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.

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.

Electoral Votes:

McCain:

Obama:

Key States (who wins):

Virginia:

Pennsylvania:

Ohio:

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

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?

 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.

 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?

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.