4/25/12 - Ann Romney Just Doesn't Get It

Photo of Ann Romney at the Reagan Dinner in Des Moines on October 27, 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And the Romney Gaffe Train just keeps on rolling.

Ann Romney has been riding high on the "War on Moms" idiocy being pushed by Republicans ever since Hillary Rosen criticized Ann Romney for weighing in on labor issues when "she has never worked a day in her life." Since then, she and the GOP have been pretending that Rosen's criticism was an attack on her being a stay-at-home-mother, instead of questioning her authority on workplace-related political issues, and taking every possible chance to remind people that she and Mitt squeezed out five kids, because Republicans love large families with lots of kids (as long as they aren't poor black families, mind you).

In her latest "I'm a Mom" interview, Ann started espousing the greatness that is her, and attempted to translate that into a knowledge of how the rest of the country exists, a sore spot for the Romney clan. Sure enough, instead of just keeping the point short and simple, Ann kept rattling in and blurted out this little gem:

“My hats off to the men in this room too that are raising kids — I love that, and I love the fact that there are also women out there that don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids.”

Ignoring the ludicrous implication that Ann Romney just LOVES the idea that some women are forced by economic hardship to both work full time and raise their children, one has to wonder if her LOVE of full-time employed men and women raising their children extends to single parents, whom the GOP has been attacking lately both verbally and politically, going as far as to propose legislation that would categorize single-parent households as a form of child abuse. Maybe she's just in LOVE with the romantic notion of a devoted parent having to work full-time in order to support their family while also raising it, but that more or less underlines the fact that the reason she might LOVE such a romanticized ideal of the working parent is that she's never actually had to be one herself.

How could somebody say such a ludicrous thing, that the LOVE the idea that people are working twice as hard to make ends meet? By the same logic, you might respond to criticism about having never suffered through chemotherapy yourself by saying that you LOVE that there are people out there fighting cancer. That can't be right, can it? Maybe we can give Ann the benefit of the doubt and just assume that she isn't really pandering to her husband's political base with every breath she takes. Then again, considering her track record of gaffes and unfortunate quotes, it's easier to assume that Ann is just as emotionally unattached as Mitt is to the real world that the majority of Americans live in.

The entire "War on Moms," of course, is a huge fabrication. The Republicans have spent months fighting back against the "War on Women" they were accused of waging, and accusation backed by their continued attempts to roll back abortion rights by demanding vaginal ultrasounds for potential patients, prevent medical coverage of contraception, and block legislation designed to ensure equal pay in the workforce. Their attempt to push the label back on the Dems in a classic "I'm Rubber/You're Glue" defense failed miserable

The key human element that the Romneys seem to be missing is humility. Any person with an ounce or two of humility or self awareness would know how to handle the growing implications that they are too rich to be in touch with Middle America. When confronted with this "Class Gap," Ann, for example, could have answered questions about their wealth as a barrier between them and Middle America by admitting that yes, they are extremely wealthy, but that they still have the same concerns about the government's policies that middle and lower class families have, and even though they haven't faced the same struggles as others having during this lengthy recession, they are still aware of these problems and want to solve them. Instead, she blurts out the inane rationalization "You know, we can be poor in spirit. I don't even consider myself as wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow." You can also be poor in basic comprehension of how you sound to others, which seems to be a malady shared by both Ann and Mitt, as they continue to whine to a population caught in stagnating wages and plummeting real estate values about hard it is to be so wealthy that you forget how many homes you own and need to have a costly elevator installed in your garage to accommodate your wife's fleet of Cadillacs. Life can be so hard, can't it?

Instead, they and other Republicans keep attempting to claim victim status, arguing that rich people are a minority being persecuted and discriminated against by the Occupy Movement and news coverage focusing on the wealthy. This defense must have sounded completely rational when it was brainstormed around a big conference table by people with six and seven-figure salaries, but it ignores the fact that persecution and discrimination are typically power-based actions leveled against the powerless by the powerful, so claiming that a minority of the population that owns a majority of the nation's wealth and resources is being victimized rings a bit hollow, especially when heard by people who have actually had to struggle against institutionalized persecution and discrimination throughout their lives.

Maybe that's why Ann LOVES working mothers and doesn't consider herself rich: because like Rosen pointed out, she hasn't had to work a single day in her life, and has no idea how hard it is to work full time and raise a family when money isn't an endless commodity for you.

Ann Romney Talks Motherhood, 'Emotionally Draining' Campaign:

'via Blog this'

Related articles

• Ann Romney: 'I Love The Fact That There Are Women Out There Who Don't Have A Choice' And 'Must Go To Work'
• "Life Isn't Easy for Any of Us": Ann Romney's Speech Raises Peril for Both Sides
• Rosen Attack On Ann Romney Not About Motherhood, But About Actual Jobs
• Romney: Welfare Moms Need 'Dignity of Work'
• "So Much For The Phony Outrage": Ann Romney Says Rosen's Attack Was A 'Gift,' 'I Loved It'

3/30/12 - Republicans Defend Racism and Trayvon Martin's Murder

Opposition poster for the 1866 election. Geary's opponent, Hiester Clymer, ran on a white supremacy platform. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So here we are again. As the old saying goes "The more things change, the more things stay the same." We are now living in a world most would have thought impossible a mere few decades ago, in which a black man holds the highest office in the land, the Presidency of the United States. It feels as if a new era is being ushered into American history, one that might be seen by Americans centuries from now as the dividing line between our racist, exploitative past and the enlightened legacy we invariably left behind.

