More picking on Barack Obama. Source material for this post is here.
The Problem (I bet it's not statism)
Lobbyists write national policies
Yes, it's a problem. That being said, I'm ok with lobbyists (it's ok to call them 'industry representatives') helping to write policy. Shocking, I know, but I think that the people who, for example, build and operate nuclear power plants should have a hand in designing policy governing nuclear power plants. The problem with lobbyists is NOT that they're buying too much with their influence, it's that they can buy things at all. The solution to rent seeking behavior isn't to regulate the seekers, it's to remove the rewards. Score: 0
Secrecy dominates government actions
Score: 5. That was easy. Buck Fush.
Wasteful spending is out of control
Sounds good. The current administration has spent a lot of money on connected friends. Of course, if you stop spending money on Blackwater and start spending it elsewhere, is that better for the taxpayers? Obama's argument isn't so much 'let's spend less' as 'let's spend it where I say so'. Score: -2
Shine the light on washington lobbying
Centralize ethics and lobbying information for voters
I actually like this idea. I'm ok with the government spending money to tell us how they're spending our money, because if the lazy voters get off their asses and educate themselves (a long shot, I know), it will lead to lower spending. Score: 1
Require independent monitoring of lobbying laws and ethics rules
Do we really need a new watchdog agency to make sure that congressmen aren't doing anything unethical? I mean, every summer we have a commission to investigate price gouging by oil companies, and the answer is always 'we found no evidence of gouging but we're SURE they're doing it!'. Eliminate rent seeking by eliminating the rewards. Make the information available, and let us watch them. More layers, more money, more wondering who's watching the watchers won't solve anything. Score: -1
Support campaign finance reform
No. Every move toward campaign finance reform, however well intentioned, has been a move to curtail the first amendment. Speaking of McCain-Feingold in glowing terms... well, I wanted to impeach Bush the day he signed the bill. Score: -3
Shine the light on federal contracts, tax breaks, and earmarks
Create a public contracts and influence database
We're light on details, but heavy on good ideas. Score: 1
Expose special interest tax breaks to public scrutiny
Ditto. Score: 1
End abuse of no-bid contracts
It's another good idea. In fact, I'm going to stop reviewing the bullet points here, and just give the Senator from Illinois 3 more points for openness. It's the part of his platform that I like the most.
Bring Americans back into their government
Hold 21st century fireside chats
Periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues... what does that mean? I mean, I like the idea, sort of, but I have 2 objections. The first being that it leaves non-net-savvy people in the dark, and the second that I'm not a big fan of democracy in the first place. Score: 0
Make white house communication public
Yes. Score: 1
Conduct regulatory agency business in public
A thousand times yes. Score: 1
Release presidential records
Let's see if he sticks to this one once he actually sees the records. Still, score: 1
Free the executive branch from special interest influence
Close the revolving door on former and future employers
This wouldn't be nearly the problem it is if the government didn't have so much power over so many things. Still, I think it's a fundamentally good idea. Score: 1
Free career officials from the influence of politics
I like this too. Score: 1
Reform the political appointee process
Oh, look, katrina-related grandstanding. Sweet. Still, it's good. Score: 1
Summary: I really like Obama on ethics. Openness is something we really need. If he's genuinely willing to open up the government's business, the people might start to get angry, and maybe we can fix a thing or two.
I understand (by which I mean, I believe) that some of you have come away from my recent posts with an understanding (by which I still mean belief) that I'm a Barack Obama supporter. That, perhaps, I've got a touch of the 'Obamamania'.
Perhaps it's time, then, for me to outline why I'm not, in fact, having a Barack Attack.
I'm just going to go to his issues page and go right down the list. Wow, that's a lot of issues. Warning: this post is long and quite boring, even by my standards.
