Summation: I have written the things I have concerning the two major political parties because I hear and read things that make me believe I am not alone in holding the two major political parties in the highest contempt. And my concerns are pronounced and genuine because I have taken the next step in being concerned about the future of all middle class kids, especially mine, who in 16 years will be ready and willing, but not able, to attend college (see parts 7 and 8 and some upcoming parts which will address taxation). They will be forced to take lower paying jobs, earning less because they weren’t able to save enough for a college education, (see part 7, where I showed that a person’s level of education is directly associated with salary). I’ve continually identified other key reasons why this should be a major concern for the middle class going forward as the income gap between the extremely affluent and the middle class continues to grow.
Disclaimer: If in twenty to thirty years, my source of frustration has been fixed in some way where everyone, even the rich, are taxed less, the government wastes less money and prices on things such as automobiles, new furnaces, child care, college tuition, vacations, etc. don’t continue to rise in a manner that outpaces cost of living increases, then I won’t have been wrong- but rather one thing will have happened: the government altered some tax laws and more responsibly spends the money it receives from the various sources paying in. One could claim that another beneficial happening might be that some kind of minor regulation was instituted that limited the amount capitalists could overcharge the consumers for goods and services (ie. necessary costs), but if you take care of the excessive taxation and the subsequent government waste issues, there is no need, nor should there be a desire to, punish the entrepreneurial, though Grinchian, capitalist.
Disclaimer II: The taxation issue likely won’t improve unless you find different candidates to elect. If you’ve already advised your buddy whose loneliness is legendary to date former super M-I-L-F Charo and he instead sent away for a companion, acquired an STD from a blow-up doll, and then turned to the animal kingdom for companionship, impregnating a bovine that is lactose intolerant, but whose English is probably still better than Charo’s- well, maybe it is time to come up with a better plan. And don’t so easily dismiss Charo as one of the all-time former Cougar hotties. She appeared on the Love Boat eight times- so someone thought she was hot. “Cuchi Cuchi” is the best phrase for copulation I’ve ever heard of.
Stating the Obvious: So, millions and millions of people aren’t satisified with the nature of politics and aren’t happy with legislative bills that politicians unleash upon a largely unsuspecting public who helped get them elected. Read the editorial pages, listen to talk radio, pick up a book written by Chuck Schumer: “Positively American, Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time,” or Lou Dobbs: “War on the Middle Class,” books written by men that are far more qualified to write the types of things I’m writing. These guys are insiders, though I doubt Schumer (a democratic senator), would advocate not voting for someone from either party, but I wouldn’t know because I have yet to read his book. I don’t need to have read either book, but based on the titles- it kind of sounds like something me and millions of other middle-classers are living. People are not oblivious to their current economic condition, just to the probable future condition of their children. Some people may eventually become aware of the fact that this is the first time in American history that people’s children will not better their parent’s social condition, which is primarily derived from a paycheck, that’s earning power is best spent on a college degree, though the paycheck, via the increased prices on necessary costs, will not be able to stretch in order to finance said education. Schumer’s and Dobbs’ books are both over 230 pages, so I feel less guilty about subjecting any reader left out there to the type of punishment that comes with the task of deciphering my diatribe.
Hell, the Mitchell report, the former senator’s comprehensive, but ultimately toothless yarn about rampant cheating by professional baseball players using performance enhancing drugs, is over 400 pages. It resolves nothing, implicates no one and a man who spent about two years deposing witnesses in front of federal attorneys, advised the commissioner of baseball to not pursue any legal action against implicated violators. Wow! At least I am giving the problem, addressing the origin of the problem, and attempting to provide some solutions- though my comprehensive list is still to come.
Political Cartoons: One way for a voter to determine the pulse of a nation, often through the mind of one individual, is to look at some political cartoons, which is another format in which is expressed the disgust that is palpably, or really, felt by people who have to vote for one of the turkeys seeking office. After all, sometimes a picture is worth more than one thousand words. One cartoon I looked at just prior to Thanksgiving had an old farmer and his wife, with roasting pan in hand, standing outside of a pen filled with about 20 turkeys with several “gobble” captions above their heads. On the outside of the pen is a sign that reads: Candidates ‘08. The old farmer says to his wife- “See anything you fancy?” On the bottom of the cartoon is a bird of some kind, which looks to be representing either the conscience of the nation or is just a bird happening across the scene. The bird says- “Pick that sincere-looking one.” The couple would probably be standing there a long time if that were the criteria. It is hard to base my theory about the cynicism of a nation, as represented by a political cartoon, being the first step in a long line of desired mandates seeking governmental change that would most positively impact the middle class. Lucky for me, I’ve got plenty of other things to go on (see parts 5-13 of this topic). My question- if the vast majority of people are so disgusted with politics as usual- shouldn’t a different approach to voting a politician into office be tried? I’ve been skimming a book- A. James Reichley’s (The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties)- things weren’t any better 214 years ago when the federalists were fighting the republicans during George Washington’s presidential administration. When will we learn?
Evolution: That is one cartoon, based on one person’s take on the political climate. A much more famous man born to the world in 1904 as Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) may have given us dozens of more subtle, highly-evolved, rhyming social and political commentary pieces. Political cartoons have been in existence since cavemen were writing about mastadons on cave walls. Just watch Ice Age starring the voices of Dennis Leary and Ray Romano and you would know this is a proven fact. It comes to that, Dr. Seuss, according to Wikipedia, a source I have been weary of depending on for about six months now, evolved from a political cartoonist who wrote over 400 political cartoons in two years during World War II, into one of the most original artists we’ve ever seen. So, both the political cartoon and certain members of the political cartoon writing community have evolved throughout history.