But then an unarmed black teenager is shot dead by a non-black gun owner and law enforcement enthusiast, and Republicans immediately dust off their black canes and top hats and leap into their well-choreographed "It ain't us, it's them" song-and-dance routine. It's almost like they can't help themselves.

It's hard to explain or rationalize. There seems to be this inherent inability on the Right to be able to admit that racism exists anywhere in the country, in any form whatsoever. What's even more bizarre is that they always attempt to argue against the existence of racism by claiming that those who disagree with them are racist, proving once again that Republicans seem to inherently lack any real sense of irony.

Portrait of U.S. Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Take, for example, the comments by Tea Party favorite Rep. Joe 
Walsh (R-Ill.) in response to the controversy surrounding Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) appearing on the House floor in a Hoodie and quoting bible passages. Rush was speaking out in regards to what is now seen by many as the travesty of justice involving the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a young black man whose death was not fully investigated by police at the time, supposedly because the white man who shot him claimed self-defense, despite reasonable evidence to the contrary.

I will grant you that the House floor is technically not the place for activism. I say technically, because the House (and Senate, let's be fair) is regularly populated by whorish politicians who eagerly take the floor to push personal agendas motivated by either ideological biases or lobbyist dollars, often in defiance of public opinion and public interest. Rush's only real mistake in this case was incorporating a prop into his act that defied some dress code that Republicans will no doubt claim is mentioned somewhere in the constitution.

Now... it's bad enough that the Republican presiding over the chamber at the moment (Rep. Gregg Harper of Mississippi) had Rush removed from the floor despite the fact that he was reading quotes from the bible, something Republicans are usually all fighting for the right to do in government buildings. Angrily shouting down a fellow Representative for speaking out against the death of an innocent black child doesn't exactly help the GOP's public image when it comes to race relations. But then, just to make it clear that the Trayvon Martin incident isn't about race,

"I hope Congressman Rush will be as outraged with all of the black on black crime going on in the city of Chicago weekend after weekend," Walsh said. "This is where our outrage has got to be as well."

It's understandable that Walsh might try to indirectly defend the fatal shooting of children, considering how distasteful he seems to find paying the $117,000 he currently owes in late child support payments. It is quite possibly that Walsh actually hates all children, and not just his own. So it's feasible that this Republican Tea Party candidate (two groups not wholly unused to accusations of racism) wasn't even aware of how racist his argument against  Rush truly was.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It's a Republican argument (supposedly based in unshakable logic ) that has been around ever since Reagan's apocryphal (and racist) "Welfare Queens" argument that welfare needed to be eliminated not because they don't care about poor black people, but that poor black people are merely lazy freeloaders taking advantage of the white middle-class taxpayers who unwillingly pay into the Welfare System.

Now, Reagan didn't phrase it exactly that way; I'm merely translating what is obvious to anyone not self-deluded enough to see through the forced logic. The narrative the Republicans are constantly struggling to maintain is that there is no racism left in the world. That way, they can back racist legislation without having to explain how racist it really isn't, even though it is. If they admit that racism is still alive and well, for example, they will invariably have to also admit that disenfranchising black voters is actually a racist act, and not just an attempt to prevent voter fraud.

But the problem is that when you are trying to support a racist ideal is that your logic comes out all eschewed and invariably becomes racist itself. What Rep. Joe "Deadbeat Dad" Walsh is saying here is that his black colleague is out of line because he doesn't speak out against black-on-black violence. The implication here is that he is a hypocrite for singling out this case of a violent white man, because blacks are WAY more violent. He's also implying that a white man killing a black teenager shouldn't be such a big deal because black men kill black teenagers all the time, although in the case of the latter the police tend to actually investigate the incident.

Now, if you think I'm being unfair to Walsh (about his black-on-black violence comment, not the fact that he stiffed his ex-wife and children) and am merely twisting his words to make them sound illogical, try this: the next time a white person is killed by a black person, argue that it's not a big deal, because white-on-white violence happens all of the time. Doesn't work, does it? You know why? Because the outrage isn't about the random color of the two people involved. In the case of Trayvon Martin, the outrage is not that a white man chased down and shot an unarmed black teenager ostensibly because he looked "suspicious" (ie: Black), but that the shooting was not properly investigated by either the police or the media until nearly a month of grass-roots activism helped the case gain national attention. It is about a case of grave injustice that left a teenager dead and his killer uninvestigated or prosecuted. To reduce it to being just about a white-on-black killing is... wait for it... racist.

This "Don't blame us, blacks are even worse" argument comes full circle with the inevitable cries of "Reverse Racism." In this case, the white Republican complains that blacks aren't oppressed or persecuted at all, but instead it is those poor defenseless whites who own the majority of American wealth and control the majority of American power who are constantly discriminated against for being white. To put it another way, they defend their argument that there is no real racism in America anymore by claiming that they are the victims of racism. Makes perfect sense, no?