Civil Rights
Pay Inequity - Sorry, the Government has no place in individual contracts. If the lower pay received by women, blacks, latinos... well, basically everyone that's not a white male bothers you, look to culture (also none of the government's business) and education (insert mantra here). Pay inequity is a societal problem, and Government is not Society. Score: -2
Hate Crimes on the Rise - You know what else is on the rise? The use of crazy means to count hate crimes. A hate crime, at its core, is a thought crime. You're defining a crime in terms of what the person was thinking when he committed it. Let crime be crime. Granted, if a group of dumb white guys get together and hang a black guy, it was probably racially motivated, but isn't the crime of MURDER already pretty serious? Hate crime laws are typically aimed at lesser crimes, which have relatively light punishments. This one, I'm happy to discuss on a case-by-base basis, but I oppose specific hate crime legislation because of its anti-individualist bent. Score: -2
Efforts continue to suppress the vote - This one's bad. Someone engaged in suppressing votes is doing bad things, whether they're doing it on the basis of race, creed, party, or just because they feel like it. While I don't think that everyone should vote, or even have the right to vote (shocking, I know), people engaged in suppressing the vote should be punished to the full extent of the law, no matter whose vote they're suppressing. Score: +1
Disparities continue in the criminal justice system - I'm actually with him on this one. Especially in the terms of the drug war, the criminal justice system treats blacks and hispanics unfairly, and we need to clean up our act. Not sure what the president can do about that, but I'm with him on this one. Score: +2
Disabilities
educational opportunities for people with disabilities - I'm not sure what that means. Maybe I was spoiled by my education (probably), but I'm not sure how we discriminate against people with disabilities in our educational system, except by punishing excellence. Is excellence a disability? Seems like meaningless fluff to me. Score: 0
end discrimination and promote equal opportunity - More fluff. If you can 'promote' equal opportunity without introducing artificial discrimination into the system and without interfering with private contracts, knock yourself out. Score: 0
increase the employment rate of workers with disabilities - More fluff. Seems to me that the Hopesmith is under the conception that every presidential candidate (except Paul and, shockingly, maybe even McCain) has, that the government owns your job. It doesn't. You don't even own your job - your employer does. Score: -1
Support independent, community-based living for Americans with disabilities - More fluff. Seems like 'disabled people are disabled, the government should help them' is the core principle at work here, and frankly, that's not the government's business. Especially not the Federal government. Score: -1
It's the Economy, stupid
Wages are stagnant as prices rise - We have a problem here. The government, as the (sigh) issuer of money (sort of) needs to get inflation under control. We need to get Bernanke to stop feeding the monster. The savings rate is very low - perhaps if the government took the lead here, by getting its own debt under control, we'd have something. Also, stop subsidizing ethanol! Score: 1
Tax cuts for the wealthy instead of the middle class - The oft repeated claim, that the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy, is true! The rich pay vastly more in income taxes than the poor and middle class, so of course, they got the biggest tax cut. That being said, I'm 100% for cutting taxes in every situation, every time, as long as we get rid of the notion of the 'tax credit'. Score: 1
Provide a tax cut for working families - Obama wants to create a tax credit for working families. You know what tax credits are? Welfare. Make it a tax cut, and I'm happy with it. Make it a tax credit and it's redistributing income, which is a no-no. Score: -3
Simplify tax filings for middle class Americans - Yes, please. This year I had 2 1099s and 5 w-2s, across 2 states, and for the first time ever, I paid someone else to do my taxes. Anything we can do to simplify the tax code is a win.
Trade - I'm all for fair trade. Fair trade usually means free trade, in my mind. Let the people of other countries trade with the people of this country, and we all prosper. I'm even for mirroring other countries laws, tariffs, and restrictions on American goods, since that situation simplifies to free trade. I don't think that's what Obama is going for here. He's pushing mercantalism, again. His offers to improve transition assistance, well, that's more spending, more programs, more redistribution. Score: -1
Technology, Innovation, Creating Jobs - Let's run down his bullet points here:
Labor - I don't know why I wasted time reading this section, but I did, and Barack wants to interfere more in private contracts. You know who else wants to do that? Bush. Clinton. McCain. Fine company, senator. Score: -3
Protect homeownership and crack down on mortgage fraud - I'm all for cracking down on fraud, but here's what he really wants:
Address predatory credit card practices - Stupid people are spending money they don't have? The government has to do something! Why does the government have to create a rating system for credit cards and its features? Can't a private agency (I'm looking at you, consumer reports) do that. Turns out people should do their research before they step aside and let someone rape their future. That being said, he has some other good ideas about fees, interest, and other things. I'm going to call this one a wash, even though I disagree with him on the big points and agree on the little ones. Score: 0
Reform bankruptcy laws - Sounds good, but his actual action items are terrible. No bonuses for executives of bankrupt companies? What if they're turning the company around? Shouldn't they be rewarded? Capping outlandish rates on payday loans? No thinking person uses those anyway. Encourage small consumer loans? That's great, if you can do it without spending my money. I do, however, like his bankruptcy protection for people facing a medical crisis. Score: -1
Work/Family Balance - Spending, programs, tax credits, government interference in private contracts... There's nothing here that isn't democratic. Score: -3
Education
No Child Left Behind - Come into the kitchen and smell what the Barack is cooking. It smells like more spending. He wants to spend more money on this shortsighted, stupid, and failed program. I have a better idea - eliminate it. Score: -3
High dropout rates/low teacher retention - Holy crap, he stated the facts without proposing any new spending. I'm going to give him a point for stating the obvious. Score: 1
Soaring college costs - None of the government's business. I know, I'm a cruel, heartless pig. College costs ARE getting nuts, and applications, especially for financial aid, ARE hard. It's not an issue for the federal government - at most, it's an issue for the states, and then, only at state-owned schools. Score: -1
Early childhood education - I'm not sure whether he wants to just spend more money on little kids, or make sure the government gets its hooks into our kids early, but I don't like it. It's more spending that the federal government shouldn't be doing. Score: -1
K-12 - My wife is a K-12 (actually, a 7 to 8+(year-2007)) teacher, in a very troubled school, but every single line item here is more spending. Why does the federal government involve itself so intimately in one of the most local of issues? Score: -3
Recruit, Prepare, Retain, and Reward teachers - Obama's ideas about teacher mentoring and residency programs are innovative and may actually have some merit, which is great. His other ideas about scholarships and such, sadly, are more spending. Score: 0
Higher Education - Simplifying the application process for federal aid is a tough issues. I oppose federal aid, but if you must have it, I'm all for removing the byzantine maze of forms that students have to navigate right now. There's also a call for another 4000 dollar tax credit in here, which, guess how I feel about that? Score: -2
Energy and Environment
Reduce carbon emissions - he supports a cap-and-trade system, which, hey, at least it unleashes the market. I don't like the government sticking its fat nose in here, but the market IS a lot smarter than any of us. He's also looking for domestic incentives (spending) for farmers and ranchers who plant trees. I bet that shows up as a higher cost at the dinner table. Score: -1
Invest in a clean energy future - Spending, spending, spending, spending. You know when clean power will catch on? When it's cheaper. Want to encourage car companies to develop and deploy alternative fuel vehicles? Put a $3/gal tax on gas, and raise it a buck a year. That'll get the market moving. (Note: naginata does not support a $3/gal tax on gas, but Al Gore did). Score: -5
Support next-generation biofuels - Oh hey, more spending, especially on ethanol. Does any thinking person believe that ethanol subsidies are a good idea? I can't think of one that isn't a politician, and 'thinking person' and 'politician'... hey, these jokes write themselves. Score: -5
Increase fuel economy standards - It's like the minimum wage for cars, only dumber. More unnecessary interference in the private market. Let gas prices rise naturally, and the market will demand minimum fuel economy on its own. Score: -2
Improve energy efficiency by 50% by 2030 - Sir, you are welcome to improve energy efficiency in government buildings and vehicles as much as you want. 'Invest' and 'Grant' are bad words to the enlightened. Score: -1
Restore US Leadership on climate change - Wow, just wow. There's a whole post here. I'll sum it up thusly: Score -3. 2 of those are for loss of sovereignty, and one of them is because of a refusal to acknowledge THE SUN as the greatest of man's foes.
I'm getting bored now, so I'm going to stop. If there is public acclaim, perhaps I'll pick up where I left off, or perhaps I'll start over, and do some sort of regular 'this is why Barack Obama is wrong' column. Either way, hopefully no one mistakes me for an Obamanian from now on.
So, the question that seems to be on everyone's (Bill O'Reilly and Alan Colmes, for example) mind is this: is The Hopesmith a double secret muslim?
The answers are as varied as they are misleading:
O'Reilly, slightly to his credit, usually refuses to comment on the issue. Of course, to his hyperpolitical, rabidly conservative base of listeners, his refusals mostly sound like affirmations, but that's not REALLY his fault. Note to any O'Reilly fans: Hussein is not a dirty word.
