Having just read an ABCnews feed, I am somewhat surprised, albeit not completely surprised, that Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) is not the front runner for the Republican presidential candidacy.
Who is in the front running?
Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.
So, why does this come as a surprise to me?
Well, for one, Giuliani hasn't held a public office since 2001, while McCain has held political offices since 1987. McCain has nearly 20 years under his political belt, while Giuliani has a total of eight.
To me, John McCain has more political credibility than Giuliani, and McCain has a war record, which is typically looked upon as favorable among presidential candidates, while Giuliani does not.
Another puzzling thing is that many white Protestants support Giuliani, more so than McCain, while Giuliani's political views often conflict with those of the white Protestant community.
Why am I not completely surprised?
McCain is more of a moderate Republican, more so than the neo-conservatives of today, and the Republican party is looking for more of a traditional conservative to represent the party, and to follow in the footsteps of President Bush.
Also, Giuliani has been looked upon as, not only the mayor of New York, but the Mayor of America, after the 9/11 attacks.
Moreover, I think that the rivalry between Giuliani and the likely Democrat candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York) would prove to be a stronger presidential battle than one between McCain and Clinton.
Why does it matter to me?
To be honest, I'm not completely sold on any single candidate just yet. Despite my liberal Democrat views, I'd still like to make an informed decision as to for whom I will be casting my ballot come 2008. As a Democrat, I favored McCain over both Bush and John Kerry back in 2004, and given a race between McCain and Clinton, I could be very much so on the fence.
Still, there's a good year-and-a-half of campaigning to go through, a good year-and-a-half of personal research on the candidates that matter to me, and a year-and-a-half where new "buzz candidates" could surface on both sides of the political spectrum. The third-party candidates will push different issues for the mainstream candidates to make a strong decision on as well, between now and November 2008, it's a matter of time until the country figures it out.
All I can do is urge the public to make an informed decision...to inform themselves past the mailers and television ads, to look deeper into the televised debates, and make a real informed decision. In this information age, I hope that the American public does not take their resources for granted, and that they take the time to vote for more than an icon, but a whole person. Whatever we do, let's do our best to make an informed decision. Inform yourselves during the political primaries, make sure that your candidate either fits your personal views, or what you feel would be best for our free world, what ever personal philosophies you hold dear. Then, during the presidential race, take an informed look at all sides, see what issues are pushed, and examine your own beliefs.
Our future is only as good as the decisions we make today.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
What has Britney done lately?
What is the deal with the news?
Let's consider the major news outlets, just think about them...good.
Now, consider this question: What has Britney Spears done lately?
Answers:
* Divorced white trash.
* Not released a a top-ten single in over three years (last one: Toxic in Feb 2004).
* Shaved her head.
* Checked into rehab.
Now, consider this:
This afternoon, Senate suffered a very narrow defeat in an attempt to block President Bush's order for more troops in Iraq. How narrow was this defeat? Four votes. This movement had a lot of support from both sides of the house, Republican and Democrat...however, there were four last minute votes from senators who decided to support Bush's redeployment of troops. This is major news, considering that our legislature is widely controlled by the Democrats, who oppose Bush's plans.
So, I check the major news outlets...first I check CNN.com. Then I check MSNBC.com. Then I check FoxNews.com. Then I check CBSnews.com. Then I check ABCnews.com. Just about everyone of these news sites had the news about the senate side-by-side with the Britney Spears rehab/shaved head story.
So, let's check news.bbc.co.uk...we can usually rely on BBC news for good and serious coverage, right?
We've got Condoleezza Rice preparing for a peace summit...and Britney's dumb bald head.
How do these events have equal billing?
Senate is doing things to try to fix the country, as is Condoleezza...but what has Britney done lately? Absolutely nothing.
She used to be a pretty face, but now without the hair, she just looks like a crazy white girl who went crazy after a drug induced haze. Britney hasn't done anything lately, and her notoriety is comparable to that of Paris Hilton, people who are now just famous to be famous.