Hoodie (Photo credit: jollyUK)

Instead of taking apart this flawed logic (which is a lengthy enough argument in it's own right), look at the term they have dubbed this incessant whining about being discriminated against: "Reverse Racism." This term that the Right has coined exposes their blindness to the inherent racism involved in their argument. The word Racism does not mean "whites prejudice against black," it means a hatred or intolerance of another race. Doesn't matter what that race is, hating it for being just that is racism. "Reverse Racism," therefore, would actually be a lack of racism, or rather, loving somebody because of their race. With this in mind, tell me how these "There is no Racism in America" Republicans can make such a claim when they don't even know what the word Racism means? Or, to put it another way, believing that racism is just about blacks is... wait for it... racist.

Now, if you're a Republican reading this (the thought just made me giggle), save your indignation for someone who cares. Launching into the predictable "Oh Yeah, well Liberals blah blah blah" defense is a complete waste of time, and don't cry to me that I've unfairly branded you as a racist just because you're a Republican. Suck it up, call me a Reverse Racist, and go back to applauding Newt Gingrich for saying that child labor laws should be lifted so that underage black children can work as janitors in their own schools and learn how to be productive members of society. Besides, if you're really that offended, I can switch back to talking about how much Republicans hate women. There's plenty of supporting evidence there as well.

Related articles

• Why the Trayvon Martin killing isnt racist, its the truth. (youngliberalandfat.wordpress.com)
• On Trayvon. On the state of race in America (eturner7215.wordpress.com)
• Breitbart.com Commenters Spew Racist Hatred at Trayvon Martin (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Conservatives, Trying to Feel Better About Their Racism (crooksandliars.com)
• The Hooded Effect (com4609a.wordpress.com)

3/28/12 - Trayvon Martin and Obamacare

Trayvon Martin Protest - Sanford (Photo credit: werthmedia)

All of a sudden I'm entering 2011 as the current date instead of 2012. Something deep within my subconscious is suddenly attempting to turn back the clock. This can't be a good sign.

*

The Trayvon Martin tragedy has becoming the newest thing to get pissed about, and rightfully so. However, as usual, passionate indignation mixed with media exploitation has created an echo chamber that threatens to drown out what the real issue is here.

The politicians and talking heads aren't making anything easier, either (As if they ever do). In the latest little back and forth, you've got Obama coming out and empathizing with Trayvon Martin's family and remarking how close to home this kind of thing strikes when you're a black father. This turned out to be a bad move, as Imaginary Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich and John "I'm more religiously alien than the Mormon I'm running against" Santorum immediately jumped to the defense of the increasingly marginalized and persecuted White America by claiming that Obama was trying to divide the nation by injecting race into the situation. Of course, these guys are probably too busy running presidential campaigns (or in Gingrich's case, book signing tours disguised as presidential campaigns) to notice that the country is already divided by the Trayvon Martin tragedy: on one side are all of the people outraged at the lack of justice (once again) involving and innocent black teenager being gunned down, and on the other side are all of the white people attempting to defend the man who shot a kid armed with a bag of Skittles without sounding racist.

The joke, of course, is that race is a major issue in the Trayvon Martin case, but it isn't what we should all be focusing on. Sending Skittles to police stations and wearing hoodies in solidarity is the kind of feel-good media-friendly activism that Michael Moore built his career on, but all that does is distract from the more long-reaching tragedy that took place. We can spend all of our time digging into Zimmerman's past and replaying 911 calls to figure out whether he said "Coon" or "Goon", but rallying against one idiot as an effigy of racial prejudice does little more than stoke the flames of outrage and give everyone a chance to shout, but all of the Hoodie Activism in the world is going to decrease the amount of racism in the world. Racists actually tend to dig their heels in on incidents like this, in case you haven't noticed.

The real issue, and the problem that should be dominating our dialogue instead of Zimmerman's student status, is the institutionalized bias that resulted in a man found standing over a dead teenager with a smoking gun essentially being taken at his word by police to such an extent that witnesses who contradicted his story were told they were wrong, and not even being taken into custody despite having a previous criminal record. Whether this bias was due to the fact that Zimmerman was white and Martin was black, or that Zimmerman's father is a former judge, is a minor point over the greater issue that the actions of the police department in this case have obviously been guided by some internal ideology, and not a concern for protecting public safety or serving justice.

Add to this the existence of pro-gun lobby laws like macho-sounding "Stand Your Ground" law, which begs to ask whether public safety legislation that sounds like an NRA slogan or a 70's Vigilante Film Title should ever be passed into law, and you have government and law enforcement creating an environment in which violence is not only tolerated, but actively encouraged. I'm not what you would call a pacifist. I'm a long-standing fan of Dirty Harry and Death wish. But I also know how to separate testosterone-fueled fantasy from reality. Unlike Zimmerman, apparently, whose paranoid world view sees a black teen in a hoodie with his hand in his pocket as an outlaw that needs to be chased down and brought to "Final Justice." There will always be people like Zimmerman, but if law enforcement officials respond to this kind of overreaction with a pat on the back and a knowing wink, a lot more of them might feel justified in acting out. That, oh outraged citizens, is the real issue at hand.