On the other hand, I heard Alan Colmes on the radio earlier today, and I liked the way he dealt with it - he just asked the caller who raised the issue to back up his claims. The caller, sadly but typically, diverged into talking about Michelle Obama's thesis, which the caller claimed was 'black supremacist' and professed a 'hatred of white people'.
Colmes simply asked the caller if he had read the thesis and then hung up on him. Classy. No, I'm not being sarcastic, that was classy. A simple "have you done your homework? No? Leave my classroom" answer.
Anyway, to the core of the issue, is Barack Hussein Obama a double secret muslim? Short answer: I don't care.
The constitution allows no official religious test for the president, and I like that so much, I've adopted the same policy for me, personally. I think he's probably a Christian, but I just don't care. If we lived in a theocracy, I guess it would be important, but we don't. In fact, the constitution has some pretty specific things to say about religion, and what's to be done with it.
Now then, if our next president, be he Christian, christian, muslim, atheist, theist, deist, agnostic, gnostic, hindu, jedi, pastafarian, rastafarian, scientologist, mormon, or unitarian, violates the constitution in the execution of his duties, it doesn't matter if he did it for religious reasons or not - let's throw the bum out. That's what empowers me to quite simply not care. I realize that many people are using simple tests to determine who will get their vote - the 'who would you rather have a beer with' test or the 'who reminds me of my father' test or the 'who most identifies with my perceived group identity' test. Might I suggest a new test? It's called the 'who do you think will most correctly execute the duties of the office' test.
Some people will tell me that that view (and many of my other views) reflect a certain naiveté. I'm aware of this, and I wear it like a badge of honor. The constitution is a document for the innocent.
In my travels around the fine city of Indianapolis , I tend to bring up politics frequently, even with total strangers. One thing that always bothers me is this: no one likes anything about our present situation. I'm wondering who it is that is actually looking forward to voting in 2008. Typical feelings on the matter fall into one of these categories:
That's the standard. The best thing on that list - that a person's vote is going to Obama because he seems honest - is enough to make me cringe. The rest are enough to make me sick. Have we come to the point where, out of the 6 (yes, there are six) candidates remaining, you feel that 5 of them are liars and crooks, so you are voting for the one who seems least crooked?
This might be a good time to remind yourself that The Great Decider was elected with the vote of about 30% of the potential votes - a major gain from his 25% in 2000.
I can't find anyone satisfied with the current president, and I can't find anyone satisfied with his likely successors. I just want to know who it is that's voting Hillary/Obama/McCain into office? You'd think that after a few months of taking an informal poll of virtually everyone I talk to for more than 30 seconds, I would have found at least one supporter of McCain or Hillary, and at least one person who could justify their support of Obama in more than one word (note: "hope" and "change" are in a dead heat).
I'll lay a prediction out there: unless some major event takes place that drives the voting public to change their ways, the next president will get right around 20% of possible votes, and will sleaze their way into the office calling it a 'mandate'.
A final note to the Republicans: are you surprised that McFlation has a new scandal every 10 minutes? You knew exactly what you were getting, or you didn't do your due diligence. In the words of the sage, you made your bed, now finish your supper. If only the so-called conservatives on talk radio had put as much energy into defeating McCain in the primary as they put into defeating the amnesty bill, we might be looking at a different race. The Republicans would probably still lose, but at least they could do it without selling their souls first.
Listen, let me be very clear about the current McCain scandal: I don't care. I don't think it makes one bit of difference in the long run. McCain has been implicated in enough scandals that, well, I guess if this is the one that pushes you over the edge, good for you.
Plus, it doesn't matter. If a candidate of McCain's intelligence, wisdom, and moral fiber is a serious candidate for president, all bets are off. The scandal shouldn't even enter in to it! Frankly, I'd rather have a candidate who was sleeping with every lobbyist in Washington, who understood economics, than one who was morally upright but didn't. Thanks to the power of ignorance, we're about to get someone who is stupid AND immoral. Maybe. My point isn't whether he did or did not do anything wrong, it's that the man's morality or immorality or amorality is irrelevant, since we've already established that he's not very smart.
Also, a note to the NY times, this story wasn't quite finished. It's a lot of whispers and suggestions and circumstance and innuendo, and not a single bit of hard evidence or a single solid source. Maybe it could have used a few more weeks in the oven before you brought it out.
