supporters partying in the streets with music, alcohol, chants of yes we can, and the ideology that things are instantly different and better now. the mccain supporters on the other hand think that america was they know it is over and are living in shacks, moving elsewhere, and trying to kill themselves. but the fun doesn’t end there. as it turns out the plot takes an oceans 11 turn and has mccain and obama as partners in a heist for the hope diamond (which can only be obtained through an escape tunnel from the oval office). together with help from their accomplices “michelle obama” (really their alarm cracking expert) and sarah palin (a british diamond thief) they attempt to pull off this heist. do they succeed? you’re just going to have to tune in and find out yourself.

Watching Obama Vote

on election day i happened to be flipping through the channels when there was breaking news that obama was about to vote. having little else to do tuesday morning as i was waking up i decided to stay there and watch. (better to watch that then “the view”) the whole obama family walked in together and him and michelle went behind those barriers where you fill out the paper forms. now your saying big deal, whats so special about that. well the thing that was most interesting to me is how he started explaining the whole thing to his daughters, and really made them aware of the process and the importance of it. he spent a very long time doing this, probably much to the dismay of the rest of the voters standing in line.

the reason why i found this so important is because i feel like parents rarely include their children in the voting process. when your a little kid if you happened to be dragged along to the place where you cast your vote most of the time its all about getting in and getting out maybe with the occasional “stand right there and don’t move while i vote”. i feel parents should include their children in the process and explain to them the importance of voting, and the privledge of it. this way more people would be aware starting at a very early age and hopefully the number of americans who exercise their right to vote would increase.

Election Predictions

Post yours in the comment section:

Electoral Votes:

McCain:

Obama:

Key States (who wins):

Virginia:

Pennsylvania:

Ohio:

You can figure out the EV’s at: http://www.270towin.com/

Socialism Issue

Obama wants to spread the wealth around.  Now that we’ve seen several “Joe the Plumber” ads, we’ve seen these people comment on how they don’t want their hard earned money to be given to the government.  So do these people actually make $250,000 a year?  A study on the website Payscale.com  http://www.payscale.com/index/US/State) has shown me that many Americans earn less than $100,000 a year for their job.  This does not incluede small businesses or corporations.  From what I’m seeing, Obama wants to tax the corporations that earn several hundred thousand to several million dollars a year.  I feel that they should at least contribute a bit for helping out the government.  Most of the time, it’s the little man that’s doing all the work, and the corporation heads that receive the benefits.  I don’t feel that we should stick to many plans that would lead to socialism such as universal health care, but I do think that we should at least give a little bit back in helping the government take care of us.  For those who feel they deserve to keep it all, well, maybe we shouldn’t put money towards the roads that drive you to your offices, or the police departments and fire departments that keep our streets safe, or the schools to keep our children educated so that they can learn to manage for themselves.

Colin Powell Supports Obama

Alright, I know this happened about two weeks ago, so I’m going to give my opinions and I wanna know what you guys think.  Colin Powell support for Barack Obama.  We know it’s a stab at the Republican Party, considering that Powell’s been angry at the Bush Administration after the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq turned out to be false.  But Rush Limbaugh has said that his support is about race.  I do not believe that to be true.  I feel he thinks that Obama is good enough to run our country.  So, do you think his support will make people change their minds, or persuade on the fencers to support Obama? I feel it’s too late, people have already made up their minds by now, or if they are, it’s not going to matter.  But with Powell being such a prominent figure in America, many Republicans may reconsider, right?

Just be Tuesday, already.

It’s so close. The election is four days away, and I feel like I can’t turn on the tv or check my e-mail without being barraged by Michelle, Barack and Mark. Yes, I know there are only a few days left, and I’ve seen the polls, I know there is still work left to be done.

I might even go out and canvass once more, but I honestly wish I could go to bed tonight and wake up ready to go to the polls. I don’t want to hear either candidate’s last minute attempts to smear their candidates with unsubstantiated rumors, I don’t want one more “more of the same” or “not ready” attack ads that were annoying when they began. CNN analyzes every percentage point, every shift in a fraction of a percent.