*

So, "Obamacare" finally gets it's day in court, and the crazies crawl out of the woodwork to dance in front of the cameras and put on a paranoid schizoid show for the media. I'm not talking about the "Borthers" or "Teabaggers" either; these are elected officials showing off their crazy as they suck up the free attention by spouting crackpot ideology that would sound just as authentic being muttered by a derelict wrapped in tin foil rubbing against you in a crowded subway car.

Take Michele "I have more kids than you!" Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example. Standing among the media circus, happy yet again to be the center of attention (and much like a child, completely unaware of the difference between Good Attention and Bad Attention), Bachmann warned the gathering crowd of anti-health care fanatics that “In the future, you see, we will not be electing a president. We will be electing a health care dictator!"

That's right, people! We'll be electing Health Care Dictators before you know it! Of course, most dictators aren't really elected, at least not fairly, nor do they often bother to defend their policies through a lengthy legal process. Also, most dictators have secret police forces that run around slipping radioactive pellets into the breakfast oatmeal of people who stand around calling them names in front of their palaces while on television.

Even better, however, is the insanely myopic and unflinchingly disconnected question asked by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “If government can tell you what to buy in terms of health insurance, what’s next?"

I have to agree with the senator from the great state of Wisconsin (and how proud they must be). If we allow our government to demand that everyone have affordable health care, what could possibly be next? I mean, before you know it, they could start trying to exert control over who we can or can't marry, whether or not we can use contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies, force us to have unnecessary medical procedures, or even try to dictate which of us should be allowed to raise children. Senator Johnson is right, any party espousing this kind of madness needs to be stopped in its tracks.

You've got thousands of protesters assembling to warn about Obama's "Death Panels" and "Health Care Rationing" if Obama's plan is put into effect because they are afraid of the government getting between them and their doctors, and they are being led by politicians openly and actively attempting to pass legislation that would allow employers and religious organizations to do the exact thing they fear.

You see? This is what happens when you have a political party run by people with no sense of irony.

*

Response to my question about what kind of nails a particular nail gun uses: "It should have a fat head, a thick shaft, and be roughly three and a half inches long."

I'm probably getting to old to be giggling, but it sure ain't stopping me.

Related articles

• The Trayvon Martin Case (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)
• Paranoia in the Age of Obama (thedailybeast.com)
• Pictures and Prejudice in the Trayvon Martin Case (themoderatevoice.com)

Sean Hannity Once Again Leaps to Defense of Racist Murderers and Their Protectors

Sean Hannity On Trayvon Martin: 'Is It Possible That This Was Just A Horrible Accident?' (VIDEO):

This is only shocking if you haven't been listening to Sean Hannity for over a decade on radio and television. This is the same tactic used by him and others whenever a racially motivated attack gains the national spotlight. Go back to his treatment of the Abner Louima case, the Amadou Diallo shooting, and countless other cases in which minorities were either maliciously assaulted or victims overreaction due to racist stereotypes and prejudices. 

The M.O. is always the same for hi and others: Immediately jump to the defense of the aggressor in the situation when it is apparent that race is going to be a major aspect of the media and social attention, then as soon as evidence begins to blatantly contradict their defense, switch gears and ask for a calm. rational, subjective examination of the incident, doing so in such a way so as to imply that those angry and uproarious over the injustice perpetrated are the ones being irrational and jumping to conclusions based solely on social-political motivated agendas. 

They do this because admitting that even one event occurred due to racial prejudices. and that it was initially covered up by law enforcement, risks destroying they narrative they try to keep alive that there is no real racial inequality or institutionalized racism in America anymore. They see every incident like the Trayvon Martin shooting as another Tawana Brawley hoax, and it is in their best ideological interest for everyone else to see it the same way.

Between this and Geraldo Rivera's "Hoodie" comment, it is easy enough to see exactly how far Right Wing commentators are willing go to prevent the victim this crime from gaining victim status.

'via Blog this'

Related articles

• Geraldo Rivera Hoodie Theory: Blames Clothing for Trayvon Martin's Death (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)
• Glenn Beck Website Blames Trayvon Martin for His Own Killing (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Hannity On Trayvon Martin Killing: 'Is It Possible That It Was Just A Horrible Accident?' (mediaite.com)

3/19/12 - Young Voters, Political Blogging, ASAP, and the War on Women

HUffpost: Mitt Romney Doesn't See How Young Voters 'Could Vote For A Democrat'

So, Mitt can't even begin to conceive how a young person in this day and age could consider voting for a Democratic Candidate. And you know what? I have to agree with him. Let's face it, the Democrats are completely out of touch with America's modern youth to such an extent that it is practically inconceivable that a young adult of voting age would somehow feel that the Democrats have their best interests in mind. That is, of course, unless that young person can't afford health care because of skyrocketing insurance premiums, can't afford to go to college due to skyrocketing tuition costs, has recently been called a slut an a whore by a GOP mouthpiece for using birth control, wants to retain their reproductive rights, is gay or has a friend or parent who is gay, masturbates to pornography, are non-Christian or Muslim, believes in Evolution, knows somebody who is unemployed, are still living with their parents, or has a family member or friend who is currently dependent on one of the many social programs that Republicans keep trying to abolish. But really, what are the odds of that?