So, now that I've gone on at some length about how I feel about people who don't embrace freedom, and been specific about who it is that I feel isn't embracing freedom, maybe it's time to define what I mean. I have a philosophy of government that is simple, perhaps too simple to exist in the real world, but I'm sticking with it anyway.
When you start talking about the role of government, there's one core premise that you have to agree on - do you want a government that is 'right'. That is, if you feel that it's ok that government do things that are 'wrong', then we may as well just stop talking. The definitions of right and wrong are meaningless, once you establish that you're allowed to ignore them, once you're the government.
So, accepting that government should do no wrong, we get down to defining what right and wrong mean in that context. It's a definition in terms of two things: rights, and force. Government exists to protect - not grant - rights. Government has only one right that the common man does not, the right to use its force on other men.
A note to you feminists - yes, I'm aware that 'men' is sexist here. Feel free to substitute 'human' and 'humans', I just can't spare that 'h' and that 'u' right now.
So, what are rights? Quite simply, in the absence of government, you have the right to do anything you want. Your right to do whatever you please ends when you violate the rights of someone else. If we lived in a state of nature, your rights would be limited only by your ability to practice them in the presence of others - power, for right or wrong, would define rights, not any real sense of 'rightness'.
Government, therefore, exists to protect your rights from other people who may seek to restrict them. You have the right not to be killed by rabid canadians. You are not granted that right by the government - you had it before they came along by virtue of being alive - the government exists only to protect that right. You have the right to speak your mind. Government does not grant that right, but rather, exists to protect it. Of course, it's government more often than any other entity who seeks to restrict that right.
Which explains the bill of rights - a list of specific rights that the government may not violate while going about its business.
The fact of the matter is, we don't need much government at all in this view. People are mostly capable of defending their own rights. Moreover, most rights are best protected at the local level. The police, for example, have no business at the federal level, and should be managed at as local a level possible. Different communities have different sensibilities, and it makes sense for the law enforcement agency to match the community as much as possible.
Now then, since government exists to protect your rights, let's think about certain rights that have been created out of nothingy - education and health care. I'll start with education, since we have much more experience with a socialized education system. In order for the government to operate a school, it needs money, time, or both. Money to keep the building open and the time of teachers to educate the populace. I suppose that they could operate with nothing but money, and hire people who have no real passion for the job, just as we could run the school system with slaves and convicted felons, and operate it on a shoestring budget. In practice, it's more money than time, but there's a little of both.
But that money isn't merely printed from thin air (well... in theory, it isn't), so it has to come from somewhere. It comes from someone else's time. When I'm working, I spend the first 20 minutes of every hour working for the government, and the last 40 working for myself. The time that I spend producing stuff results in money, which they will then take and spend, some of it on education. So, my right to the fruits of my own labor has been abrogated. Keep in mind that I'm speaking theoretically, but I'm not sure by what right the government is taking my effort and converting it into education. After all, I have no children.
I'm speaking mostly of the federal government. While I would like to see a system of education without any government involvement at all, if the good citizens of Ohio (or, in absence of a state system, the good citizens of Cleveland) want to run a government-operated public school, that's their business, not mine. It's the federal level spending and oversight that I object to - at a basic level, they do not have the right to spend my labor for their efforts, however noble. This is why No Child Left Behind (and the department of education, and all federal education spending) have to go - because they are, when you get right down to it, morally wrong.
The same argument can be applied to socialized medicine and many, many other government programs. What right has the government to dictate to a doctor how he will spend his time, or to order me to pay that doctor whether I want to or not? In a free market, that doctor may sell or not sell his time and knowledge as he chooses, as it should be. Is a doctor really so different from an engineer? Both have a high degree of specialized education, both perform functions with an impact on our lives, and both demand a certain premium for their talents.
So... there's one view of the role of government.
Afterthought:
Please, before making a comment in which you accuse me of hating teachers or children, bear in mind that one of my parents and my wife teach in public schools, and considering that they're both in music education, they'd probably be some of the first to go if funding were drastically cut. This isn't about 'the children' or about 'the teachers', it's about right and wrong. If you think that society has a responsibility to educate its children, I agree with you. The fact of the matter is, society is not the government, and we should not treat it as such. When we trust government to educate our children, serve as our doctor, legislate against behavior that we find unsafe or unsavory, we go too far. In fact, I should start repeating that line in every post - society is not government. Society made government, and government is not its master.
