February 1st, 2006


Let's have some drama

Is it just me, or would the State of the Union be the absolute best place for a President to come out of the closet? I mean the State of the Union is the speech people watch when they think they should be tuning into politics on occasion. Nothing ever gets said, nothing important ever happens, and it all ends up a giant circle jerk. Imagine the fun and games if Bush said something like "...and that's why I need every American to route all future phone calls through the Dick Cheney censorship and wildly inaccurate accusation center. Turning now to a personal note, I like having sex with boys. I've tried to deny it for years, but there are some demons that can't be overcome by randomly invading middle eastern countries. I wish I knew how to quit you Wolfowitz."

Seriously though, the state of the Union needs something to spice it up, and homosexuality would be perfect. It's hot now (see the Oscar Nominations where all actors played either gays or famous people) it's controversial (fundies still hate it) and it fits in perfectly with the George Bush we know. Think about it, judging by his past performance do you really think he's able to find Laura's G-spot? I'm pretty sure "Well maybe they trucked it to Syria" doesn't play as well in the bedroom as it does on TV. Let's face it, all that rah rah military fighter pilot stuff is compensating for something.

If just one president comes out in late January and says "The state of the Union is...FABULOUS!" It would be a great day in American history. He could even go ahead and have the White House gussied up while everyone's distracted with the blabbing. Who says the White House has to be plain white? Anyone else for Fuscia?

Liberals are adorable

A recent Salon.com Article asks why Samuel Alito was confirmed less than 2 years after a giant feminist march rocked Washington. That's rather like asking why George Bush was able to give the State of the Union address last night after magical fairies turned him into an orangutan. Asking why X happened despite Y only works if Y is an event that actually happened. Otherwise it's just so much mental masturbation.

One of the big problems with a section of the liberal population is that they don't stop to actually measure the impact of things in the real world. Yes there was a big feminist march in 2004. So what? There was a huge peace march in New York during the Republican convention. We're still killing people. Marches are, by and large, useless in this day and age. Everyone knows that a lot of people support various causes, and nobody cares when they get together to march about it. If a million women had each pledged to give $100 to John Kerry so long as he openly supported the right for a woman to choose that might have had a significant impact. Walking around in sensibly priced shoes does not, and nobody should expect it to.

From the article: "The most important point is something we've said for a long time: Elections matter," said Planned Parenthood interim president Karen Pearl.

The fact that this even has to be said is just flat out sad. It's like saying "The most important point is something we've said for a long time: The sky is blue." Political actions that don't effect elections or effectively bribe politicians are always going to be symbolic and nothing more. It may be fun to march among hundreds of thousands of other people for a cause, but fun is basically irrelevant. The Republicans don't have fun with politics. They spend money and engage in smear campaigns and when they protest something they do so with gusto. Standing outside of abortion clinics with signs doesn't close them. Shooting doctors does.

By comparison check out this article from Townhall.com In it not only does a conservative go straight for the throat, unlike liberals who seem to prefer marching around singing kumbaya, but she does so with a series of blatant lies and false accusations. She has the guts to claim that liberals like to drown out their enemies with vitriol and mindless shrieking, and to do so in a world where The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth is a fresh memory. Staying on message and altering perceived reality? That matters. Sitting around wondering why marches are irrelevant does not.

There are significantly more women than men in America. If women voted as a bloc they could not only easily control the presidency but also virtually every other major political office in the country, save in a few places like Alaska where they represent a minority. Of course women will never vote as a bloc, no group of people ever does this perfectly and women will be less homogeneous than most because they exist at every level of society and in every culture. Liberals need to give up the myth that women all want the things called "women's rights" and that if only they could figure out how to foil the patriarchy they could get it. They need to give up the myth that a bunch of women marching together in solidarity or wearing special T-shirts is nearly as valuable as a bunch of women going to the voting booth in November or giving money to candidates who support the things they do. Most of all they need to stop asking why X didn't work or how people could choose Y and start talking strategy. If the Democrats had a few people with, excuse me feminist majority, any balls at all it could take back the government within a few years.

Instead we're stuck with milquetoast candidates and strategists/media types who need a dictionary and a flashlight to figure out what the word "pragmatism" means.

Bill Clinton sat in an office with "It's the Economy, Stupid" on the wall. He gave speeches where he came off as both confident and in control. He wasn't afraid to clash with his opponents or force their hands. He let Gingrich shut the government down and self-destruct. He weathered the storm with confidence and strength after he was caught blatantly lying on national television. It's not his Charisma or skirt-chasing we need back, it's his ability to look like he's actually stand for something and actually lead. My main problem with Hillary isn't that she's unlikeable or a woman, it's that she's an appeaser. She runs for the middle whenever things get tough without making it look like her idea to move that way. Appeasing wasn't a good strategy for Neville Chamberlain and it isn't a good idea now. If our candidate in 2008 can't find a pair of brass balls to strap on we're going to lose again, no matter how spectacularly Bush self-destructs, or how many marches we hold.
  • Current Music
    The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again