Restoring Sanity

The dynamic Stewart/Colbert duo are holding their rally to restore sanity this weekend. I'm not sure a big crazy rally is the best way to restore sanity. And I'm not sure doing it on a Saturday afternoon is the best way to get ratings. I'm also not sure I'm going. Actually, I'm sure I'm not going. I'm a fan of those guys, but I'm not a "drive seven hours to Washington on a Saturday to be at a rally I could watch on TV" kind of fan, ya know? There are only three things I'd get up at 7AM and drive to D.C. for:
1) Guns n Roses reunion
2) For some reason, they've decided to make me the President
3) Another Guns n Roses reunion

By the way, I think it's worth noting that when we talk about restoring sanity, we're really talking about relative sanity. The sanity of a time when oral sex was an impeachable offense. Not exactly totally sane, but way better than now. I mean, at least they didn't succeed in getting rid of President Clinton. If President Obama was caught with an intern, he'd be out of there faster than Joe Biden could say "oh god! I'm really not up for this! NOOOOOOOOO!".

Anyway, in my mind, there's only one way to restore sanity. Vote. Why? Because the lunatics always vote, in large numbers. I can only think of two ways we could keep the tea people from voting.
1) An all-day Tim McGraw and Toby Keith concert. This sounds like something we could do until you remember that Tim and Toby are on the tea people's side.
2) Shiny objects. This would also work in theory, but there are millions of them. If the rest of us spent next Tuesday distracting the tea people with shiny objects, then nobody would vote. At that point, Congress would have to declare a do-over or something.

I plan on driving almost two hours to vote. I'm not registered to vote yet in my new home state, so I'm driving all the way to southern Connecticut on election day to vote against Linda McMahon. I'm not calling shenanigans on myself for voting in a different state than I just moved to because, as I've previously written, Congress makes the laws for everyone and we all have to deal with their nonsense. I won't vote for Governor or state elections down there, I promise.

Why vote against Linda McMahon? BECAUSE SHE'S THE F*CKING WRESTLING LADY! That's why. I know the tea people are all about new faces and hating career politicians, but there's actually something to be said for having Senators that, ya know, know something about governing and public policy. I'd be the first person to argue that a former CEO could make a good President, Governor or Mayor. Those jobs are also chief executive positions, Senator is a totally different skill set.

So, as much as I'd enjoy tuning into CSPAN one evening next year and seeing Senator McMahon turn on Joe Lieberman by hitting him with a steel chair while Jim Ross declares the day's Senate session a "slobberknocker", I'm voting for the other guy. You can't go from drinking beers with Stone Cold Steve Austin and kicking guys in the groin to the Senate. I'm sure that's in the Constitution somewhere.

The great thing about election day is it's the one day we all really have an equal say. For months before the election, all the influence sits with the big campaign donors and the media outlets that are in the bag for one side or the other. But on election day, everybody gets one vote, and that's it (unless you live in Chicago). And if 75% of the country is not crazy, and we all vote, then logic dictates we should wind up with a relatively sane government.

But that isn't what happens. Instead, all the crazy people vote and most of the rest of us don't bother, especially when there's no Presidential election. The result? Crazy elections with crazy results. There's no way 50% of all the people in Michele Bachmann's district actually like her, it's impossible, she's certifiable. But the crazies all vote for her, and everyone else stays home. Next thing you know, some guy on MSNBC is telling me she might be the next Speaker of the House (that just happened on my TV, I swear) and I'm trying to find out how much a house in Ontario would cost me.

That's my 2010 midterm voting slogan. "Get off your ass and vote for the least crazy person you can find, because you never know who could be the next Bachmann". It has a nice ring to it.

PS...this is a mostly unrelated side note that doesn't have a whole lot to do with anything, but I need to get this off my chest. I watch about 10 minutes of news in the morning while I'm transitioning from asleep to awake enough to drive to work. I usually flip between Fox and MSNBC. I don't have much to say about the MSNBC show, it's just sort of there, which is really what a morning show should be. I'm not really in the mood for learning at 8AM.

On the other hand, Fox and Friends is absolutely the stupidest show on TV. I've decided it has to be intentional. There's no way three people could actually be that stupid, they would have burned the studio down by now. It's like listening to three 2nd graders complain about their teacher. In fact, I'm pretty sure I heard one of them called the President a doodyhead this morning (I could be wrong, I told you I'm half-awake while I watch). It's infuriating, but I can't look away sometimes. It's just so dumb, like a double rainbow of stupidity.

I still watch Glenn Beck sometimes too. He's so far removed from reality at this point I actually kind of feel bad for him. I guess what I'm saying is, I may have to ask my cable company to block Fox from my TV because I don't have the will power to turn it off myself, but I'm pretty sure it's going to break my brain soon.

Reap The Whirlwind

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" Hosea 8:7


If you read this blog enough, you already know that I am, quite possibly, the least religious person in the world. I couldn't believe in god less. I like the bible though. It's well written and contains some of my favorite quotes, including this one from the book of Hosea.

Hosea, by the way, is apparently one of the minor prophets. Tough break there. God talks to you, you're a prophet, seems like a pretty sweet deal. Then, somewhere along the way, you find out you're just a minor prophet. What a slap in the face. Why even bother being a prophet at all? I think the old testament prophets needed a union, so they could collectively bargain for equatable treatment of all prophets.

Anyway, I've been trying to keep up with the midterm elections. It isn't an easy task. Midterms can get pretty boring. First of all, who the hell are these people? Secondly, even when we have a supposedly huge change election, an overwhelming majority of Congress stays the same. For example, 1994 is basically the modern standard for a big change election. 1994 saw a 54 seat swing to the Republican side out of 435 House seats, or about 12%, which means 88% basically stayed the same. In the Senate, the Republicans picked up 8 seats out of 100, I don't really need to do the math for you there.

Boring or not, elections are important, especially Senate elections. The Senate holds the real power when it comes to making our laws. The House passes laws all the time with simple majority votes, but the Senate has all kinds of wacky rules and legislation generally goes there to die. So, if some dumbass state elects some dumbass Senator (I'm looking at you Pennsylvania. Rick Santorum? What were you thinking?) that dumbass is immediately 1% of the major governing body of our country for six long stupid years. Now, imagine what happens if dumbasses all over the country unite to elect a series of dumbass Senators.

In Nevada, the Republicans have nominated Sharron Angle, who, among other things, once suggested that ammunition shortages at sporting goods stores might be evidence that the nation is arming for a revolution against the federal government. Not crazy enough for you? How about this? In discussing her opposition to abortion in the case of rape or incest, Sharron suggested telling the hypothetically impregnated rape victim to turn what was really a lemon of a situation into lemonade.

You might think Angle couldn't possibly win an election, but Ms. Angle is running against Harry Reid, who is as charismatic is he is competent. The real clear politics average currently has Reid ahead of this lunatic by a whopping half a point. If you've ever seen Harry Reid talk, you can understand why I'm not optimistic about him being able to win over voters and take a real lead. If Sharron Angle can manage to avoid committing a felony in the next month and a half, I think she's got a very good shot.

In Kentucky, the Republicans nominated Rand Paul. Rand thinks the President shouldn't have been so hard on BP for filling the Gulf of Mexico with oil. Rand also would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The latest poll in Kentucky has Rand Paul up by 7. Two earlier polls had him up 15. Get ready for Senator Paul (who promises he won't actually try to repeal the Civil Rights Act, seeing as it's already been passed and all. How sporting of him).

Recently, Delaware Republicans nominated Christine O'Donnell. Christine actually seems like a nice person and I think the media has been a little tough on her. First of all, I didn't dabble in witchcraft when I was in high school, but if you had asked 15 year old me if I wanted to go see the satanic altar with the blood on it, I would have said "of course, I'm 15, what about me being 15 would suggest to you that I wouldn't want to see that?".

They're also all over her about her opposition to masturbation. I don't know what to say about that. She was a young Catholic and she was saying what the priests told her to say. I'm less worried about O'Donnell than some of these other people because early polls have her way down and, considering how late her primary was, I'm not sure she has time to recover. However, being that she's wildly unqualified to be a Senator and got nominated over a solid moderate candidate, she's another example of what we're talking about today.

I could on and on like this. Alaska Republicans nominated a guy named Joe Miller instead of re-nominating Republican incumbent, and seemingly non-crazy person, Lisa Murkowski. I don't really know what Joe stands for other than not shaving and not wearing a tie (but if you want to know what Joe stands for, just ask Sarah Palin, because that's who Joe asks when he wants to know what he stands for).

I've already talked about Florida empty vessel Marco Rubio. If Rubio wins it'll be the first time exit polls show a candidate won a Senate seat because of his "great hair" and "winning smile". He and Sarah Palin would make an excellent weekend news team.

New York Republicans nominated some guy named Joe DioGuardi to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand isn't exactly a political dynamo, Republicans could have stolen that seat by nominating a moderate that people have actually heard of instead of some guy who has run for Congress four times and only even managed to get nominated once.

The far right wing of the Republican party and the tea people have sown the wind. This is why I'm not a Republican anymore, the party is now routinely passing on qualified, reasonable people in favor of crazy, unqualified super-duper conservatives. Ideally, we'll watch them reap the whirlwind when they blow a chance to take back Congress from the consistently hapless Democrats. But what happens if all these crazy people ride an anti-incumbent wave to victory on November 2nd? Then, we all have to deal with the whirlwind.

The New Center

I have a theory. Now, I watch Glenn Beck at least a couple of times a week. Glenn has a lot of theories, I think the last one involved Woodrow Wilson secretly traveling back in time to start the slave trade. My theory isn't a Beck-style, category five crazy theory. I'm a bit more of a moderate, and that's sort of my point, this is a theory about moderation.

I've been trying my best to get engaged with the 2010 midterm elections, my efforts are meeting with limited success. The Democrats are undisciplined, somewhat cowardly and really failing to zero in on a message. Ya know, they're acting like Democrats. I can't imagine a way a party could more thoroughly squander a huge majority, but I'm sure the Democrats can.

Meanwhile, the Republican party seems to have been taken over by crazy people. Their nominee in Nevada, Sharron Angle, can generously be described as totally insane. Of course, she still has a decent chance of winning because she's running against Harry Reid's politically dynamic combination of unspeakably boring and unimaginably ineffective. Should be a real barn burner out there.

The Republicans in my current (but, thankfully, soon to be former) state have nominated Linda McMahon. Seriously, the wrestling lady. I swear I'm not joking. But she also still has a decent chance because she's got about a trillion dollars and she's running against a Democrat who kept telling people he served in Vietnam even though he didn't.

I've also noticed the Florida Senate race. Florida has the rare three-way race going. Independent and former Republican Charlie Crist vs. tea party Republican and former hair model Marco Rubio vs. a couple of Democrats who can't even poll at 20% in a pretty 50/50 state. Crist leads the real clear politics average of polls no matter which Democrat you plug in. This brings us to my theory. I think Crist is the leading edge of a big wave of successful independent candidates.

Look at where we are right now. People are rightfully fed up with both parties. The imagineers at Fox News keep telling me the Republican party will win back a majority in the house and maybe the Senate in November. How many times do you think people will go back and forth like this before they realize nothing ever changes? I think Crist wins by double digits in November, partially because he won't be weighed down by the stupidity of either party. That's why I think he should change his campaign slogan to "I'm Charlie Crist, and I don't like either of these guys". I also like that slogan because it's a little punchier than Marco Rubio's "I'm Marco Rubio, and I'll say whatever Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin tell me to say".

In the past, independents struggled because they couldn't raise any real money and they didn't have enough name recognition. Next time you go vote, take a look at the candidates on your ballot after the two major parties. It's a veritable who's who of who the f*ck are these guys. People generally aren't fans of voting for people they've never heard of, or giving them money.

But Sean, you protest, Ross Perot had money and everyone knew who he was, and he still only got just under 19% in the 1992 election. I can't argue with you there. Sure, part of what Perot was known for was his trademark bat-shit insanity, but still, he was well known. So what's different now?

As usual, part of the problem is the internets. An independent candidate doesn't need the party establishment to raise big money anymore. Even major party candidates do a decent amount of fundraising on the internet. I'm not saying an independent can get even with the big parties on money, but I think they can get close enough, if people know who they are. That brings us to culprit number two.

Cable news. People are more well informed about politics now than ever before. Well, maybe I wouldn't say we're well informed, but we're certainly more informed. I live in Connecticut and know who Marco Rubio and Sharron Angle are. Do you think I would have known who they were in 1992? Probably not.

So, here are the factors:
1) People are genuinely fed up with both parties
2) Fundraising is way easier now than it was even 10 years ago
3) Name recognition in politics is almost universal at this point
4) I say an independent is about to destroy both big party candidates in a pretty visible Senate race in Florida

Over the next five/ten years, I think we'll see a wave of moderate, reasonable politicians running for office as independents, and winning. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2020 Senate looked something like 43 Republicans, 41 Democrats and 16 independents. Of course, this means Congress will do even less than it does now. Impossible, you say? That sounds like a challenge.

Further down the road, maybe this even gets us a new third party, which will inevitably become just as corrupt and ineffective as the current two parties. I said I had a theory, I didn't say it was a good thing.

Sticks and Stones

It seems like a weird time for our politics. Lots of anger and shouting and name calling. OK, that doesn't sound all that weird, but it seems to be turned up quite a bit lately. Some people are worried about all this rhetoric being a preamble to something. I don't blame people for worrying.

To be more specific, I don't blame genuinely worried people. On the other hand, people exploiting threats for political gain should find something more constructive to do with themselves. Maybe they should take up pot smoking. It'll totally mellow them out, and they'll most likely lose their jobs so we won't have to deal with them anymore.

Political assassination is a scary thing, because it only takes one lunatic to take a shot at someone. I think threats and violence against big important people like Presidents and Congressmen, or even just celebrities, anyone who has serious security, remind us how unsafe us regular folks are sometimes. So I don't blame people for being worried.

Me? I'm not that worried. I don't think something bad is about to happen. Or, more accurately, I don't think something bad is any more likely to happen now than it normally would be. This strikes me more as a Republican temper tantrum, mixed with the loud, obnoxious racism, homophobia and general intolerance of the tea idiots. Put them together and it looks kind of scary.

But really, the tea people aren't violent, they're just super angry and not terribly bright. And the Republicans aren't violent either. They're mad because they lost an election, and then another one. Then, they really thought they had this health care thing won, and they lost that too. I think this is just the political equivalent of Republicans kicking the wall and calling the Democrats big fat poopyheads. They'll get over it, we just need to get them some ice cream, or take them to McDonald's for dinner, that always did it for me.

Speaking of poopyheads, I have a question for Republicans. Every once in a while, I'll hear some TV bobblehead complain about President Obama's secret plan to redistribute the wealth. They paint him as some kind of evil, big government Robinhood, using taxes and health care to steal from the rich and give to the poor. This, of course, is what makes him a socialist who's destroying America.

Here's my question. Where were all the so-called conservatives when your hero Ronald Reagan was dismantling the middle class with his ridiculous economic theory and redistributing what little wealth they had to rich people? I don't like redistribution of wealth either way, because that's not what the government is supposed to be doing. But it seems to me that a lot of the people calling themselves "conservatives" today are OK with redistributing wealth as long as it's moving upward.

The interesting thing is how many regular, everyday people seem to be all for it. How do you get regular people so angry about making it harder for insurance companies to screw us? Or regulating banks? Or taxing the wealthy? Two theories. The first is the old myth of the American dream. Everyone's planning for the day they get rich. That's an old theory and still a perfectly plausible one. But I have a better idea.

Stockholm syndrome. The insurance companies and the banks and all the other big corporations are holding us hostage. They threaten to set the economy on fire if we don't bail them out. They threaten to raise premiums if health care reform passes. They threaten to lay people off and raise prices if taxes go up. If the government upsets the status quo, the corporations punish the people, that's the threat. And so many of the people buy right into it, but it's not because they're stupid. Being a hostage sucks, you can't blame people for begging the cops to give the hostage takers whatever they want, and you can't blame people for identifying with their captors, it happens all the time.

I guess this means I can't call the tea people stupid anymore (damn, I was really enjoying that). No more calling them tea idiots, or stupid ignorant racist homophobes. Wait, I can still call some of them racist homophobes, that part doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of this, some of those people just really don't like black people (and Arabs, and Muslims, and the gays, oh and Mexicans, we're about to start talking about immigration reform again, I'm pretty sure I can guess where the tea people will stand). But I can't call them stupid anymore, and I won't.

And, honestly, they aren't stupid. They're mostly regular, hard-working people who want what's best for the country. They look stupid sometimes because they're getting all riled up and mislead by the likes of Beck and Hannity and Palin and Bachmann. Ah...I feel so much better, that last sentence just reminded me that I still have plenty of people to call stupid.

Socialism: Day One

The first weekend of the NCAA tournament is the best weekend of the year, and I'm not even a huge college basketball fan. Under the circumstances, I think it was perfect timing. It was like one last great American party before everything changed. Late last night, the House of Representatives passed the health care bill, which means we're now a socialist country, and we don't get to enjoy cool American stuff like the NCAA tournament anymore. It makes perfect sense, because, when I think of socialist/marxist/communists, like say, Hitler and Stalin, I immediately think "health care".

I have to say though, my first day in the United Socialist States of America has been a little disappointing. I mean, look, I'm not happy about being a socialist now, I really liked the old America. But, I've decided to adopt a positive attitude and make the best of our new system of government. I know it's only been one day, but so far, I feel like I'm not getting what I was promised.

I still had to get up and go to work today. I didn't think I'd have to do that anymore. I was expecting the government to just send me some free money that I didn't have to work for. It's a good thing I took a day off on Friday. If I had been at work Friday, knowing socialism was coming on Sunday, I might have quit my job. Without a job or my free government money, I'd be totally screwed right now. Maybe my free money will come at the end of the week, like pay checks do. I'll be waiting.

What about President Obama's death panels? I was sure the government was going to start killing everyone's grandparents as soon as this bill was passed. So far, I don't know of anybody in my family being put to death by the government. It could be that I just don't know about it yet, but I feel like my mother would have called.

"Gee, Sean, lack of death panels doesn't seem like a reason to be disappointed". True, but we all know the death panels are coming, they were a key component of the bill. It's sort of like when you were a kid and you did something really bad. You knew your parents were going to punish you, but then they didn't right away. You spent the rest of the day terrified, just waiting for them to do something. I feel the same way now. I know the death panels are coming, I wish the President would just get it over with. Right now, we don't know who's going to die, or when, or how. This waiting seems cruel and unusual.

Speaking of death, I know for a fact that freedom died yesterday. Republicans in Congress were very clear about this. It's bad enough that I was apparently not invited to the funeral, freedom and I were pretty close, but I haven't even seen a lot of TV coverage. Fox is the only channel really talking about it, and they seem more in denial than anything else. TV covered Michael Jackson's death for like two weeks. Hell, the death of Corey Haim got a few days. Nothing for the death of freedom? I'm disappointed.

Also, since Republicans on TV have been telling me that we're heading toward European-style socialism, I was expecting something with soccer. Europeans love soccer, and I assume it's a key part of their particular brand of socialism. I was expecting something like a $1,000 check in the mail, in exchange for which I would be required to attend and enjoy soccer games. There's soccer happening outside my window right now and, well, I still hate it. Now, I haven't received my soccer subsidy yet, so maybe my feelings will change when it arrives.

What about all the slavery reparations? Glenn Beck was adamant about this bill being part of a secret plan to redistribute wealth in an effort to make reparations for slavery. Shouldn't there be a guy at my door collecting money? Maybe because my family wasn't here until the 1900's I get out of this one. That kind of makes sense, but I don't know, Glenn didn't say anything like that, and he said he was telling me the whole truth. I'll have to check the text of the bill. (Glenn, by the way, is in full tantrum mode right now, it's hilarious)

As a matter of fact, I haven't even noticed a drastic change to my health insurance yet. I think I'm still on the same plan I had last week. I thought they were sending a government bureaucrat to come stand between me and my doctor (in my case, it's an imaginary doctor, because I don't go to doctors and you can't make me). Maybe I'll try to make a doctor's appointment later this week, just to see how crazy and different it is.

I don't know. Maybe socialism is like quitting smoking. When people quit smoking, they don't just magically become 100% healthy right away, it takes a little time. Maybe I should just be patient and wait a few weeks. Or maybe this bill's full socialist effect won't happen until the Senate is done passing the reconciliation fixes. That's certainly possible.

The only other possibility is that Republicans and TV conservatives were lying to me about what was going to happen when this bill passed. No, no that's ridiculous. What kind of person would make up lies to try and defeat a bill that aims to insure over 30 million people? What kind of monster would go on TV, day after day, and hammer a health care bill just to further their own career? No, I don't think any of my TV friends would do that...

OK, OK, I've had my fun. Do I have any serious thoughts about the bill?

1) I don't love this bill, but I'll buy it as a step in the right direction. The pre-existing condition thing is solid policy. So is the part about not kicking people off their plans when they get sick. Allowing kids to stay on parents' policies longer in this economy is a nice touch too. I'm not sure why most of the other good stuff doesn't kick in until 2014, but it probably has something to do with our government being barely functional.

2) I really don't like the individual mandate. I know it's hard to affordably insure sick people without making healthy people be part of the pool. That doesn't mean I have to like it. There isn't a little fine print section at the end of the Constitution that reads "*feel free to violate this document if it makes doing what you want to do too hard". I wonder about Constitutional challenges here. I'm sure I could find something in article one, section eight to uphold this, but, as you may have noticed, I'm not actually on the Supreme Court, so what I can find doesn't matter all that much.

The only thing that blunts my problem with this is the fact that I don't feel like I've ever had a choice. I've had three jobs that provided benefits. All of them just signed me up for a plan, they didn't ask me if I wanted one. Maybe I had to ask about it, like the secret menu at in-n-out burger. Oh well.

3) I especially don't like the individual mandate without a public option. We're basically just forcing everyone to buy insurance from the companies that are already screwing us. Only now we're making it slightly harder to screw us and we're providing subsidies (for the buying, not the screwing, I think).

4) This whole abortion thing is stupid. First of all, it's apparently a nonsense debate because, for reasons I obviously don't fully understand, federal funding of abortion is already illegal. Undeterred by reality, yesterday, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Imagination Land) said it is "morally wrong" to use the tax dollars of pro-life Americans to fund abortion. Really, moron? Quoting one of my all-time favorite TV characters, "I don't know where you get the idea that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for anything of which they disapprove. Lots of them don't like tanks, even more don't like Congress." Is it morally wrong to use the tax dollars of anti-war Americans to fund the military? Of course it isn't.

Someone should have the authority to immediately throw people like Pence out of Congress for stupidity (put that on my list of dream jobs, right near the top too). Either that, or we should send Pence, Michelle Bachmann and Steve King (not the crazy novelist, the crazy Congressman from Iowa) down to the basement of the Capitol to guard the bee whenever Congress is trying to do something serious.

Bachmann: "Duh, Mike, why are we down here?"
Pence: "Aw geez, I told you Michelle, to guard the bee."
King: "But whyyyy?"
Pence: "You guys are pathetic. No wonder Pelosi made me head bee guy."

5) Speaking of abortion, I don't understand how these Republicans can all be against giving more people health insurance. Aren't these the "right to life" people? I'm positive I've seen that on a Republican sign somewhere. Won't it be easier for people to exercise their right to life if they can, you know, stay alive?

6) My favorite part of Health Care Day (that's what I'm calling yesterday, I think it'll catch on) was MSNBC's brief coverage of tea party idiots trying, and apparently failing, to spell out the word "no" on a lawn near the Capitol building. I'm sure they got it right eventually, and MSNBC was probably just mocking them a little to gloat. It was still funny though.

On a more serious note, these tea morons have me seriously considering changing my party affiliation from Republican to Independent. I'm still up in the air about it. Congratulations tea people, you are so ridiculous, so blatantly racist and ignorant, you've got me considering leaving a party that I was willing to share with fundamentalist christians.

7) How many times in the next seven or eight months do you think a Republican somewhere will say the bill was passed in the middle of the night or under the cover of darkness (spooooky!)?

8) Finally, is it possible that the Democrats did something (gulp) politically smart? Follow me on this. Sometime early last week, the Democrats started talking about using this deem and pass procedure, which would have allowed them to deem the Senate bill passed through the House without actually having a direct vote on the Senate bill. Republicans freaked out, and rightfully so. We spent the rest of the week listening to Republicans complain about the process.

Then, Saturday, the Democrats announced they'd just pass the Senate bill with a regular vote. It almost seems like they intentionally tricked the Republicans into spending the last week of debate arguing about a process issue that never actually came up instead of making points about the weaknesses of the actual bill. This left the Republican message a little jumbled going into the vote. I think the Democrats just won a political chess match. Politically competent Democrats? Hold me, I'm afraid.

Just Tell Us How

I was watching some footage from Sarah Palin's tea time speech over the weekend, and it struck me that she was doing something that's one of my major beefs with the Republican party right now. She kept talking about things she wanted, and things we should do, and things that should happen, and a lot of them sounded just fine with me. But Sarah, like a lot of politicians, seemed to keep leaving out one key point in all of her proposed ideas. How? How does she propose we get to where she wants to be?

My favorite example was her take on fighting terrorism; "we win, they lose". I'm not making that up, I actually saw it on tape. Awesome! Why didn't the rest of us think of that? Unfortunately, I can only remember her mentioning two actual strategies she might employ. I don't expect her to lay out her whole secret plan for defeating the terrorists, but I'm going to need more than this.

First, divine intervention (once again, I'm not making that up). Let's try something. You start praying and I'll start shooting at you (and let me be clear, I'm not shooting at you because you're praying, you're praying because I'm about to start shooting at you, which I already decided to do for some unrelated reason). Let's see who comes out on top. I don't mind a President who prays a little about how to deal with enemies, really, I don't. Even with my not believing and all, I can accept prayer as a way many people clear their minds and focus. I'm just not willing to accept it as a key part of the strategy.

Second, not giving Miranda rights to terrorists. I honestly don't care what we do with terror suspects. I feel the same way about this as I do about the death penalty. I have an opinion, but if the government is doing something different, I'm not going to get all worked up about it. But I have a question. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, people like them, they always tell us how our rights are inalienable, given to us not by the government, but by the man in the sky. If that's the case, don't those rights apply to everyone? Isn't Sarah and Glenn's god in charge of everything? Inalienable, god-given rights don't really sound like the kind of thing you have to be American to get.

Also, isn't this whole terror thing about us defending our way of life? And doesn't our way of life involve, ya know, rights and stuff? Look, I'm not in charge of what we do with terror suspects, and I don't know enough about it to say I think we should do one thing or another, and I'm perfectly happy with us not giving people rights if the experts think that's best. But things you say have to be congruent with other things you say. Rights can't be endowed to us be an omnipotent creator but also only apply to certain people. We can defend ourselves against terror by stepping outside of our usual rule of law, but don't tell me we're defending our values and our way of life by not adhering to them.

I'm wandering a bit. Seriously, I DON'T CARE what we do with terror suspects, send them home, kill them, shoot them into space, whatever. I just want to know what the plan is. How does Sarah think we can get from here to "we win, they lose"? Can we even win? Do you see terrorists ever surrendering and signing a peace treaty? Me neither. Can we convert or kill every terrorist? I don't think so. I don't think this is winnable. This is the new world order, it's how things are from now on. We'll be in this fight for decades or centuries until there's no more America. And then the new America will have to deal with it. That's what I think. Sarah thinks there's a way to win. That's much better than what I think, but I need to hear how.

Federal spending is another one of these things. Both parties do basically the same thing on this, but I have more of a beef with Republicans. Democrats are supposed to be stupid with money, they're Democrats. Republicans are supposed to know better. Everyone wants to cut federal spending, balance the federal budget, make the government live the same way American families live. On the other hand, both parties can't wait to tell me how they're not going to cut defense, social security, medicare, medicaid or national security spending. Why? Because cutting any of those things would be terrible politics.

Hmmmm. Social security, national security and defense, medicare and medicaid and interest on the federal debt made up somewhere around 65% of last year's federal budget (I refuse to do research for anything I'm not getting paid for, but I'm pretty sure I'm within a few percent one way or the other). If we spent on just those things, and completely cut everything else, we might break even. So, how do we balance the federal budget without cutting any of the areas where we spend real money?

Am I suggesting we cut these areas? Well, I'm 30. I've already spent 13 years paying into social security. Good luck getting me to vote for you if you're telling me I can't get a check when I retire (by the way, I don't see me living to 65, or whatever the retirement age will be when I get older, 91 maybe? I'm just saying, ya know, when I hypothetically retire). And good luck getting anyone to vote for you if you're suggesting cutting defense. Everyone wants to cut taxes too, don't even get me started on that. Balancing the federal budget is a great idea. I just don't see it being possible anytime soon. Some politicians talk like it's possible. That's much better than what I think, but please tell the rest of us how.

I see a lot of issues like this. Republicans keep saying they want health care reform too. They want tort reform. I'm OK with that as long as it restricts frivolous malpractice suits and not people's ability to sue insurance companies for screwing them. They want interstate portability. Speaking of asking how, someone tell me how letting insurance companies sell insurance across state lines without any federal regulations on them doesn't result in every insurance company being headquartered out of a P.O. Box in Delaware or whichever other state is willing to regulate and tax them least, or not at all. More importantly, Republicans say they have a plan to reform health care too. Fine, great, I can't wait to hear it.

Here's my point. People will say I'm wrong about everything. Maybe. I don't know a whole lot about terrorism or balancing the federal budget or health care. I'm not saying I know the right way to handle any of this. Here's what I'm saying. For either political party to campaign and speak as if they will win the war on terror, or balance the budget, or solve one of our other seemingly unsolvable problems, but not actually have a plan to do so. That's criminal. Have a plan. Be ready to do something when you get elected. Otherwise, go away, because you're not helping.

PS...there's been a lot of talk about ending the don't ask, don't tell policy since the President mentioned it in the State of the Union Address. I'd like to write about this, but there's not really a whole blog here. It's a bigoted and incredibly stupid policy that makes some people more equal than others AND prevents us from having the best possible military at a time when we're fighting two wars. Anyone with a working brain should be all for ending it, and that's really all I have to say about that.

The Search For Meaning

I've become fascinated by today's special election in Massachusetts. This is for the seat Ted Kennedy held since he took over for the guy who took over for his brother. JFK won it from a guy named Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., which sounds made up, but it isn't. Apparently, that was just one in a series of electoral ass kickings the Kennedys dished out to the Lodges. OK, this doesn't really sound that fascinating so far.

Actually, I'm not fascinated by the election so much as by the coverage. Fox is in the middle of some kind of teabagging orgy right now (wow, that must sound super dirty to anyone who doesn't follow politics and doesn't know what I'm referring to). MSNBC is in full panic mode, if this doesn't go well for them, Ed Schultz might set the building on fire.

I find myself asking one question. Why? Come to think of it, I find myself asking my TV some variation of that question quite a bit lately? Like this weekend when I was flipping around and wound up watching about 10 minutes of MTV's Jersey Shore. Why aren't those people in prison? Or at the very least, exiled to Saint Helena like Napoleon? I have no idea. Or, if you prefer something more related to today's topic, last Friday I heard Sean Hannity refer to the possibility of the Republican winning this special election as a "political earthquake, magnitude 9.9". I don't think Hannity was trying to offend anyone, it's a pretty widely used figure of speech, and I've got plenty of better reasons to call Sean a bad guy, but damn dude.

Let's meet the candidates first. The Democratic candidate is Martha Coakley. As far as I can tell, she was trying to become, possibly, the first U.S. Senator to win her seat without campaigning. If a bad campaign is a train wreck (hello John McCain!), the Coakley train didn't even leave the station until sometime last week. I've seen her make one speech, on Sunday. It was awful. The only thing I learned about her platform is that she likes applause. On top of that, her campaign apparently spelled Massachusetts wrong in an ad. At this point, I wouldn't vote for her if she was running against a plate of nachos, because at least the nachos would be delicious. She doesn't even have a good Boston accent. It's like the Democrats were trying to win with a degree of difficulty. Also, I think her campaign slogan "Red Sox suck, Coakley for Senate" may have been a mistake.

The Republican is Scott Brown. It seems like he emerged a few months ago from a laboratory that creates politicians. I know he owns a truck and plans to vote against the health care bill. Seriously, how bad have our politics become that a guy can become incredibly popular and exceed all reasonable expectations by pointing to one thing and talking about how he has no intention of doing it. I've seen him standing in front of signs that say "jobs", but I have yet to see evidence that he has a plan for how to create jobs. Except, of course, the Republican magic of tax cuts. People say every problem looks like a nail to a guy with a hammer. For Republicans, every tax cut looks tax cut a tax cut. TAX CUT!

Democrats will have you believe this election means next to nothing (I mostly agree with them, but it's funny how every political defeat is so meaningless if you ask the losing party. If Coakley was up by 30 points, something tells me Democrats would be squawking about how this is a firm endorsement of their agenda). Well, the one Martha Coakley speech I saw, she was introducing the President. He went to Boston on Sunday to campaign for her. By the way, this was a good move by the President. You could say if Coakley loses he'll look weak. But the truth is, if Coakley loses, he is weak. So I'm not really buying the Democrats' whole this isn't that important line when they're bringing the closer out of the bullpen. "Oh, this election isn't a huge deal, Barack just really wanted to see Boston in January".

Meanwhile, Republicans will tell you the fate of world rests on this election. Scott Brown will kill Obamacare and end socialism once and for all. If Scott Brown wins, then every Republican will win in November, all of them, no matter what. I was looking forward to what Barack Obama was going to do with the next three years, but apparently a Brown victory will force him to immediately resign in shame. Tough break. Especially since it would leave us with President Biden. I'm not sure what a Biden Presidency would look like, but I feel like we'd start blowing more stuff up.

What this election really means, of course, is that both parties, Democrats especially, can't take anything for granted at this point. Midterm elections are all about turnout, and turnout is all about energy. Democratic energy is pretty low right now, because even when we elect the people they want, they still don't get anything done. Republican energy is high right now, I'm not sure why. I think it has something to do with socialism, or death panels, or tea. I really don't know. I mean, I like tea, but I don't think I'd vote for Scott Brown.

More than anything else, I'm struck by what seems to be a desperation for every little thing to have meaning. In November, two Gubernatorial races and one upstate New York House seat were the end of the political world. Back then, the Republicans lost the House seat because the original Republican wasn't conservative enough for the teabaggers, so some empty vessel third party guy jumped in and the Democrats took a seat they had no business winning. Simultaneously, the Democrats had two awful candidates who ran two awful campaigns and they lost two Governors, as they should have. What we learned then, and what we're learning now, is simply that bad candidates make bad candidates, and they often lose.

Some say this Senate special election is more important because it's the 60th seat. Scott Brown can kill health care. Really? The leadership won't just find some other way to buy the 60th vote from someone? Olympia Snowe's always been on the fence, maybe we can give Maine 100 million dollars for lobster subsidies. Honestly, I'm not super worried about health care, especially since the bill's pretty crappy by now anyway.

What happens today isn't a referendum on the President or his agenda. It isn't a valid indicator of what will happen in November. I don't think it'll even have a great deal of policy impact. It's not like the Democrats knew what to do with 60 votes when they had them. All today's election means is that it's important to find good candidates who run solid campaigns. If both parties didn't know that already, I don't know what to tell you.