It's possible that some of you have noticed a subtle undertone in my recent posts - an angry undertone wherein I imply that I think some people are stupid.
Let's talk about that word, "stupid". When I use this word in the context of politics, I'm referring to a very specific, if large, group of people.
I am, however, not referring to people who are just plain not intelligent enough to understand the message of freedom. For example, I have a cousin, at age 30, will never be mentally older than about 6. I'm not talking about her.
Perhaps instead of "stupid" I should say "willfully ignorant", but that doesn't quite capture the group. Oh, yes, there are people who resist education, who would rather watch TV than do anything to improve their lives, and they're on my list, but they're not the whole list. There are other people in there as well.
Joining the willfully ignorant are those who have heard and understood the message of freedom, but who choose to ignore it. I think of them as the "false idealists". If the willfully ignorant comprise the vast majority of the voting public (and nearly all of the non-voting public), then the false idealists are the well-intentioned ringleaders. The pundits and (some of) the authors. They're not organizing rallies or fundraisers, but they're showing up and holding signs.
At the top, you've got the truly evil. Those people who, either by planning or accident, have risen from the ranks of the false idealists to become leaders. These aren't just the Clintons and McCains, they're also the Kristols and Krugmans. The people who exploit their message for power. They might truly believe in their message - I don't think that Hillary Clinton wakes up in the morning and says "what can I do today to stamp out freedom", but the negative consequences of her actions are less important to her than grasping and retaining power.
Of course, it's of little use for a nobody like me to address the evil, and the false idealists, well, they're not going to change. My goal is to address the willfully ignorant. I want them to get angry. I want them to hate me. I want them to get so mad that they yell back. Let them yell. Let them get so angry that they're forced to defend themselves. Let them discover that their position is built on smoke and lies, and maybe, just maybe, we can win a few people over to the side of freedom.
Picture America as a medieval town, walled and prosperous. On all sides, we have neighbors with whom we have peaceful commerce. Some are ruled by tyrants, benevolent or otherwise, some are little more than disorganized free farmers, making what they can from the land, but America does commerce with them all. I and those like me are the city watch. We stand on the wall and as we look out, we see barbarians in the woods, gathering their forces, building catapults and siege ladders, and preparing to make war. As we look in, we see that where once we were left to ourselves to run businesses, raise our families, and work at our trades, now we are increasingly forced to work against our own interests. We see tyrants, subtly coercing people into exchanging their freedom for security, or worse, for nothing.
The watchmen stand on the wall and call to the people below. "Now, people", we yell, "now is the time to take up arms. Join us on the wall, demand your freedom, defend this great city from those that will tear it down". We are met with nothing but silence. We call to the people below, we sound the warning, and again, we are met with silence. The leaders of the town tell us to quiet down, that we're disturbing the peace, that we're no better than the barbarians outside the walls.
And so, we get angry. We demand that the people in the town come up to the wall and look! We demand that the people in the town force their leaders to open their books, to tell the truth! We demand that people open their eyes before it's too late!
What do we get in return? Silence.
Of course we're angry. We are besieged, trapped, and true freedom is fast becoming a fleeting memory. What is left to do but to yell, and to pray that when we do, a few of those people below will hear, and climb the wall, and look for themselves, and join us.
2 blog posts in as many days after an 11 month break? I think it's time to point out that my positions on many things have changed, significantly. Reading through some of my old stuff, I feel like grabbing old me, sitting old me down, and saying 'hey, that's just not the way things are'.
Which is good, because that's exactly what I've been doing for the last 11 months.
Rather than make some boring post detailing exactly what positions I've changed, and how drastically, I'll let them come out naturally in the things I post, should I keep posting. Hint: I've got some qualms about the unrestrained slaughter of brown people now. Not that I was calling for it before, exactly, but I'm somewhat less bloodthirsty. You'll see what I mean!
So, I beg forgiveness for asking, but please, if you want to confront me with something I said before 2008, be prepared for me to have changed my position. Unlike our politicians, I have the luxury of changing my mind, and not being forced to defend things I said years (or, in this case, a year) ago.
Change is good.