This is more of a commentary on media sensationalism...and my utter disbelief that sensationalist stories about "Britney Nobody" have the same weight as Iraq or world peace. I can't blame the media for this, rather the mass audiences who feed into this, and keep leeches in the spotlight while tragedies like Darfur stay in the shadows, while children in Africa are fighting a war for blood diamonds. It's insane to me.
This isn't an issue of a liberal controlled media, or a conservative controlled outlet, this is an issue of what we collectively tune into, and what drives our society closer to a post-literate, post-intellectual society, addicted to celebrities through whom we vicariously live our lives, video games to take us away from reality, and junk food to make us more dissatisfied with the way we are. We, as a nation, as a society, have the ability to be smarter than this, to be more intellectual than water cooler talk about a bald has-been nothing celebrity, and yet our society demands that these stories hold the same weight as a failing war and a breeding peace, and overshadow massive tragedies.
Does Britney's falling out deserve to be headline news? Yeah, but in an entertainment magazine, or in a music section...it's definitely not front page material, especially considering what all is going on in this world.
Let's consider the major news outlets, just think about them...good.
Now, consider this question: What has Britney Spears done lately?
Answers:
* Divorced white trash.
* Not released a a top-ten single in over three years (last one: Toxic in Feb 2004).
* Shaved her head.
* Checked into rehab.
Now, consider this:
This afternoon, Senate suffered a very narrow defeat in an attempt to block President Bush's order for more troops in Iraq. How narrow was this defeat? Four votes. This movement had a lot of support from both sides of the house, Republican and Democrat...however, there were four last minute votes from senators who decided to support Bush's redeployment of troops. This is major news, considering that our legislature is widely controlled by the Democrats, who oppose Bush's plans.
So, I check the major news outlets...first I check CNN.com. Then I check MSNBC.com. Then I check FoxNews.com. Then I check CBSnews.com. Then I check ABCnews.com. Just about everyone of these news sites had the news about the senate side-by-side with the Britney Spears rehab/shaved head story.
So, let's check news.bbc.co.uk...we can usually rely on BBC news for good and serious coverage, right?
We've got Condoleezza Rice preparing for a peace summit...and Britney's dumb bald head.
How do these events have equal billing?
Senate is doing things to try to fix the country, as is Condoleezza...but what has Britney done lately? Absolutely nothing.
She used to be a pretty face, but now without the hair, she just looks like a crazy white girl who went crazy after a drug induced haze. Britney hasn't done anything lately, and her notoriety is comparable to that of Paris Hilton, people who are now just famous to be famous.
This is more of a commentary on media sensationalism...and my utter disbelief that sensationalist stories about "Britney Nobody" have the same weight as Iraq or world peace. I can't blame the media for this, rather the mass audiences who feed into this, and keep leeches in the spotlight while tragedies like Darfur stay in the shadows, while children in Africa are fighting a war for blood diamonds. It's insane to me.
This isn't an issue of a liberal controlled media, or a conservative controlled outlet, this is an issue of what we collectively tune into, and what drives our society closer to a post-literate, post-intellectual society, addicted to celebrities through whom we vicariously live our lives, video games to take us away from reality, and junk food to make us more dissatisfied with the way we are. We, as a nation, as a society, have the ability to be smarter than this, to be more intellectual than water cooler talk about a bald has-been nothing celebrity, and yet our society demands that these stories hold the same weight as a failing war and a breeding peace, and overshadow massive tragedies.
Does Britney's falling out deserve to be headline news? Yeah, but in an entertainment magazine, or in a music section...it's definitely not front page material, especially considering what all is going on in this world.
Friday, February 16, 2007
No mission statement. We start guns blazing.
Fox News couldn't make itself over if it had a crack team of Beverly Hills plastic surgeons and 5 pairs of queer eyes. At least one team of eyes at the Fox News department has been able to see that most of the age 16-25 demographic gets their news information from the likes of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Someone has decided to try to give Fox News some sort of edge...can conservative news be edgy? Edgy-ness is more of a liberal trait, is it not?