I can’t wait for Tuesday, but getting there is going to be a long haul. Does anyone else feel this way? Are the last few days exciting, or do you just want to cut yourself off from technology and wait it out?

Elections and Megachurches

I just saw this article and laughed out loud until I began reading, at which point I became a little uneasy.
 http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bigsort…

The author attempts to prove that “running a campaign is like building a megachurch.” He first goes through the general history of a megachurch, which was inspired when a missionary in India decided that the best way to convert people was to do it in groups, not one by one. This principle, in short, became the foundation of the megachurch.

Connecting to the 2004 George W. Bush campaign, the author describes how many people canvassing for the candidate “witnessed” to potential voters, creating an experience that was inherently religious. They targeted groups of people, focused “inward” on people they knew and connected with, and explained that Bush represented nothing new, but the values and life that they already lead.

I’m not very comfortable with this concept. I think that campaigns should seek to educate, to energize and to encourage. They should not be convincing voters that their candidate is “just like them.” That, apart from never being actually true, is not helpful in the choosing of a candidate. My choice candidate is not the one who is “most like me,” but the one whose policies are best.

The Republicans get their turn as Sarah Palin speaks to a crowd of 8000 people.  That’s not even half of the spectators to the Obama rally last month.  Obviously, this shows where Fredericksburg stands in the presidency (which makes sense, being a college campus and everything).  Virginia has been a swing state for awhile, but polls within the last month or so has shown Virginia a blue state.  That doesn’t mean the McCain campaign won’t try to change the state’s mind.  Like the Obama rally, rain poured for Sarah Palin.  But this did not stop her from passing on her message of country first and anti-socialism (something Obama has been accused of).  John McCain has been trailing in the polls, and from my perspective, I doubt they’ll be able to change enough minds, but I do like McCain’s tenacity to never give up or surrender.

Drudge lost his mojo?

I found an article talking about the internet newsguy’s possible declinde in power:
 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/…

It stated Drudge’s possible out-of-touch-ness, due to his cautionary comments about Obama…..

On Monday, Drudge posted a link to this You Tube clip featuring an Obama radio interview from 2001 with a headline that blared: “2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT ‘REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH’ NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT.”

• Early on Tuesday, Drudge used a comic book picture of Obama over a headline that read: “ABCCBSNBCNYTLATWSJCNNMSNBCAPREUTERSAFPPOLITICOFTTIMEWASHPOSTNEWSWEEK: CAN THEY ALL BE WRONG?” It linked to this column on media bias by technology writer Michael Malone.

• Later in the day, Drudge led his site for hours with a picture of a smiling Obama giving the “thumbs up” over a banner headline reading: “OBAMA SAYS ‘DAY OFF’ WORK FOR ELECTION.”

• Then on Wednesday, Drudge featured an image of one of Gallup’s likely voter models that showed Obama at 49 percent and McCain at 47 percent with the headline: “TRICK OR TREAT: GALLUP SAYS OBAMA +2.”

It’s clear from this series of posts that Drudge believes the media is missing a John McCain comeback, and he is bound and determined to push the idea that Obama is far from a sure thing.

Is Drudge losing it?

Why Marx Would Vote for McCain

Perhaps the most absurd contention that has arisen in the final weeks of the campaign is that Barack Obama is a Socialist or Communist, or some perverted combination of the above. If anything, Senator Obama is the anti-Marxist candidate; a true socialist would be well served to vote for John McCain. Obama’s slight revisions to the tax code would only serve to pacify the working classes by granting them increased buying power, thereby strengthening the capitalist system and delaying any sort of socialist revolution. Perhaps, however, after 12 or 16 straight years of republican rule in which income inequality increases exponentially and power is accrued by powerful corporations, the working classes would be so inflamed we’d actually be on the verge of a new American Revolution. The ruling class plays an important part in Marxist theory: goading the proletariat until a revolution is absolutely neccessary. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better.