I want to write a book. That is to say, I want there to be a book, written by me, but I don't have the time to write it. What I DO have the time to do, however, is to describe this hypothetical book, and probably comically insult most of my readers along the way.
The book will be called Everyone is Dumber than Me.
The dedications page will look something like this:
This book is dedicated to all the people who, even if they read this book, would understand it just enough to be offended, but not enough to understand why, and certainly not enough to change. It's those people that make the total collapse of our society not only possible, but inevitable.
If you guessed that it's a book about politics, you chose wisely. The problem is that the American voter is a moron. I would expect people reading the book to be offended at first, and then, if they pressed on, to get angry. The book wouldn't sell well, mostly because I'm no kind of book writer, but partly because most people would stop after the first couple paragraphs:
Thanks for picking my book up off the shelf and having enough courage to read the introduction, not just the cover flap. Those of you searching inside the book on amazon, isn't technology great? You're not going to enjoy this experience. In fact, you should probably put the book down, because I'm about to call you stupid. You're stupid.
Now, I don't know for a fact that you're stupid. Maybe, possibly, you're very intelligent. It's possible, although unlikely, that you're smarter than I am. I'm playing the odds on this one. Of course, you're beating the odds by setting foot in a bookstore in the first place - you have a better chance of finding Mike Huckabee in an AIDS hospice than finding the average American voter in a bookstore.
What phrase: "average American voter". Even dropping the word "average", you're still excluding most of the population. If that doesn't make you angry, what's wrong with you? There are only 2 correct answers to that question: apathy or ignorance. Since an apathetic person would have stopped reading by now, I have to assume that, chances are, you're ignorant.
"But wait!", you say, "I'm not an average American voter".
Ah, good for you. I'm not either. Unfortunately, you're not really the target audience of this book, because everyone is dumber than you, too. If you despise most of your countrymen, you're going to be too busy agreeing with me to learn anything. If you must buy the book, please, give it to the Hillary Clinton supporter in your life. Sure, she'll probably just use it as a coaster, but maybe her husband/boyfriend/life-partner will flip through it and wise up enough to leave her.
Perhaps a little more explanation is due for that last bit. I'm not saying that the hypothetical woman deserves to be left just because she favors Felonious Monk, I'm saying that being pro-Hillary is a symptom of the root problem: stupidity. And make no mistake, I'm not singling out the Hillarites here - people who are planning to cast a vote for John McFlation are no better. I'm dealing with the odds here. Out of Hillary supporters, there are maybe 1% that I'd consider "not stupid". Out of that 1%, the vast majority are evil, who are using the other 99% to their advantage. In this great nation of ours, if you gathered up all the people who support Hillary who are neither stupid nor evil, my guess is you'd still be a few people short of a basketball team.
So, that's my book. Look for it on Amazon's Worst Seller list in the distant, murky future.
We're well into primary season, and I'm guessing that anyone reading this post could probably summarize it without reading further.
Is it sad that I'm predictable or good that I'm consistent? Either way, here's what you came for:
Our choice this year are absolutely absurd. Let's pretend for a moment that I'm a republican. I have no serious candidate for whom I can vote. Worse still if I've read the constitution.
It's going to be a long season, let's start things on a relatively light note with Naginata's Funny Names for Stupid Candidates.
First, the republicans:
Mitt Romney (who is out). Mitt, I like to call "Double Guantanamo". War on terror going badly? It's time to DOUBLE DOWN, baby. It's worked so well for the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty, let's kick this thing up a notch. I've never heard Mitt say anything suggesting that he would do other than turn Bush's policies up to 11. Of course, Double Guantanamo is out of the race now, so I suppose it's no use talking about him any further. It's too bad, his economic platform, while laughable, may have been the least-evil of the mainstream republican candidates.
John McCain (who is being crowned the candidate already). Good Ol McCain. What name really captures how I feel about this guy? I'll give you a hint, it's long, it's got a lot of adjectives, and it is shocking in its vulgarity. For brevity's sake, let's go with "John McFlation", at least until he says something else stupid. Oh wait, too late. The fact of the matter is, John McCain can't seem to open his mouth without saying something incredibly dumb. Where's this information? Why are people voting for a man who seems to be functionally retarded? He doesn't understand economics, foreign policy, the constitution, the first amendment, the... look, you name a political issue, and I can produce evidence that McFlation's understanding of it is about what you would expect from a five year old.