Boys and Girls: I have two kids under the age of 3. I have read my share of Dr. Seuss stories. Some of them are pretty darn good, especially with the sneaky way that Seuss injected some social lessons, and even more veiled political ones into them (if you’re reading hard enough). I’ve already touched upon the inherent lesson of discrimination addressed with my two part “Sneetches and Racism” column from January 3rd and 12th, 2007.
I have started referring to republicans and democrats as the Thing 1 and Thing 2 of politics. The combination of the over-zealous Things in Seuss’ book The Cat in the Hat, who are let out of a box as a way to provide further entertainment for the two young children who are trapped inside of their house during the hull of a rainy day with their mother away, is irresponsibility in action. They cause such a mess in the house that it is barely put right again before the children’s mother returns. If that isn’t a comment on the lack of “bi-partisanshipfulness,” (to borrow a Will Farrell line while playing George W. Bush in an SNL skit) I would be shocked. The Things cause problems in the house; unfortunately Seuss didn't indicate that the Things had caused problems in the senate.
“Yertle the Turtle” is a story about a turtle so driven by the greed of monopolizing a vantage point, enjoying a better view, that he commands all of the other turtles in the pond to act as pawns to raise him out of the pond he inhabits. He discovers a rival in the lofty height he’s attained when the moon rises before him, so he says: “ ‘I’ll call some more turtles. I’ll stack ‘em to heaven!/I need ‘bout five thousand, six hundred and seven!’ ” This number is slightly less than a campaign contribution (in terms of- $) that the favor of a reciprocated vote will get you when you donate to the presidential hopeful of your choice in the January 2008 primary. Let’s also not dismiss the obvious charge against hypocrisy (toward candidates feigning piety, signaling that righteousness and money are quite linked) that Seuss levelled by placing the word “heaven” so near a number before which some careful readers might place a dollar symbol in order to demonstrate a point. Unintentional? I think not. Yeah, I worked overtime on that one. A plain turtle named Mack finally says:
“ ‘Your Majesty, please . . . I don’t like to complain,
But down here below, we are feeling great pain.
I know, up on top you are seeing great sights,
But down at the bottom we, too should have rights.’ ”
The symbolic meaning, delivered in the quoted lines, as it translates to my overall theme of the future downtroddenness of middle class citizens should not be overlooked.
In “Gertrude McFuzz,” an insecure bird greedily devours far too many pill-berries and her tail grows so large that she can no longer fly, all in the name of acquiring more beautiful feathers than a rival, more than the one with which she has been blessed. Clearly this is a prescient comment directed at Joan Rivers, Kenny Rogers, or any of a stable of celebrities who have decided that looking as goulish as Mike Myers (not the SNL alumnist) was occupationally advantageous, and that Myers needed some competition to play the heavy in the next Halloween movie. Some might consider this story a comment on steroids that would make someone look more healthy, or perform better athletically. But really this story, (isn’t it obvious), is a veiled comment about the nature of politicians attempting to grab too much money for their desired pork-barrel projects. Of course the difference between the events which take place in McFuzz and those which actually take place politically is that the politicians greed has the tendency of costing the public the freedom to fly. Metaphorically, or actually, it costs them, especially if one considers that taking a vacation, (that involves a plane ride) is one of the life events I would consider a necessary cost and which is becoming less affordable.
How I could go on- “The Zax” is about two creatures who share a stubborn psychological approach to ensuring their special interest group reigns supreme, for neither will get out of the other’s way, standing still upon meeting and never moving (even left or right- shockingly subtle was Seuss, as this is undoubtedly a comment on the political direction any candidate or private citizen could said to be leaning on any issue imaginable). Eventually, a super-highway is built up around them. Neither gets what they want- which is apt commentary on the nature of legislative government, for no one gets too much of what they want in a compromise.
“The Grinch,” perhaps the most well-known Seuss story, is about a green (think envious) washed-up creature who suffers from Affluenza,* a politician that can’t gather enough of other people’s (the Who’s) things in a meeting which is not symbolically unlike a congressional session where the Grinch attempts to grab all of the domestic products for himself in order to satisfy his constitutency. In the Grinch’s case, the rather forlorn looking Mack, the dog he keeps as a pet/reindeer, would seem a helpless accomplice, non-descript you might say, much as the corporations at the back of the candidates, the latter of which are supposed to be representing us. The Grinch is even seen meeting in subcommittee with Cindy Lou Who. We can hope, that like the Grinch, the politicians will eventually grow a heart three sizes and forego the greed that benefits relatively few people.
“Green Eggs and Ham” is the subtle story about a man named Sam, who like several politicians and legislators, continually attempts to force a disgruntled citizen to try something he wants no part of, until he finally relents, in order to shut up Uncle Sam? The unnamed creature is made to pretend to enjoy a new stadium, an urban development project, a round-a-bout on one of the busiest streets in his city, symbolized by the probably disgusting green eggs and green ham. Don’t lose sight of the fact that the ham is green and that it is in fact- HAM- a food cut from a pig. Please see my harangue from last time which talked about pig racing and pork-barrel spending. This Seuss guy was good.
I won’t spend much space on this one because it speaks for itself- “Red Fish, Blue Fish.” That couldn’t be a symbolic treatment of republican fish (red state) and democratic fish (blue state). No, there is nothing fishy in politics. Huh, the exception that proves the rule.
Another fairly obscure story, “The Big Brag,” will better serve as an analogy for my purposes. It begins:
“The rabbit felt mighty important that day
On top of the hill in the sun where he lay.
He felt SO important up there on the hill
That he started in braggin, as animals will”
The rabbit proceeds to laud his sense of hearing.
Quoting from these first four lines of the story reveals two things preliminarily: 1) that Seuss clearly meant to communicate how self-important politicians are- for after all they are up there on that capital “hill;” 2) the prevalence of my attacks upon residents of the animal kingdom which is a necessary part of any blog is well-intentioned, as I aim to get them to stop “braggin, as animals will.” Someone has to knock these feral bastard creatures down a peg or two. E.B. White or George Orwell, authors of “Charlotte’s Web” and “Animal Farm” respectively, or any celebrity “author” of a more unbelievably popular child’s book starring a wild or domesticated animal have seldom disparaged animals to the point where they will finally stop being so uppity (ahem, see my column from February 4th, 2007 on celebrity authors).
I could continue quoting from this book for the length of this column to the relief of no one in particular, for they wouldn’t have to read my original work, but I will attempt to offer some original thought. Suffice to say, Seuss outdoes himself in the area of thinly-veiled political commentary. On the next page a bear appears who says he is the “best of the beasts.” The bear and rabbit then argue for nearly ten pages about whose anatomical sense, the rabbit’s ears for hearing, or the bear’s nose for smelling, is more keen at detecting sounds or aromas at a greater distance.
After this time, up from the ground pops a worm. I’m not aware of a worm even having senses at all, let alone a sense, his eyesight, that could be more keen than animals that rank that far above it on the food chain. Nonethless, the little independent worm says to the bear and the rabbit, that it is obvious Seuss meant to signify are the democrat and the republican respectively, for the rabbit’s pronounced hearing is more conservatively demonstrated, distance wise, as compared to the bear’s sight, thus the bear brags more liberally . . . oh, the lines:
“ ‘Now, boys,’ said the worm, ‘you’ve been bragging a lot.
You both think you’re great. But I think you are not.
You’re not half as good as a fellow like me.
You hear and you smell. But how far can you SEE?’ ”
I can’t believe that I would willingly compare myself, or any independent considering upsetting the apple cart by not voting for a dem. or a rep. to a worm, but I’m humble and the rest of the story is so appropriate I have to overlook that. It pits two boastful, partisan creatures who overrate their abilities and so instantly dismiss their opponents’ that they just have to be prototypical Seussian symbols of political bombast. The worm tells the rabbit and the bear:
“ ‘. . . I saw on this hill, since my eyesight’s so keen,
The two biggest fools that have ever been seen!
And the fools that I saw were none other than you,
Who seem to have nothing else better to do
Than sit here and argue who’s better than who!’ ”
I have hinted and damn well said, (though probably not said well) that I have been looking into the future, given the current economic and political landscape and see things that the vast majority of people are looking past as determinants of what life is going to be like for our children. Those little replicas of their parents can’t possibly fathom the meanings, or uncover the subtext that a guy known as Dr. Seuss has prescribed in the lines of his stories. But let all of the more reasonable people who don’t know what they don’t know dismiss what hasn’t already be proven. Some writer wannabe, a subtext archeologist, and a long-winded one at that, can’t possibly be attempting to prove something that may happen in the future. Is he some wizard afflicted with acute paranoia, with too much time on his hands, another in a long line of goofy bloggers easily marginalized, who believes-
that the man who has much occur to him in connection with many things is under no obligation to keep this information to himself.**
* Affluenza is both a book and a term used to decry the contagious, socially transmitted condition of anxiety and waste, psychologically suffered by consumers who become addicted to the acquiring of possessions. It combines the terms- “affluence” and “influenza.”
** This may in fact be a confluence of thought by multiple philosophers, statesmen, or theologians, but I cannot determine where I might have potentially pilfered the sum existence of the words.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Middle Class Part 14: Political Oddsmakers and the Right NOT to Party
Last time: I spent four word document pages attempting to show how generally good an idea it is to maintain a balance in most walks of life, from athletics to economics. I gave one or two republican and democratic examples of how maintaining a balance in representative government with republicans v. democrats in our local, state and federal offices where that standard does not apply because of how they continue to mis-represent the middle class. Politicians from these two parties are simply too beholden to those who help to get them elected, or who have helped to push through a candidate’s policy initiatives.
The relative, unfortunate future condition of the middle class is not readily apparent, but neither is an illness which can incubate in a person’s circulatory (heart disease) or respiratory system (pneumonia) or in their blood streams or bone marrow for days, weeks, and even years prior to its bursting out and manifestly weakening or killing a person (cancer); yeah, this country is sick, “[it] has a fever, and the only prescription . . . is more cowbell,” or more votes for centrist/populist candidates so that a cure for the middle class may be found.
My son also rises: I am waiting on another balancing issue- It isn’t known when my son will reward his parents with their desire for him to balance his hopefully forthcoming lack of interest in causing havoc with his ability to do so. Word to the wise, if a child squirts liquid soap all over his grandmother’s carpeting, don’t add water as a way of fixing the mess. Soap + water = lather; this compounds the problem and literally expands it by making it more of a three-dimensional calamity. There isn’t room in this installment for a complete listing of things that my adorable young lad has been up to in the last two years. Not to worry, I’ve been thinking like a prison warden since he was crawling up the stairs at seven months. He would have to levitate to get at the steak knives . . . yeah, maybe I should move them to the padlocked shed in the back yard. How often do you really need cutlery anyway.
Middle Class job: The job of the middle class voter is to vote for someone who better represents those caught in the middle- who are not considered by either the democratic candidate who generally panders to the poor, the immigrant, the economically weak, and the republican candidate who generally caters to the rich, the executive, the corporation, the economically strong. The first objection that someone will have toward this proposal, if they haven’t already promised their vote to either side, is to say that a third and fourth party candidate needs economic support (i.e. money) and that once they procure it, they will be just as beholden to their constituencies who provided the money to them as the democrats and republicans whose representation of the citizenry of this country millions of people have already informally called into question. I have just one thing to say about those people . . . they’re right. Friggin’ bastards!
But this is only true until such time as the politicians responsibly pass real campaign finance reform legislation that limits the amount of money candidates can accept and how much they can spend on an election . . . . . . . . But it is more likely that a nomadic royalist cleric lioness will have demographically irresponsible sexual relations with a eunuch marmoset (don’t ask) with a multiple personality disorder going through couples therapy by itself (see, because of the multiple personality disorder- ahem) than we have of enacting laws limiting campaign finance intake and outlays. We can’t control how our money is spent when the blood-sucking politicians are in office, there is not much chance in curtailing the money spent by big corporations who aren't getting something for nothing, when they financially back a politician's candidacy.
Right not to party: You can’t win an election without support, which primarily comes in the form of money. However, what needs to happen is to break up the monotony, the duality, the polar opposite viewpoints a voter is confronted with when they are undecided about who to vote for. Completely favoring one side over the other is far too simplistic for the more realistic voter, a member of the middle class who should not favor either party. The Beastie Boys were not telling the whole truth- we also have to “fight . . . for [our] right . . . [NOT] to paaaaaaaaarty!”
Bad Taste: Those who are voting on strict party lines, see nothing wrong with voting based on their best interests and completely ignore the overall health of the entire country. Legitimizing third and fourth parties, so they get equal press coverage, equal debate time, ensures that all economic and social classes are considered and ensures that some of the candidates, backed by the middle class, get elected. Me personally, I like to look at a menu- if I head to a craphole of a restaurant and if I don’t feel like consuming the overly-breaded E. Coli chicken wings or the seared to the point of cinder-pattied hamburger, I might want to choose something more palatable. As voters, continually supporting candidates who represent the democratic or republican parties, who are pretty much just spokes-people for a collection of a fairly predictable, seldom-nuanced, political, social or economic set of principles is in bad taste. Jeff Goldblum’s line from Jurassic Park while standing before a giant heap of triceratops dung could be used to adequately summarize most any republican or democratic candidate’s platform- “that is one big pile of shit.”
Political Mimes: Getting a number of politicians elected who aren’t republicans or democrats also eliminates the next issue that the narrow-minded republican and democrat will bring up when trying to strike down the idea of not voting for their respective parties—which is a nothing argument if you vote your conscience, your interest, and your country’s best interest. Yes, the democrats and republicans are better at making something out of nothing than the Momenchantz. Ahh, they were a mime group “popular” in the 1970s . . . think of a mime inside of an invisible box- ah, that would be making something out of nothing. Considering the double-speak of candidates, adopting southern drawls, and waffling on issues (see part 12), they aren’t definitively saying much of anything anyway and may as well be mimes.
The Elect: Electing multiple populists, libertarians, green party, or centrist candidates will ensure that presidents, governors, and congress-people have to work with them- which will mean that middle class, as well as the whole country’s interests are not pushed aside. The third/fourth party politicians wouldn't be attempting to conduct business with his political peers on an island if more of them were elected. If only a few populits are elected, and the votes on bills that could really help the middle class don’t go well, then the assumption by the voter is that the populist the middle class helped get elected has been politically compromised, has fallen under the spell of one of the other parties, or has otherwise failed. So then, support for these third and fourth party politicians will waiver and subsequent candidates will lose elections because voters didn’t elect enough of them to storm the castle of government- not because they were terrible representatives as combatants against the rampant status-quoism of oligarchy. In an age where people want instant satisfaction, advocating something where the payoff won’t come in 20-30 years is hardly a popular stance. Often the army with the most soldiers wins the battle.
People need not worry that they’ll feel like the last person picked at kickball because the lesser of the two evils they voted for didn’t win. Many things in life are about compromise, the game of politics is no different. I have never been a politician, so far as I remember, but I’m mindful of the old adage about the possibility of success in any endeavor, whether that is voting for a political candidate or plunking down a couple bucks on a steed at the track- you only have a chance to win when you have a horse in the race; the horses we’ve been betting on aren’t running with us in mind.
Segway paragraph: When I do go to the track, which is about once a year, I find that in the program there are opening odds on the likelihood that each horse will win the race. There are favorites and long shots and sometimes betting on the long shot makes the most sense because you get a better return on your investment- the possible reward is worth the risk. The odds change based on the amount of money placed on the respective horses that will be racing. The horse-racing analogy may be a good one to use as a comparison to the current contestants running for president. There would need to be two heats (one for republicans and one for democrats); there are plenty of nags, and even a philly running for the job to be the next person to screw over this country at the highest level. Candidates given the chance to debate the issues, resort to name-calling, lying, specialize in revisionism or simply dig up a misrepresentation of someone’s voting record and we lose out on real policy debate. I've seen some of the post-debate recaps on Fox News and CNN and read articles after the debates and this is exactly what has happened- it always does. I believe it is historically accurate to say that races involving a third candidate for any office contain a better discussion of issues than the bi-partisan variety we are usually treated to. I will forgo the opportunity of attacking the current field of presidential candidates individually and instead will do so collectively. And anyone that dismisses the notion of voting for a populist because of the election of a former wrestler to the governor's mansion in Minnesota in 1998, and his subsequent rocky political road, is dealing with a rather limited number of test cases. The two guys he beat were highly representative of their respective parties, which didn't serve them well. Ventura won for a reason.
Here piggy, piggy, piggy: There probably aren’t odds for this, but the primary election cycle would more aptly be compared to a race of pigs, especially if we were to know how much money the candidates had earmarked to their various pet causes—called pork-barrel spending; starting January 3rd (Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s primary date) there will definitely be a few pigs/candidates who will get slaughtered. There are plenty of boars/bores and one sow on the democratic side leading the herd; they wallow around in the mud, especially after one of their opponents has slung it at them . . . that might be enough pig analogies. And plenty of the porcine-egoed candidates have gone hog wild attempting to court voters. I couldn't resist.
Oddsmakers: I may be wrong, there may be pig-racing odds, but a contest that garners much more attention, and wagered money, is one that is fought by placing 11 men on both sides of a field fighting over- huh . . . the pigskin. I am talking about football. One way of influencing the outcomes of games, outside of videotaping opposing coaches using hand signals to direct one team’s defensive players and never really being punished for it, is to provide odds for a sporting event as a way to level the wagerable playing field for the purposes of drawing betting money to it, is to provide odds. Just kidding- I just had to take a shot at super-Satan Bill Bellicheck.
Oddsmakers II: Open the sports section or go to any casino in Vegas and you will be made aware of all kinds of spreads/lines/odds on which teams are favored to win games. Vegas is a place where you can bet on almost anything- who will win the game, by how much, who will win the opening coin toss, which team mascot will be more inebriated by the time the game concludes- everything! Vegas oddsmakers are pretty slick. It is their job to know all kinds of things that I can’t list because this post is already too damn long. The most important part of their job is to set the line (the number of points given to the underdog- i.e., how many points the oddsmakers would expect the underdog to lose by, to encourage betting on both sides for the favorite and for the underdog.) A line of 6 ½ for the Cowboys over the Packers, means that the Cowboys would have to win by 7 points (covering the point spread) for the person who placed the bet to collect their winnings. In politics, poll numbers accomplish pretty much the same thing- Clinton leads by 5% points over Obama or Paul trails Romney by 37%. The difference is, that in elections, by voting/betting on either a democrat or a republican- you lose your money (think tax money), because if any voter thinks the person they help elect will actually reduce or prevent a rise in taxes . . . well, let me know when I can stop laughing. This will be more obvious when/if you hear them trying to figure out which side of each issue to be on so as not to alienate potential voters who might vote/bet on them. When Clinton attempts a southern accent, Obama tries to act more black, Giuliani pretends to act tougher on immigration, or when Huckabee is deciding which red tie makes him look more presidential, they are attempting to manipulate the public and win voter approval, a practice commonly referred to as shading. Put simply- the republican and democratic parties balance each other out by appealing to one set of voters or another on any issue you can imagine. Their platforms seldom intersect: where the republicans are in favor of gun control, the democrats are against it; where the democrats are pro environment, the republicans are apathetic; where the democrats would over-tax the rich and middle class, the republicans would tax the poor and middle class. Hmmm. They are their own oddsmakers, who set the odds and benefit from having successfully fooled their half of the sheep who vote for them. Generally, there is more variety, both claimed and actual, on a top 20 radio station hosted by the Dr. Johnny Fever of the anteater species who himself knows he should vary his diet by eating more arthropods than there is amongst the candidates distinctively separate themselves from any number of rivals belonging to the same party.
I mentioned that each democrat is pretty much the same as their democratic counterparts. So it is important for them to remain competitively balanced, and not attempt to express themselves in the political margins. During the republican debate in Iowa on December 11, 2007 an MSNBC.com article was critical of a Huckabee tax position because it "could be used to paint him as outside the mainstream." And the problem with that would be? The candidates must be careful not to lose the vote of the immigrant, of the rich, of the farmer, of the union member. Often, candidates win just as many votes by staying on the fence on issues as they do when they make their intentions known. The public, even the debate moderators aren't making them alienate people on one side or the other. This too will have to happen in order to get third and fourth parties legitimized. Sometimes I feel like you couldn't get these waffles to come down against eating broccoli dipped in turpentine because it might offend all light-shaded coniferous trees and all members of the cabbage family. (Turpentine is derived from pine trees and the cabbage family enjoys broccoli as one of its members.)