*

In the past, I've done my best not too spend too much time on only politics. This is partly because this is not a political blog, and partly because I have so many interests other than politics. However, it is getting harder and harder to focus on anything else these days. Not only are we in a very politically volatile moment in our country's history (due in no small part to the biggest recession since the Great Depression while orchestrating wars in multiple countries with no clear strategy to speak of), but we are also in a weird era in which politics is rapidly becoming a parody itself. Honestly, how can an rational human being watch such jaw-dropping theatrics and not pause to remark on them? The Republican Party has decided to double down on its efforts to take back the White House by adopting political platforms that sound like Archie Bunker Soliloquies, while the Democratic White House spends most of its time doing its best to not look too liberal, which is no small feat in of itself.

Seriously, how am I expected not to comment on this stuff?

*

And now, a few words from Lee Camp.

*

If you use the term ASAP, be it in an email or on a post-it note, no matter what the circumstances, you are a complete and utter douche. Stop it.

*

The GOP has become an exercise in how not to carry on a logical debate. Take what many people are starting to frame as the Republican War on Women. Republican lawmakers have been stirring up their minority base of angry white men this election cycle (and attempting to distract from the slowly losing economic arguments against Obama) by focusing on anti-women legislation that feels like a retread of everything we've already gone through during the first half of the twentieth century. If they aren't demanding that women receive medically unnecessary ultrasounds before being allowed to have legally protected abortions in order to show them the error of their ways, they're fighting for the right of their employers to decide whether or not their medical insurance should include birth control coverage, and telling them to keep their legs closed if they don't like it.

Then, a law student who was blocked from testifying at a Republican-run Dog & Pony Show that birth control coverage is necessary by sharing a personal anecdote in which a fellow student died from her inability to afford prescription birth control medicines was called a slutty little whore who should film her sexual escapades for men to leer at if she expects them to pay for her sex pills by Republican mouth piece Rush Limbaugh. Needless to say, this (and the refusal of any Republican candidates or politicians to openly repudiate Rush's comments) proved to be the final straw for a lot of people who hadn't yet been drawn into the argument.

Naturally, the resulting claims that the GOP is waging a "War on Women" began to irritate the Right, and so they responded to the justified and wholly demonstrable label the same way that they always do: single out a Democrat who has done something vaguely similar and cry "But they did it, too!" Of course, it's kind of hard to find a Democratic politician who acts like a stereotypical misogynist from the 1940's, so the closest they could come was to complain that controversial political comedian Bill Maher, who recently donated one million dollars to the Democratic Campaign, called Sarah Palin naughty words not once, but twice!

Ignoring the fact that Maher's name-calling and Limbaugh's slander are incomparable (mainly because explaining the logic of this to Limbaugh Ditto-heads and Right Wing Loyalists is both exhausting and pointless), it's also plain to see that hanging their defense of a systematic attack on Women's Rights that have already been fought for and won in the past century on one comedian's foul mouth is a rather flimsy defense. So, what does the GOP do? They double-down on it in hopes of winning back female voters.

There! The Democrat Party is the true enemy of the lady folk! Bill Maher called Sarah Palin names and then donated money them, and somebody called Obama's White House a Boy's Club! That's far worse then our attempts to systematically erode a women's right to make decisions regarding her body without the government or her employer giving her permission to do so! Honest!

This is the kind of defense that only makes sense to you if you are desperate to find validation for your indefensible views.

Related articles

• David Axelrod To Erin Burnett: Maher Doesn't Play Same Role As GOP 'De Facto Boss' Rush Limbaugh (mediaite.com)
• CNN's Erin Burnett criticizes RNC ad (politico.com)
• The Bogus Rush Limbaugh / Bill Maher Comparison (polentical.com)

LIVE Oscar coverage on Moviesucktastic!

MovieSucktastic - live streaming video powered by Livestream: "

Watch live streaming video from moviesucktastic at livestream.com

'via Blog this'

Related articles

• Watch Oscars 84th Academy Awards live online free stream ABC Channel 26/2/2012 (oleole.com)
• Oscars 2012: Where to Watch 84th Annual Academy Awards via Live Stream, TV and More (ibtimes.com)

2/20: Dreams, Quarters, Feet, and Firings

Image via Wikipedia

This morning I hit the snooze button on my alarm clock and promptly went back to sleep. Then, not only did I dream that I actually woke up and got out of bed (dragged a comb across my head...), I also dreamed that it was actually Saturday and I didn't need to get up anyway, then ran around feeling all good about getting up early on the weekend before actually waking up and realizing I was forty-five minutes behind schedule.

I seriously think my subconscious has it in for me.

*

Last week, I appeared on  Joyce Estey's monthly radio program Educationally Speaking (accompanied by professor and poet BJ Ward, author Jessica Cooper, and poets Nick Heacock and Angela Chiu), during which I read a slightly truncated version of my creative nonfiction short story A Quarter at a Time, which can currently be read in its entirety at Eric's Hysterics. It was a fun experience, and it reminded me that I need to get myself back on Father Scardo's show as soon as possible. Perhaps a post-Oscar movie chat with Scardo and guests in between speed metal and classic punk tracks?

*

*

Also sent in the signed contracts for another published short story. The Other Foot, which I just recently read along with a gathering of other authors at Warren County Community College this past year, has been selected to appear in the latest anthology from Portable Press, Uncle John’s Flush Fiction. Should be out in bookstores in April, but I would much prefer it if you bought in on Amazon via the link above. That way, I get a taste - and I do love to taste.

*

*

I was laid off twice from the same job.


I know I'm not alone in this, but it still embarrasses me to utter this phrase. Maybe it's because the hidden context is that I was naive enough to think that somebody I worked with for over a decade would actually show consideration... and that I was so naive twice.


Both times I was laid off for circumstances beyond my control. Much of the reasons given for my first pink slip stemmed from my employer's habit of my workforce being almost exclusively comprised of the teenage sons of friends of his and college interns, and that at the time of my dismissal I was running a warehouse full of lighting equipment and a fleet of six vehicles with a workforce comprised of one employee who couldn't drive stick.


I bowed out gracefully, kept a positive relationship with the company, occasionally did the odd freelance job, and roughly a year later I received a call from my old boss apologizing for letting me go, admitting that I was understaffed and unsupported, and asked me to come back. I probably should have said no, but the money was good, and the familiarity factor was there as well. Might as well get paid for a job I already know forward and back.


Roughly three years later the economy blew up, and I got the second layoff literally two months after being told that I was the company's most valuable employee that would be the last to go if things ever got bad. It turned out that I was the second to go: his quick solution to budget problems was to fire the top paid senior employees and keeping the low-wage underlings, including an obnoxious NYU film student who no one wanted to work on set with, and a punk who was obsessed with knives and thought he was a Ninja.


I'm sure it all worked out for the best. I politely burned that bridge last year in case I was ever tempted to go for a third round, and every now and then I hear from old contacts that the condition of the packages and equipment going out now is noticeably substandard to what it was like under me. I'd be lying if I said that didn't make me somewhat happy. I guess you get what you pay for.


Not that I'm bitter. Unemployment actually gave me a chance to go back to school, and I traded the completely shitty job I took after it for the amazingly awesome job I have now. But it's always good to ponder past decisions and their consequences.

Related articles

• Blender Alarm Clock (ubergizmo.com)
• Author Appearance: S. Michael Wilson on Educationally Speaking with Joyce Estey (authorsmw.wordpress.com)
• Publishing News: My Short Story Gets Flushed (authorsmw.wordpress.com)

2/13: Duck Sauce, Paper Routes, Doppelgangers and Google

duck sauce SQ (Photo credit: wintersoul1)

While trading instant messages back and forth with my fellow employees the other day, I made a startling discovery upon sending the message "I'll take car of it, I'm all over it like Duck Sauce." Apparently, the 'U' and 'I' keys are far closer together than I previously suspected.

*

I received a reminder last week of just how desperate I had been to find an alternative to my previous job. A call came in on my cell while at my new job: it was from the Morning Call (a local newspaper), asking if I was still interested in a paper delivery route.

Have I mentioned that I love my new job?

*

I've decided to run for Mayor. I am going to run as two separate candidates, one Democrat, the other Republican. For one I will appear clean shaven and use my proper name; for the other, I will wear a large fake mustache and goatee, and reverse the order of my first and last names. Print advertising will be plentiful, and I will call impromptu press conferences frequently, during which I will always make slanderous accusations of my rival and openly challenge him to a public debate.

When canvasing towns for votes, I will go through a neighborhood ringing doorbells and answering questions as one candidate, then immediately circle through the same streets as the other and demand to know what attacks my opponent has been leveling at me. Whenever anybody points out that we look alike, I will take great offense and go on a lengthy diatribe about my opponents unsavory facial features and personal grooming habits.

On the night of the election, I will immediately call for a recount, claim rampant voter fraud, and immediately concede in disgust, vowing to never run again. Unless my opponent throws his hat into the ring again, of course.

*

I refuse to click the Google logo anymore. I don't need this kind of entertaining distraction when I'm running a search for the latest nude celebrity photos at three in the morning.

Related articles

• 12 Adorable Google Doodles for Valentine's Day (mashable.com)
• 9 Great Gifts For Beardy Guys (bellasugar.com)
• Female burglar hid behind fake mustache (upi.com)

Intellectual Elitism, or Just Plain Smarter Than You?

Cover of Smart People

This country took a strange path over the past couple of decades, a road leading towards an inherent distrust in what many like to refer to as "Intellectual Elitism." Slowly, gradually, an ever-increasing number of Americans have become more and more wary of those who claim advance knowledge in specific fields of study. In short, more and more people are afraid of smart people.

Why could this possibly be? We could blame the politicians who sell this fear, or the news media that helps support it, or even the entertainment industry for turning ignorance into a noble character trait. But what it really comes down to is that many Americans fear smart people simply because they are, themselves, rather stupid.

Of course, this isn't the kind of thing you're supposed to say. It upsets people because they instantly assume that you are referring to them specifically, and lends support to the claims of Intellectual Elitism by the arrogant and snobbish nature of the statement. "You can't really mean that, can you? I guess you think you're smarter than most people." Actually, I do. Considering that the Average IQ of the American citizen rests between 90 and 100 (depending on who you ask), I feel very comfortable with the assumption that I am smarter than most of the people I come in contact with on a daily basis. It isn't smug elitism, just simple math. As a wise man once suggested, if you imagine how stupid the average person is, then realize that statistically half of the population is even dumber than that, you can get a real sense of how smart the majority truly is.

Does this mean I think I'm better than most people? Of course not. That's the same arrogance that allows some people to estimate their worth as an individual based on how much money they earn, or how big their house is, or how strong they are. At 6'4" I am also taller than most people, but that statement doesn't enrage people as much. Except really short people, of course.

The problem with this anti-intellectual attitude is that it has slowly made its way into the public discourse, and has taken over topics that in the past have been reserved for more intelligent consideration. With the growing amount of available media streaming into our eyes and ears, debates and discussions on serious issues of grave importance are being pondered and discussed by people with no real credentials. Some of the biggest names in talk radio, for example, spend hours discussing advanced political, economic and legal issues while having never obtained a college degree of any kind. Now, does not having a college degree make someone stupid? No, people are more than capable than obtaining knowledge on their own. However, most people prefer to get medical advice from a certified doctor with framed degrees on the wall, and not just a nice guy with a well-worn library card.

This acceptance of the untrained and unqualified as experts worth listening to has had a negative effect on the way matters of importance are considered. Take, for example, the state of political discourse in America today. Spend enough time reading the posts and messages of your average politically active individual (or, God forbid, get stuck in a conversation with one), and you will be utterly amazed at how ridiculous the most outspoken of them sound. if this is truly a nation of intelligent people, then why do most people with anything even remotely resembling a political agenda seem unable to engage in a cogent and logical argument? Follow any news site message board, and you'll be convinced that you are eavesdropping on schoolyard during recess. People spend more time defending individuals and organizations than they do ideas or philosophies, and most of the debate degenerates into labeling and name-calling.

Actually, the real reason I'm dragging politics into this is that this year's Republican Primaries stand as a perfect example of this strange reluctance to accept wisdom from the wise. The Republican Party has spent the last decade or two espousing financial success as the indicator of personal greatness, while simultaneously discrediting intelligent people scientists and college professors (who also just happen to regularly speak out against Republican policies) as "out of touch" and "too smart for their own good." The end result turns out to be a Presidential Primary composed entirely of extremely rich candidates who appear to be collectively dumber than a box of hammers.

Yeah, I know, it was hilarious when we got to poke fun at Sarah Palin for being stupid. But you could always blame her participation in the election process on John McCain's self-destructive flight of fancy, and at least she had enough common sense (barely, it seems) to drop out of public office altogether and rake in that sweet, sweet political pundit cash. But now there's nobody to blame. We're stuck with debate after debate featuring a stage full of disgustingly rich successful businessmen who repeatedly prove themselves to be less intellectually adept than a teenage Denny's waitress. The object of these debates has ceased to be deciding which candidate is best equipped to lead a nation, and is now nothing more than a sad game of seeing who can say the least amount of stupid shit in a specific time frame. What's even worse, the audiences keep upstaging the idiots in the spotlight by periodically applauding government-sanctioned murder, cheering the death of an uninsured man, booing an American soldier for

Maybe I'm being harsh, but I'm slowly resigning myself to living in a country in which a candidate for the role of Supreme Leader (more or less) declares a to have created a list of three important items that need to be addressed, fails to remember what the third item was, and doesn't immediately drop out of the race in shame. Rick Perry hasn't been the only one taking pride in ignorance, either. The historical mistakes, policy blunders and poorly phrased sentences exposing an increasing insular existence have been a daily occurrence, with each painful error brushed of or explained away by the candidates as the results of strenuous campaigning or "gotchya questions" served up by a hostile press. If these are the results of gotchya questions, the least the telejournalists could do is point and laugh when they finally trip somebody up with difficult brain teasers such as "What do you read?"

Where am I going with all of this? I'm not sure, really. If I had any kind of solution or overall explanation is to why Mike Judge's Idiocracy keeps looking more and more like a grim eventuality, this is where I'd lay it all out. I guess I don't have all of the answers after all. Hey, I said I was smart. I didn't say I was THAT smart.

Related articles

• How political affiliation can influence intelligence analysis (iago18335.wordpress.com)
• The Stupid Party (thedailybeast.com)
• The Myth of the American Political Intelligence Gap (esquire.com)

2/1/12: New Post, New Job, New Sale, New Chair, Same Old Mitt

Been light on the blogging lately, but with very good excuses, the main one among them being a new job which came out of the blue about a month ago.

There I was, slumped over the desk at my depressing, soul-sucking nightmare of a job, wondering exactly what I could do to extricate myself from my hopefully temporary vocation, when a random call from an old friend dropped the solution to all my problems right in my lap. There's nothing more boring than listening to someone describe their good fortune in great detail, so all I'll say is that I am now working from home and earning more doing so, and seem to be back in the employment of a business owner that actually looks at his employees as something more than an unfortunate expense. So far, the year is off to a great start!

*

Sold another short story. I'll post more details once I receive confirmation that the contracts have been accepted. Another good start to the year.