Mike Huckabee (how is he a serious candidate?). Let's face it, if it weren't for Iowa's legion of God-fearing 'values' voters, Huckabee would have thrown his towel in long ago. Another argument for a single-day 50 state primary is made every time that Captain Jesusman opens his mouth. In fact, he makes a pretty eloquent argument against religion in politics AND against religion in general. Ron Paul took some heat for pointing out Sinclair Lewis's quote about how when fascism comes to this country, it will come carrying a cross and wrapped in the flag.. Listen, I'm not calling Huckabee a facsist, at least, no more than the mean for the other candidates... but maybe I should be.
Ron Paul. Good ol Doctor No. The fact that he isn't a frontrunner is a scathing indictment of the voting public. Dr. Paul has produced amazing amounts of money from his legion of frothing-at-the-mouth supporters, but seems to have purchased little in the way of actual support. Come on, America. This guy goes toe to toe with the Fed chairman on fiscal policy on a regular basis. This guy predicted the recession of 1987 in 1983. He's often not well spoken, but in a very different way than the Great Decider - Dr. Paul is earnestly trying to educate his listeners. He speaks plainly, boldly uncaring about the negative consequences of unfortunate word selection. He offers his political opponents reading lists. Perhaps part of Paul's failure is the result of his 'educate the voters and they will vote for me' philosophy. I think that Adlai Stevenson had a quote for this situation - when told that he had the support of every thinking person, Stevenson replied "That's not enough madam, we need a majority". Nonthinkers, your numbers grow every day. Kudos. Please spend voting day trying to program your VCR, the Paulistinians are about the business of saving your country.
And then the Democrats:
Barack Obama, the Hopesmith. Listen, I really, really like Barack Obama. From his tepid condemnations of some parts of the war to his bold plan to continue shambling toward a workers paradise to his promises to increase funding for failed and dangerous programs, you can't help but like the guy. No, I'm serious - if Barack Obama were selling hats made out of scorpions, I'd probably be halfway to my car before I realized that my wallet was empty and my face was numb. All that being said, the Hopesmith is a better choice than Clinton and McCain put together. That's right, I'm endorsing a democrat... if you consider 'this man is probably the least evil of the top 3, but if I were you, I'd write in' an endorsement. Also, please, please God, I hope he's wearing a bulletproof vest ALL THE TIME. If this man gets shot, well, I don't think I have any synonyms for 'bad' left after describing McFlation. I'll stop at 'monumental tragedy' and you can pretend I said something really eloquent.
Hillary Clinton. What to call Hillary? Hitlary? The Hildabeast? Monica Lewinski's ex-boyfriend's wife? None of those are original at all! I think I'm just going to go with Hillary. That's already a synonym for evil, right? I'm not sure where to start on Hillary other than to say this - if she were against the war, she'd have more for us than words. Sure, she's not going to Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, but... no, you know what, I take that back. Clinton I treated Iraq as misdirection for his presidential magic show for years, it wouldn't surprise me for Clinton II to do the same thing. Domestically, I think we can sum up Hillary in one word: take. She's going to take those profits. She's going to garnish those wages. I'm sorry, Hillary, but the directors of a corporation have one and only one duty - to maximize profits. To do anything else would be immoral. On the health issue... look, if she comes up with a health care program that's good enough for me to buy in, I'll buy in. In fact, if she comes up with a health care program that's good enough for me to buy in, I'll eat a hat made out of scorpions.
John Edwards... is out, and the man is already a caricature. It's like trying to make fun of a clown. Look at his ridiculous shoes! Look at his big red nose! Look at his silly haircut!
Mike Gravel is awesome. Sure, he's another light socialist (can I start saying 'soft fascist' for these people yet?), but look at the issues? He's against drug prohibition. He's for civil rights, and his words are more than sweet lies that turn to bitter orange wax in my ears (I'm looking at you, McFlation). He's for a speedy withdraw from Iraq. He's my favorite of the candidates that support the Fairtax (take that, Captain Jesusman). In fact, in many ways, Gravel is just a more honest Huckabee. Unfortunately, at least a few of you have never heard of Gravel, which is why I'm going to call him The Invisible Man.
So, there's your candidate rundown. When you step into that voting booth to pull that lever, take this handy cheat sheet: