Academic bias?

About a month ago, I wrote a post about how I didn't want my president to be "like me".This was in response to Sarah Palin ramming her idea down America's throats that she was "just like us". Just like the "Hockey Moms" and the "Joe Six-Packs", and whatever other labels she threw out like so much bread crumbs at a city park. I felt that the last person that should run for public office should be anything like me, or like the millions of average people in this country. I wanted someone extraordinary, which would imply someone who had a hell of a lot more education and experience than me, and I would like to think I was not alone in that opinion.

But, so many people want for President someone they can identify with, someone they could see themselves sitting across the table with, eating a piece of pie, or having a cuppa joe. They see a man clearing brush on his movie set ranch in Texas and fall head over heels in admiration...they see a man in a mortarboard and gown adorned with gold braids and they back away in a desperate need to avoid a lecture.

We've all probably have raked the leaves, but we all haven't walked through a college campus. It's a common denominator issue at play. Easily understandable, but at times, that thought process should be put on hold.

Here's an interview with Monty Python alumni, John Cleese, making some valid points on Americas' seemingly biased attitude towards academia. He touches on it around the one-minute mark.




If I need a doctor, a lawyer, or someone to advise me in financial affairs, I would want to seek out who I felt was the most qualified in their field, not someone I considered a friend. Do you ever hear, "I'm going to have an appendectomy by Dr. So-in-So because I had a beer with him the other night and we shot a few rounds of darts and I really had a good time"? No, hopefully most people would research and seek out a doctor who is deft with a scalpel...may not have the best bed side manner, but has a excellent success rate.

So, I say again, I don't want my President to be "like me". Think about it...how scary would that be? It's frightening enough that based on his fifteen minutes of fame, Joe the Plumber (who may or may not have a six-pack) is considering a run for Congress, and that the McCain/Palin ticket is using his pearls of "wisdom" as talking points in their floundering attempt at a campaign. And now, at a campaign stop Friday, McCain introduced Joe as his "mentor".

And I thought Halloween was over with.

Mocked effigy

In West Hollywood, a man has decked out his home for this "holiday", and for whatever reason cannot understand the hoopla that is surrounding said display.

John McCain poping out of his chimney as Satan. Sarah Palin hanging from a noose.

McCain aside, the effigy of Palin is the one that is creating the most outcry. And I couldn't agree more. We all know that if it were Obama in place of Palin, it would be considered a hate crime because of the color of Obama's skin.

The Feds eventually gave Chad Morrisette, the creator of the macabre tableau a visit yesterday and determined that no violent intentions were afoot. Morrisette declared that, "If it's a political statement, it's that (McCain's and Palin's) politics are scary to us."

Okay, make Palin a witch, then...don't hang her from a tree. Mock lynchings are not cool. I don't care who is at the receiving end.

The Home Stretch

In past postings where there was a political theme. I spent most of the time bashing Sarah Palin (because she is such an easy target) and John McCain, than highlighting what I thought were positive aspects of Barack Obama, and why I feel he should be the next President of the United States.

I guess it's more entertaining to rail against than it is to rally for, definitely a trap I fell in. Is it to easier to drive the point home in a negative, rusty old land shark that's spewing foul exhaust, clunking through an alley than in a shiny, perky electric scooter-car, humming quietly down a tree-lined avenue?

That might have been an unintentional analogy, but anyway...

In political circles, I am sure that there is nary a one who has tread the political waters who hasn't sat in a room, or dealt with a group who at one time or another had less than shining reputations. That being the case, every politician probably is or was guilty of something at one time or another, if one wants to take the 'guilt by association' route. So, last night when McCain, without segue, threw out the Bill Ayers gauntlet, Obama took the gauntlet, examined it, and explained it for what it was. It was a simple glove. He then set it aside and went back to the issues.

But, such is life in political debates. Mob mentality dictates a Jerry Springer atmosphere, if the past rallies are any indication. They want to see the folding ladders and chairs thrown into the wrestling ring, because they know that is when the fight is really going to get bloody.

Last night, Barack Obama looked at the ladders and folding chairs and pointed out that they were made of light-weight aluminum. He cold have easily picked up the folding chair and hauled off with "The Keating Five", but he didn't. Instead he calmly, rationally spoke about what America is really interested in hearing...what are the problems, and how he believes his path is the one to take in fixing them.

Why so serious?

According to the Boston Globe website, on Fox News "Hannity and Colmes" show tonight, there was a joint interview with John McCain and Sarah Palin, and one of the subjects that came up was the debates. Here is what Senator McCain had to say about how he and Governor Palin "advise" each other before an upcoming debate:

“Well, the only advice we give each other is to have fun -- two words. And we talk before the debates and just -- have fun. And it was obvious that certainly Sarah was having fun at her debate, and I was trying to have fun at mine. And I think we did.”

Is the McCain camp even taking this election seriously? Maybe they think they are so certain of victory they feel they can have a laissez-faire attitude about a very serious process. McCain asks a relative unknown to be his running mate, and she admittedly doesn't even blink before she said "Ya betcha!" (or something to that effect), and this is okay with the Senator? I put more time and effort into deciding what flavor toothpaste I want. But, hey, that's just me.

Maybe it's a "Maverick/Pitbull" thing. Last time I checked, though, mavericks were loose and reckless and pitbulls were unpredictable and dangerous.

I understand that the whole debate process has turned into another form of entertainment, like survival shows and celebrity dance competitions. Maybe that's the reason for the "fun" attitude of McCain/Palin. But when you add that to McCain's hasty pick of a VP, one who winks when debating the issues, his announcement of his sudden "suspension"of his campaign so he could rush back to Washington and deal with the financial crisis that left many shaking their heads in one big massive "what?"...it's a pattern of short-sighted planning and highly questionable moves.

But, hey, it's all in fun. At who's expense? I just hope it isn't at the expense of the American people in the end.

Round One

Yes, I watched the first debate last night. I wondered if I had listened to the debate instead, would I have came away with a different opinion. I had read stories back in the day about the Nixon/Kennedy debates that those who listened to the debate on the radio felt that Nixon did very well, whereas those who watched the debate on television, which happened to be the first televised Presidential debate, felt Kennedy walked away with the prize. After all, on radio, no one can see you sweat, as Nixon did profusely on stage, not to mention his over all ill-at-ease demeanor portrayed on televisions across the nation.

So, as much as I tried, I could not ignore the posturing and body language and McCain's totally lack of eye contact towards Obama last night during the first debate. Where Obama stood tall, and actually turned and looked at McCain (okay, at first it was at folksy Jim Lehrer's urging), debating not only issues, but the man himself, McCain hunched over his podium, and smirked his way through the debate, barely turning an eye towards his opponent.

And, if I were to close my eyes, as I am mentally doing so at this moment and recalling what I heard, I come away with two opposing voices, phrases repeated over and over...how many times McCain pointed out that Obama was naive and doesn't understand, whereas Obama pointed out that in many instances McCain was right with some of his decision making in the past.

Obama gave McCain's credit it's due, whereas McCain gave Obama no quarter. Not like Obama was asking.

For the most part, I felt the debate last night was tit-for-tat. I don't think either one rode away with the political brass ring in a major way. Both dodged questions, gave half answers, stuck by their strengths, played in their safety zones. The usual way Presidential debates go..no surprise there.

But at least Obama stepped out of his to admit when McCain was right.

But, then, according to McCain, Obama is naive and just doesn't understand.

A man hears what he wants to hear...

In a stop in Virgina, Barack Obama, obviously not listening to the little voices in his head screaming "SHUT UP!!!!", spoke (mis-, or otherwise) on the McCain/Palin ticket...

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

Most people heard this metaphor, loose as it was, and depending what side of the fence they were on, ran with it. Or not.

Did he call Sarah Palin a "pig"? Did he say Sarah Palin wears lipstick? Did she call John McCain a pig, if Palin were to give McCain a kiss?

Better yet, did Obama just say something stupid in the heat of the moment? Most likely.

Since Obama was so metaphorically inclined, he should have said something along the lines of "making a silk purse from a sow's ear". I mean, I think that is where Obama was heading, or least trying to, with his lipsticked pig metaphor.

Other words, Obama was most likely pointing out that the "Oh, wow, gee-whiz!!!" that is Sarah Palin is an attempt to cover the fact that, hey, this is still John McCain, this is still the possibility of four more years of the past eight years, this is still business as usual, but with a new player...who I point out (and hopefully most people) is not a pig, may wear lipstick, may own silk purses, and is not a sow's ear.

I am reminded of my favorite of all metaphors, pointing out how easily manipulated we, the masses are:

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances--Wm. Shakespeare

A woman for woman's sake?

Today, John McCain picked Alaskan governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate for the GOP.

The Democrats couldn't offer you a woman, but the Republicans can...so there!

That's the feeling I get. Or maybe that's just me.

Yes, I'm most likely seeing this through a cynic's eye. Obama could have easily done the same, pick a woman VP to calm the feelings of those felt let down by the party when Clinton didn't win the nomination. But, he didn't. If he did, I would call 'pandering' just as I am with McCain.

Then, I could be wrong. I'm sure it's a very savvy move, politically.*

*In desperate need of a sarcasm icon.