If Obama’s plan will indeed improve conditions for the middle class (a point which republicans barely even bother to refute), then we won’t see the neccessary class disparities, which in turn would inflame tensions and create class warfare, which in turn would lead to a socialist revolution, and finally to communism. Marx wasn’t a big government liberal, he encouraged class warfare. Obama’s plan simply pacifies the working class with a few meager handouts while masking the true capitalist injustices. A comfortable society is not a revolutionary society, and the entire democratic platform from congress on up to Obama is based on giving the middle class enough money so that they can buy comfort. Hypothetically, if Jane the teacher is making $5,000 dollars a more year under Obama than she would under McCain is she going to be more or less inspired to overthrow the oppressive, capitalist machine? Socialism doesn’t equal a marginally larger government with more social programs and taxes on the rich, it’s a wholesale philosophy that is first borne out of rage at an unjust class system.

True Marxism is first based on overthrowing the system or the structure and then altering the “hearts of men” over the course of time. It’s the old catch 22; how can the practical system itself be changed without first altering the general philosophy, but how can the philosophy be changed without first altering the system? Obama would encourage individuals (especially those in power) to be more magnanimous, caring, and generous and he believes that their hearts can be changed enough to eventually create a sort of ideal capitalist system. If he were a Marxist, he would see the ruling classes as irredeemable, and thus their ruling apparatus must be overthrown before anything can be truly altered or improved in the United States. Either Obama is a naive idealist, or he is a Marxist; he isn’t both.

John McCain and Joe the Plumber have attempted to prey on American fear and ignorance about socialism (which ironically used to have a positive connotation, thus the Nazi use of the world ”socialism” when their fascism was anything but), but thankfully it hasn’t gained much traction. Most Americans realize that a minor alteration to the tax code is a far car from class warfare and state ownership. If Obama advocates violent overthrow of himself once he’s elected, then I’ll start believing John McCain and Sarah Palin, but until then throwing around “socialism” is shameless fear mongering.

McCain on SNL?

 http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/…

This little blurb on the New York Times website surprised me a little bit, but I quickly came to reconsider. It could be a dangerous thing to do, going on SNL so close to the election. It’s always a risky proposition, going on a show that has been lampooning you, sometimes harshly, and it could be hard to recover before Tuesday should anything humiliating happen.

But the way McCain has been doing lately, I figure this maybe one of his best bets in making himself a little more approachable and a little less of the cranky old man that he seems to have been playing lately. This could actually be a pretty smart move, and chances are he won’t actually get grilled.

What do you guys think? Is it smart?

Five More Friends

This advertisement appears to be headed by Leonardo DiCaprio, who seems to be equal parts activist and actor now.  It’s a sequal of sorts to the first “Five Friends” clip, which featured many celebrities encouraging you to “not vote” unless you cared about things like healthcare, abortion, terrorism, etc.

This ad had another group of celebrities who began to go along with the whole “don’t vote” idea, but then rebelled and took the opposite side. This was started by Harrison Ford, who refused to tell people note to go to the polls. This was probably the best part of the video, when he reminds the director that the 2000 election was decided by 537 people, and that he cannot tell someone their vote doesn’t count when a number so small decided something so large.

I’m sure most of you have seen or heard of this video, but Sarah’s question last night really got me thinking about it. Why do we care what these people say? Even those of us who consider ourselves reasonably informed still like these videos. We put them up as our statuses and our away messages. I think it’s because, as ridiculous as it is, having someone like Leo or tom Cruise reaffirming your political beliefs, lending their face to the cause, really makes it legitimate. They don’t say anything new, they just make people more willing to pay attention.

Think of Angelina Jolie and her humanitarian work. She is using her fame to direct attention to issues of importance. No one would say that genocide prevention is unimportant, but when Angelina is traipsing around in Sudan, we watch, and she makes people aware of things they may not have paid attention to before.

Thoughts? Or maybe I’ll just take any excuse to see Leo.

Different Perspective on Obama

This op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal on October 30th , written by Mr. Fouad Ajami, Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and an adjunct research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. The editorial says much more eloquently than I could ever express the fears and reservations which I have about Barack Obama’s candidacy. I agree with a lot of what is discussed here, and I hope even Obama supporters would be able to consider these thoughts, which I believe are sober and intelligent observations. Many of his remarks are novel ideas I had not thought of, and I really think his points are good food for thought as we take a critical look at the man who is more than likely to be our next President.

I hesitate to take quotes out of context because I really think this article as a whole, while most likely controversial, at least is very thought provoking in the new perspective it offers. (Also if anyone has taken Professor Barr’s Populism in Latin America class, many of the ideas are slightly reminiscent of the ideas we discuss.)

Teaser: “America is a different land, for me exceptional in all the ways that matter. In recent days, those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies. A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession — its imagination. From Elias Canetti again: “But the crowd, as such, disintegrates. It has a presentiment of this and fears it. . . . Only the growth of the crowd prevents those who belong to it from creeping back under their private burdens.”

2008 Election Halloween Costumes

In the spirit of Halloween, I thought I’d talk a little about people dressing up as the candidates for Halloween. Apparently, according to this Martha Stewart blog, the CEO of Spirit Halloween, a popular costume company, was on a radio program and he informed the viewers that Barack Obama’s mask was outselling John McCain’s mask, 69% to 31% to be exact. It’s funny how the election seems to affect everything, even Halloween. I can’t tell you how many people I know who are going to be Sarah Palin for Halloween this year. Even I dressed up as her a couple of weeks ago at a costume party!

Let’s see if the numbers are this good for the Democrats on Tuesday!

What’s up, LA Times?

These days, when it comes to relationships between domestic terrorists and Presidential nominees, mum’s the word! The history and possible working relationship between Senator Obama and American grown terrorist, William Ayers, is being ushered under the table. Ayers declines interviews and refuse to speak about Senator Obama. His illegal activity through protest and the bombings of several public buildings in the 1960’s shows a clear threat to the interest and security of America. The potential friendship or whatever one might call it, between a Presidential nominee and Ayers is something that the American people deserve and have the right to know about.
As if this weren’t enough, now it has come out that Obama attended, and supported, Professor Rashid Khalidi at his retirement dinner. Khalidi was a spokesman for the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) when it was a U.S. designated terrorist group. Newspaper editors for the L.A. Times state that he was praising this professor. The PLO is a dangerous organization that threatened American ideals. As supporters of Israel, the PLO is an enemy to our allies.
Maybe this was not as big of a deal as the press and GOP is making it out to be. But what if it is? Why are there so many ties to these terrorists/terrorist groups that are harmful to the US? Why can’t we get a straight answer from Obama about these relationships. If they are non-threatening and innocent, why is no one talking? I think America wants to hear from Obama and Ayers, as well as the L.A. Times and Khalidi, to establish an understanding of their ties to one another.
Currently, the LA Times refuses to release a video of the retirement dinner. It would clarify loose ends and explain the truth to the deserving public. So, where is it? Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, spoke yesterday and suggested offering a $50,000 reward for whoever turns over the tape. Maybe this wouldn’t be such a bad idea.
The Obama camp is quick to come to his defense stating Obama’s unwavering support of Israel. He states that Khalidi is not an advisor to him, or his campaign. If I am to understand this correctly, than Reverend Wright preached the word of God to Obama for years with racist and un-patriotic sermons, yet this is no reflection on him and HIS beliefs. Senator Obama has worked together with a known terrorist at the time of their work, William Ayers, yet this is no reflection on him or HIS beliefs. Finally, Obama might have supported Rashid Khalidi, a PLO sympathizer (terrorist organization), yet this is also not a reflection of him or HIS beliefs. Once, twice, three times you’re out, Obama.
There are just too many ties! But this is just my opinion.

Female v. Male candidates

This study discusses an interesting gender bias between voters. Female voters were considered male candidates ‘dominant,’ male voters did not see a difference in dominance based on gender. This is expsing the kind of social structure that influences women to look at men as dominant. Without getting in to a nature v. nurture or logic v. emotional or any other sexist definition of gender, I think that the societal construct that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have been redefining is fascinating. This is insight into why Congress is only twenty percent female and why there has never been a female president.

Female candidates also have higher standards for their image than male candidates. Male candidates, especially if they are older, seem more competent than female candidates. The sexism is blatent in the fact that this study was performed and is being analyzed.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/10/30/pretty.female.politicians.ap/index.html





Spam prevention powered by Akismet