Fox News will soon bestow upon us The 1/2 Hour News Hour, whose tag-line parodies the network completely: Unfair. Unbalanced. Unserious. Funny, because that tag-line would be much more apropos for the Fox News Network itself.
This snow most indubitably poses the question "Can conservatives be funny?"
Well, if the teaser which premiered on Hannity and Colmes is any evidence, the answer is no. More obvious as a result of the clip that was shown is that this is a tawdry attempt at making a "Daily Show" clone, but for a conservative audience. This, in itself, is problematic. Conservative audiences watch the news, or their news, to gain information. I don't think that a conservative audience would really stoop so low as to really appreciate low brow, below the belt mockery of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Then again, we can look at the massively liberal demographic of The Daily Show. How many people can you honestly assume get the sophisticated humor and mockery of the writers for TDS? Perhaps my faith in humanity is somewhat stifled, but I'm convinced that at least half of the audience just tunes in because they're just waiting to say "Oh, Jon Stewart made a funny."
Still, the writing in The 1/2 Hour News Hour isn't quite as sophisticated as that of it's Comedy Central competition, and I'm sure that this show will not draw away the liberal base of Stewart and Colbert, nor will it steer the attention of many conservative minds.
The concept is admirable, a conservative satire show, a half-hour dedicated in providing a balance in liberal humor...but the execution is poor at best.
Conservative humor can't change the fact that the conservative administration has gotten us in the biggest cluster-fuck ever in the Middle East. In fact, there's nothing humorous about it. Perhaps the conservative news channel is making a last ditch effort to ignore the power that Democrats are gaining in America, the timing is well apt. For one, the Democrats have just taken control of the legislature, making Bush a lame duck. For another, the Republican party has struggled to make any waves in who will take any nominations for next year's presidential election, whereas the Democrat party has at least three strong possible candidates: John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.
My friends, the conservative news channel is shivering scared. Bill O'Reilly himself criticizes the Bush administration often.
If the conservative parties want to resurge again, they're going to have to do a lot better than a poorly written, unfunny political satire.
In any case...Stewart and Colbert both have jabs to offer to the liberal candidates, just as strongly as they deliver to the conservatives.
---------
APPENDAGE: 2/18/07
One could infer from this post that I don't think that conservatives have the ability to be funny, so I gave it some good thought.
I tried to come up with some funny conservatives, like, seriously, but funny.
John McCain
I enjoyed his appearance on Saturday Night Live, I really did, granted it was during the last election season, and as a Democrat, I supported his candidacy moreso than I did Kerry's or Howlin' Howard Dean. Still, he made an appearance on Wedding Crashers, and defended himself against more staunch conservatives who disagreed with his appearance in the film. I like him because he doesn't take himself too seriously, but can still maintain more of an influence in politics. It's too bad that he doesn't have the blue blood that Bush has, or the blue blood that John Kerry married into. (See, I can poke fun at liberals too.)
Another note, John McCain's appearance on SNL was massively funnier than Al Gore's appearance, well, his first appearance. Al Gore doesn't take himself too seriously either, but when a robot makes jokes, it's like spaghetti hitting a wall. Sorry Al...if it's any consolation for Mr. Gore, his most recent cameo was very funny.
Stephen Colbert...the character, not the person
What's even funnier is that I believe that people really take the character seriously. The only argument against my theory is that I haven't seen a wave of bear assassinations anywhere.
The Bush daughters
Most cute blondes are way funny when they're drunk: True.
Twins are hot: Double True.
Cute blonde twins are twice as funny when they're drunk: QUADRUPLE TRUE!!!
See, I've got love for conservatives. Especially when they're hot.
Look, if you can list some genuinely funny conservatives, let me know. If you're looking for standards, just think Daily Show = Funny. Half Hour News Hour = Not funny.