*

Since I'm going to be working from home, which will mean sitting at my personal desk for eight to ten hours a day, I decided that I needed to drop a bit of cash on a real chair. Don't get me wrong, I love the creaky wooden desk chair I picked up at a yard sale last year for $20, but the odds were clearly in favor of me picking the splintered remnants of  a rapidly deteriorating piece of furniture within the first thousand hours of usage. So, I ordered the biggest god-damned desk chair I could find. It's not a luxurious leather sink-into-it-and-sleep ego-stroker, but it is a massive chair: 350lb weight limit, 24" wide seat, and a back rest that actually reaches the back of the head of my 6'4" frame. I feel like Lily Tomlin's Edith Ann every time I swing my legs over to take a call, and I have to reach over to touch the arm rest. I could have company over in this damn thing. I'm telling you, this is one big chair.

Now I need a bigger desk.

*

Mitt Romney actually trying to appeal to the 99% Occupy Wall Street crowd? He's got a funny way of doing it:

"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

You know he's trying to gain support from the growing 99% movement, but apparently the Rich Elitist in Mitt couldn't allow him to do so without adding that he's "...not concerned about the very poor." When asked to comment on his lack of concern for those living in abject poverty by CNN's Soledad O'Brien, Mitt explained that he wasn't worried because "We have a very ample safety net..." He explained that "...we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor."

Of course, Soledad didn't follow up by pointing out that all of those "ample" programs have become increasing underfunded with the increase in usage by America's growing percentage of impoverished citizens, or asking how he feels about the constant push by his fellow GOP members to cut funding for these programs. Mitt's talking about "fixing the holes" in the safety net while his fellow Republicans are voicing their concern about the "Safety Net" turning into a "Safety Hammock," as Paul Ryan so dickishly put in his state of the Union response last year.

Let's be fair, Mitt sounds like he's trying to appeal to the 99%, but all he's doing is pandering to the usual middle class conservatives that the GOP constantly scares with threats that the poor are coming to steal their money via socialist government programs, while attempting to dress it up with the current anti-plutocracy catchphrases making the rounds in the ever-increasing rebellion against our government being run by people like Romney.

So, you can give Mitt some credit for trying to sound sensitive to the plight of whatever he thinks the middle class is, but you still have to add "I'm not concerned about the very poor" to the list of Things Rich-Guy Romney Just Doesn't Get, right along with "Let [the foreclosure process] run its course and hit the bottom," and "I like being able to fire people."

*

New favorite commercial ever. My vote is for the Pizza Curtains.

*

It's been such a busy month, I never got the chance to design custom labels for the new Wilson Compound Winery release, a nice Coffee Port. Just as well, as the person who modeled for the Christmas Port backed out at the last minute. And I was so close to have an official spokesperson! Luckily, this batch came with pre-printed labels that aren't too shabby. Too make up for the transgression, however, I am already working on the label design for the Occupy Orange Sangria currently fermenting. Should be nice.

Related articles

• Mitt Romney: 'I'm not concerned with the very poor' (dailykos.com)
• Romney tells CNN's Soledad O'Brien that America's very poor and very rich are fine (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Compassionless? Vote Romney- He's Your Man (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

Jonathan Franzen Hates eBooks and Oprah, Yet Sells Out to Both

Image via Wikipedia

I was originally going to include this in my regular posts, but decided to give it an entry all its own.

Speaking of saying stupid shit in public, it seems that Jonathan Franzen recently jumped on the anti-eBook bandwagon during a recent speaking engagement:

"The technology I like is the American paperback edition of Freedom. I can spill water on it and it would still work! So it's pretty good technology. And what’s more, it will work great 10 years from now… I think, for serious readers, a sense of permanence has always been part of the experience. Everything else in your life is fluid, but here is this text that doesn’t change…"

I guess I should be used to Jonathan Franzen making an arrogant, pompous, elitist ass out of himself on a regular basis. After all, this is the guy who caused a major controversy by rejecting an Oprah Book Club edition of his book The Corrections, only to later embrace the marketing label and willingly became Oprah's bitch when pushing his latest book, Freedom. If only Franzen had the same editorial guidance he receives from his publishers when taking illogical stances on unsurprisingly complex issues.

The most stunning thing is Franzen's claim that books are waterproof. Anybody who has ever dropped their spy novel in the tub or tried to sell a rain-soaked paperback at a yard sale knows that waterlogged books, while retaining their overall shape and form, rapidly decrease in value. Then again, Franzen is probably speaking from experience, as I'm sure that whenever he accidentally spills a freshly opened bottle of Lauquen Artesian all over a book, he simply chuckles to himself as he wipes away the excess Mineral Water and calmly slips it back on the shelf.

But what's even funnier is his claims about the permenance of the written word. During his little Luddite speech, Franzen smugly states that "The Great Gatsby was last updated in 1924. You don’t need it to be refreshed, do you?" Maybe not, but I'll bet his publishers could have refreshed his book, since the first UK printing of Freedom had to be recalled after numerous printing errors were discovered in the initial print run. And I can bet you that the numerous reprinting of his earlier works all had corrections made in between bargain bin releases. How's that for permanence?

On top of all of this, it is worth noting that Jonathan Franzen's Freedom is also available on Kindle. As an Oprah Book Club Selection.

What a dick.

Related articles

• Jonathan Franzen Gets All Preachy on E-readers (bigthink.com)
• Jonathan Franzen Says E-Books Are Damaging Society (slog.thestranger.com)
• Jonathan Franzen dislikes e-books (teleread.com)