Polls: I mentioned political poles a couple paragraphs above- these too are to the detriment of the public. Polls will be conducted within a week after the 2008 presidential election to get a preliminary read on who could be interested in running for president in 2012. Ridiculous! Why would the American public need to be told four years in advance who might be running for president when we haven’t even started getting screwed by the satan that just got elected? Poll results months and weeks before an election is bad enough. These polls influence voters who are only semi-aware of a few candidate’s positions on a limited number of issues. Likewise, the press, television, newspapers, magazines, even bloggers can’t focus enough time, attention, or space on more than two or three candidates from each party- because they don’t have it. Poll numbers put the idea of a fair election in jeopardy from the get-go. Asked by phone if one approves or disapproves of Ron Paul or Bill Richardson and we respond that we don't know. Well, we don't know because of the lack of news coverage, so then the news decides to focus on the leading candidates who are leading as much because of polls taken and news coverage as anything else- a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.
On Strike: I wandered across the news that the December 10th democratic debate was cancelled because of the writer’s strike. I initially thought the debate was cancelled in lieu of the absence of television and movie writers. But the reason the debate was cancelled was because the politicians didn’t want to cross the picket line- of the news writers, who have been working without a contract since April 2005. I assumed the debate was cancelled because writers who get paid for making stuff up wouldn’t be able to provide the candidates with fictitious platform stances, fresh new ways to waffle on issues, and the ‘devil is in the details’ clever turns of phrase that would perk up the ears of political pundits, words that impact elections by too often finding their way into the nightly news (ie. sound bites)- things like “read my lips” and “I actually did vote for . . . the bill before I voted against it.” Funny, there isn’t actually much “sound” (sensibly impactful) policy verbally delivered, relative to the noise of what religion someone is, whether they served in the military or come out against a Siamese mosquito species desiring the legal right to co-habitate.
Feed me: Besides, we should demand a meal from the candidates, and not just a bite, or we should learn to bite back; the best way for a voter to get a better political meal, and to beat the odds, is to stop betting on the favorites, demand another course, and to go on strike. A week out from christmas- I can’t put a better bow on the problem than that.
Next Time: A shorter blog? A columnist who will attempt to become a better friend to the animal kingdom he has alienated by discontinuing the practice of affixing physical or psychological maladies to various species in order to hyperbolically demonstrate how ridiculously unlikely certain desires might be? A new topic? After how successful this topic has been? That would be positively goofy.
The relative, unfortunate future condition of the middle class is not readily apparent, but neither is an illness which can incubate in a person’s circulatory (heart disease) or respiratory system (pneumonia) or in their blood streams or bone marrow for days, weeks, and even years prior to its bursting out and manifestly weakening or killing a person (cancer); yeah, this country is sick, “[it] has a fever, and the only prescription . . . is more cowbell,” or more votes for centrist/populist candidates so that a cure for the middle class may be found.
My son also rises: I am waiting on another balancing issue- It isn’t known when my son will reward his parents with their desire for him to balance his hopefully forthcoming lack of interest in causing havoc with his ability to do so. Word to the wise, if a child squirts liquid soap all over his grandmother’s carpeting, don’t add water as a way of fixing the mess. Soap + water = lather; this compounds the problem and literally expands it by making it more of a three-dimensional calamity. There isn’t room in this installment for a complete listing of things that my adorable young lad has been up to in the last two years. Not to worry, I’ve been thinking like a prison warden since he was crawling up the stairs at seven months. He would have to levitate to get at the steak knives . . . yeah, maybe I should move them to the padlocked shed in the back yard. How often do you really need cutlery anyway.
Middle Class job: The job of the middle class voter is to vote for someone who better represents those caught in the middle- who are not considered by either the democratic candidate who generally panders to the poor, the immigrant, the economically weak, and the republican candidate who generally caters to the rich, the executive, the corporation, the economically strong. The first objection that someone will have toward this proposal, if they haven’t already promised their vote to either side, is to say that a third and fourth party candidate needs economic support (i.e. money) and that once they procure it, they will be just as beholden to their constituencies who provided the money to them as the democrats and republicans whose representation of the citizenry of this country millions of people have already informally called into question. I have just one thing to say about those people . . . they’re right. Friggin’ bastards!
But this is only true until such time as the politicians responsibly pass real campaign finance reform legislation that limits the amount of money candidates can accept and how much they can spend on an election . . . . . . . . But it is more likely that a nomadic royalist cleric lioness will have demographically irresponsible sexual relations with a eunuch marmoset (don’t ask) with a multiple personality disorder going through couples therapy by itself (see, because of the multiple personality disorder- ahem) than we have of enacting laws limiting campaign finance intake and outlays. We can’t control how our money is spent when the blood-sucking politicians are in office, there is not much chance in curtailing the money spent by big corporations who aren't getting something for nothing, when they financially back a politician's candidacy.
Right not to party: You can’t win an election without support, which primarily comes in the form of money. However, what needs to happen is to break up the monotony, the duality, the polar opposite viewpoints a voter is confronted with when they are undecided about who to vote for. Completely favoring one side over the other is far too simplistic for the more realistic voter, a member of the middle class who should not favor either party. The Beastie Boys were not telling the whole truth- we also have to “fight . . . for [our] right . . . [NOT] to paaaaaaaaarty!”
Bad Taste: Those who are voting on strict party lines, see nothing wrong with voting based on their best interests and completely ignore the overall health of the entire country. Legitimizing third and fourth parties, so they get equal press coverage, equal debate time, ensures that all economic and social classes are considered and ensures that some of the candidates, backed by the middle class, get elected. Me personally, I like to look at a menu- if I head to a craphole of a restaurant and if I don’t feel like consuming the overly-breaded E. Coli chicken wings or the seared to the point of cinder-pattied hamburger, I might want to choose something more palatable. As voters, continually supporting candidates who represent the democratic or republican parties, who are pretty much just spokes-people for a collection of a fairly predictable, seldom-nuanced, political, social or economic set of principles is in bad taste. Jeff Goldblum’s line from Jurassic Park while standing before a giant heap of triceratops dung could be used to adequately summarize most any republican or democratic candidate’s platform- “that is one big pile of shit.”
Political Mimes: Getting a number of politicians elected who aren’t republicans or democrats also eliminates the next issue that the narrow-minded republican and democrat will bring up when trying to strike down the idea of not voting for their respective parties—which is a nothing argument if you vote your conscience, your interest, and your country’s best interest. Yes, the democrats and republicans are better at making something out of nothing than the Momenchantz. Ahh, they were a mime group “popular” in the 1970s . . . think of a mime inside of an invisible box- ah, that would be making something out of nothing. Considering the double-speak of candidates, adopting southern drawls, and waffling on issues (see part 12), they aren’t definitively saying much of anything anyway and may as well be mimes.
The Elect: Electing multiple populists, libertarians, green party, or centrist candidates will ensure that presidents, governors, and congress-people have to work with them- which will mean that middle class, as well as the whole country’s interests are not pushed aside. The third/fourth party politicians wouldn't be attempting to conduct business with his political peers on an island if more of them were elected. If only a few populits are elected, and the votes on bills that could really help the middle class don’t go well, then the assumption by the voter is that the populist the middle class helped get elected has been politically compromised, has fallen under the spell of one of the other parties, or has otherwise failed. So then, support for these third and fourth party politicians will waiver and subsequent candidates will lose elections because voters didn’t elect enough of them to storm the castle of government- not because they were terrible representatives as combatants against the rampant status-quoism of oligarchy. In an age where people want instant satisfaction, advocating something where the payoff won’t come in 20-30 years is hardly a popular stance. Often the army with the most soldiers wins the battle.
People need not worry that they’ll feel like the last person picked at kickball because the lesser of the two evils they voted for didn’t win. Many things in life are about compromise, the game of politics is no different. I have never been a politician, so far as I remember, but I’m mindful of the old adage about the possibility of success in any endeavor, whether that is voting for a political candidate or plunking down a couple bucks on a steed at the track- you only have a chance to win when you have a horse in the race; the horses we’ve been betting on aren’t running with us in mind.
Segway paragraph: When I do go to the track, which is about once a year, I find that in the program there are opening odds on the likelihood that each horse will win the race. There are favorites and long shots and sometimes betting on the long shot makes the most sense because you get a better return on your investment- the possible reward is worth the risk. The odds change based on the amount of money placed on the respective horses that will be racing. The horse-racing analogy may be a good one to use as a comparison to the current contestants running for president. There would need to be two heats (one for republicans and one for democrats); there are plenty of nags, and even a philly running for the job to be the next person to screw over this country at the highest level. Candidates given the chance to debate the issues, resort to name-calling, lying, specialize in revisionism or simply dig up a misrepresentation of someone’s voting record and we lose out on real policy debate. I've seen some of the post-debate recaps on Fox News and CNN and read articles after the debates and this is exactly what has happened- it always does. I believe it is historically accurate to say that races involving a third candidate for any office contain a better discussion of issues than the bi-partisan variety we are usually treated to. I will forgo the opportunity of attacking the current field of presidential candidates individually and instead will do so collectively. And anyone that dismisses the notion of voting for a populist because of the election of a former wrestler to the governor's mansion in Minnesota in 1998, and his subsequent rocky political road, is dealing with a rather limited number of test cases. The two guys he beat were highly representative of their respective parties, which didn't serve them well. Ventura won for a reason.
Here piggy, piggy, piggy: There probably aren’t odds for this, but the primary election cycle would more aptly be compared to a race of pigs, especially if we were to know how much money the candidates had earmarked to their various pet causes—called pork-barrel spending; starting January 3rd (Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s primary date) there will definitely be a few pigs/candidates who will get slaughtered. There are plenty of boars/bores and one sow on the democratic side leading the herd; they wallow around in the mud, especially after one of their opponents has slung it at them . . . that might be enough pig analogies. And plenty of the porcine-egoed candidates have gone hog wild attempting to court voters. I couldn't resist.
Oddsmakers: I may be wrong, there may be pig-racing odds, but a contest that garners much more attention, and wagered money, is one that is fought by placing 11 men on both sides of a field fighting over- huh . . . the pigskin. I am talking about football. One way of influencing the outcomes of games, outside of videotaping opposing coaches using hand signals to direct one team’s defensive players and never really being punished for it, is to provide odds for a sporting event as a way to level the wagerable playing field for the purposes of drawing betting money to it, is to provide odds. Just kidding- I just had to take a shot at super-Satan Bill Bellicheck.
Oddsmakers II: Open the sports section or go to any casino in Vegas and you will be made aware of all kinds of spreads/lines/odds on which teams are favored to win games. Vegas is a place where you can bet on almost anything- who will win the game, by how much, who will win the opening coin toss, which team mascot will be more inebriated by the time the game concludes- everything! Vegas oddsmakers are pretty slick. It is their job to know all kinds of things that I can’t list because this post is already too damn long. The most important part of their job is to set the line (the number of points given to the underdog- i.e., how many points the oddsmakers would expect the underdog to lose by, to encourage betting on both sides for the favorite and for the underdog.) A line of 6 ½ for the Cowboys over the Packers, means that the Cowboys would have to win by 7 points (covering the point spread) for the person who placed the bet to collect their winnings. In politics, poll numbers accomplish pretty much the same thing- Clinton leads by 5% points over Obama or Paul trails Romney by 37%. The difference is, that in elections, by voting/betting on either a democrat or a republican- you lose your money (think tax money), because if any voter thinks the person they help elect will actually reduce or prevent a rise in taxes . . . well, let me know when I can stop laughing. This will be more obvious when/if you hear them trying to figure out which side of each issue to be on so as not to alienate potential voters who might vote/bet on them. When Clinton attempts a southern accent, Obama tries to act more black, Giuliani pretends to act tougher on immigration, or when Huckabee is deciding which red tie makes him look more presidential, they are attempting to manipulate the public and win voter approval, a practice commonly referred to as shading. Put simply- the republican and democratic parties balance each other out by appealing to one set of voters or another on any issue you can imagine. Their platforms seldom intersect: where the republicans are in favor of gun control, the democrats are against it; where the democrats are pro environment, the republicans are apathetic; where the democrats would over-tax the rich and middle class, the republicans would tax the poor and middle class. Hmmm. They are their own oddsmakers, who set the odds and benefit from having successfully fooled their half of the sheep who vote for them. Generally, there is more variety, both claimed and actual, on a top 20 radio station hosted by the Dr. Johnny Fever of the anteater species who himself knows he should vary his diet by eating more arthropods than there is amongst the candidates distinctively separate themselves from any number of rivals belonging to the same party.
I mentioned that each democrat is pretty much the same as their democratic counterparts. So it is important for them to remain competitively balanced, and not attempt to express themselves in the political margins. During the republican debate in Iowa on December 11, 2007 an MSNBC.com article was critical of a Huckabee tax position because it "could be used to paint him as outside the mainstream." And the problem with that would be? The candidates must be careful not to lose the vote of the immigrant, of the rich, of the farmer, of the union member. Often, candidates win just as many votes by staying on the fence on issues as they do when they make their intentions known. The public, even the debate moderators aren't making them alienate people on one side or the other. This too will have to happen in order to get third and fourth parties legitimized. Sometimes I feel like you couldn't get these waffles to come down against eating broccoli dipped in turpentine because it might offend all light-shaded coniferous trees and all members of the cabbage family. (Turpentine is derived from pine trees and the cabbage family enjoys broccoli as one of its members.)
Polls: I mentioned political poles a couple paragraphs above- these too are to the detriment of the public. Polls will be conducted within a week after the 2008 presidential election to get a preliminary read on who could be interested in running for president in 2012. Ridiculous! Why would the American public need to be told four years in advance who might be running for president when we haven’t even started getting screwed by the satan that just got elected? Poll results months and weeks before an election is bad enough. These polls influence voters who are only semi-aware of a few candidate’s positions on a limited number of issues. Likewise, the press, television, newspapers, magazines, even bloggers can’t focus enough time, attention, or space on more than two or three candidates from each party- because they don’t have it. Poll numbers put the idea of a fair election in jeopardy from the get-go. Asked by phone if one approves or disapproves of Ron Paul or Bill Richardson and we respond that we don't know. Well, we don't know because of the lack of news coverage, so then the news decides to focus on the leading candidates who are leading as much because of polls taken and news coverage as anything else- a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.
On Strike: I wandered across the news that the December 10th democratic debate was cancelled because of the writer’s strike. I initially thought the debate was cancelled in lieu of the absence of television and movie writers. But the reason the debate was cancelled was because the politicians didn’t want to cross the picket line- of the news writers, who have been working without a contract since April 2005. I assumed the debate was cancelled because writers who get paid for making stuff up wouldn’t be able to provide the candidates with fictitious platform stances, fresh new ways to waffle on issues, and the ‘devil is in the details’ clever turns of phrase that would perk up the ears of political pundits, words that impact elections by too often finding their way into the nightly news (ie. sound bites)- things like “read my lips” and “I actually did vote for . . . the bill before I voted against it.” Funny, there isn’t actually much “sound” (sensibly impactful) policy verbally delivered, relative to the noise of what religion someone is, whether they served in the military or come out against a Siamese mosquito species desiring the legal right to co-habitate.
Feed me: Besides, we should demand a meal from the candidates, and not just a bite, or we should learn to bite back; the best way for a voter to get a better political meal, and to beat the odds, is to stop betting on the favorites, demand another course, and to go on strike. A week out from christmas- I can’t put a better bow on the problem than that.
Next Time: A shorter blog? A columnist who will attempt to become a better friend to the animal kingdom he has alienated by discontinuing the practice of affixing physical or psychological maladies to various species in order to hyperbolically demonstrate how ridiculously unlikely certain desires might be? A new topic? After how successful this topic has been? That would be positively goofy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