Someone has decided to try to give Fox News some sort of edge...can conservative news be edgy? Edgy-ness is more of a liberal trait, is it not?
Fox News will soon bestow upon us The 1/2 Hour News Hour, whose tag-line parodies the network completely: Unfair. Unbalanced. Unserious. Funny, because that tag-line would be much more apropos for the Fox News Network itself.
This snow most indubitably poses the question "Can conservatives be funny?"
Well, if the teaser which premiered on Hannity and Colmes is any evidence, the answer is no. More obvious as a result of the clip that was shown is that this is a tawdry attempt at making a "Daily Show" clone, but for a conservative audience. This, in itself, is problematic. Conservative audiences watch the news, or their news, to gain information. I don't think that a conservative audience would really stoop so low as to really appreciate low brow, below the belt mockery of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Then again, we can look at the massively liberal demographic of The Daily Show. How many people can you honestly assume get the sophisticated humor and mockery of the writers for TDS? Perhaps my faith in humanity is somewhat stifled, but I'm convinced that at least half of the audience just tunes in because they're just waiting to say "Oh, Jon Stewart made a funny."
Still, the writing in The 1/2 Hour News Hour isn't quite as sophisticated as that of it's Comedy Central competition, and I'm sure that this show will not draw away the liberal base of Stewart and Colbert, nor will it steer the attention of many conservative minds.
The concept is admirable, a conservative satire show, a half-hour dedicated in providing a balance in liberal humor...but the execution is poor at best.
Conservative humor can't change the fact that the conservative administration has gotten us in the biggest cluster-fuck ever in the Middle East. In fact, there's nothing humorous about it. Perhaps the conservative news channel is making a last ditch effort to ignore the power that Democrats are gaining in America, the timing is well apt. For one, the Democrats have just taken control of the legislature, making Bush a lame duck. For another, the Republican party has struggled to make any waves in who will take any nominations for next year's presidential election, whereas the Democrat party has at least three strong possible candidates: John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.
My friends, the conservative news channel is shivering scared. Bill O'Reilly himself criticizes the Bush administration often.
If the conservative parties want to resurge again, they're going to have to do a lot better than a poorly written, unfunny political satire.
In any case...Stewart and Colbert both have jabs to offer to the liberal candidates, just as strongly as they deliver to the conservatives.
---------
APPENDAGE: 2/18/07
One could infer from this post that I don't think that conservatives have the ability to be funny, so I gave it some good thought.
I tried to come up with some funny conservatives, like, seriously, but funny.
John McCain
I enjoyed his appearance on Saturday Night Live, I really did, granted it was during the last election season, and as a Democrat, I supported his candidacy moreso than I did Kerry's or Howlin' Howard Dean. Still, he made an appearance on Wedding Crashers, and defended himself against more staunch conservatives who disagreed with his appearance in the film. I like him because he doesn't take himself too seriously, but can still maintain more of an influence in politics. It's too bad that he doesn't have the blue blood that Bush has, or the blue blood that John Kerry married into. (See, I can poke fun at liberals too.)
Another note, John McCain's appearance on SNL was massively funnier than Al Gore's appearance, well, his first appearance. Al Gore doesn't take himself too seriously either, but when a robot makes jokes, it's like spaghetti hitting a wall. Sorry Al...if it's any consolation for Mr. Gore, his most recent cameo was very funny.
Stephen Colbert...the character, not the person
What's even funnier is that I believe that people really take the character seriously. The only argument against my theory is that I haven't seen a wave of bear assassinations anywhere.
The Bush daughters
Most cute blondes are way funny when they're drunk: True.
Twins are hot: Double True.
Cute blonde twins are twice as funny when they're drunk: QUADRUPLE TRUE!!!
See, I've got love for conservatives. Especially when they're hot.
Look, if you can list some genuinely funny conservatives, let me know. If you're looking for standards, just think Daily Show = Funny. Half Hour News Hour = Not funny.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)