Some Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential Election with Respect to Authority and Perception

Like most things, the election of 2016 comes down to a question of authority and choice, or at least the perception of choice. There is the notion, from both the right and left, that their candidate (however much the American Right wants to co-opt or claim Trump at this point) represents a form of subversion to the dominant authority of American society, a mix of patriarchal structure and mythohistorical structure. While both notions are somewhat misguided, it is the desire to subvert what is believed to be the dominant ideology that more plagues both parties in this election.

Trump is seen as a subversion to the ideology of American political might. While the Republican Party nominee for President in title, Trump has run the ultimate outsider campaign, one designed to subvert each step of the traditional process to which most Americans have grown accustomed throughout the Twentieth Century. He is, as his followers often repeat, not a politician, but a businessperson and, whatever his failures and successes are in that realm, ultimately, in the non-words of Calvin Coolidge, the business of the American people is business.

But it is precisely for this reason that the notion of Trump as subversion to the dominant political machine is false. There is a disavowal among Americans (in a generalized sense) that business is somehow separate from politics, that politics exists as an autonomous structure above and rather controlling the economic forces within the country. This is just wrong. As clearly evidenced within the last fifty years, the economic realm is the dominant force in American society, the structures and ideologies of capitalism playing a much greater role in society than any individual or party or political ideology. For better or for worse, business has been the chief business of this nation in the Twentieth and Twenty-first centuries.

And in that sense, Trump’s ascendency to the top of the Republican ticket is not surprising. In a way, he represents the ultimate acceptance of the American Right of the marriage between politics and business. However, that is hardly a subversion but rather a lean-in on the idea that there is not political structure without the forces of capitalism behind it.

But how is this a question of authority? The answer to that has to do with the perception of who has been leading the country and who will be leading the country. In his invented state as subversion to political structures, Trump’s authority lies in the belief among his followers that capitalist forces are somehow divorced from the political system. This is, obviously, untrue, as profit mechanisms have been the dominating force in American legislative procedure since the end of World War II. Even ideological stances, some religiously-based or otherwise ethically-based, are directed more by forces of capital than they are of other ideology. The persistent myth that the religious or humanitarian forces within society will ever subvert the profit-driven ideology has more to do with the desire to keep these groups at odds with one another, to keep them constantly struggling even when there is no fight that can be won.

However, the left is no less susceptible to this notion of candidate as subversion. While completely accepting of Clinton’s political stances, Wall Street-backing, neoliberal ideologies, the subversion she inhabits is her gender. This breaking with the tradition of all men, in the same way that Obama’s subversion was that he was not white, has little to do with how actual governance occurs but rather has to do with perceptions of the office. This is not in anyway to diminish the amazing step forward for the nation to not only have a woman at the top of the major party ticket— or the major step for women to have such a role model— but rather to say that it is not Clinton's politics which are subversive and rather her identity, which is. There is more or less an acceptance that Clinton’s politics are by no means radical or different and, in many ways, she is more right-leaning that the current President, especially when it comes to military matters and other significant portions of the job.

The difference, however, is this question of what kind of authority makes sense at this time in America. One side is under the misguided belief that business is outside of the political realm while the other side is aware that their candidate’s subversion is one of identity and perception. In this way, the answer is clear: choose the authority that is best known because the other authority is operating under false pretenses. While Clinton’s activities may well be criminal and, at the very least, unethical, her candidacy is not driven by false perceptions of anything other than “business as usual” politics that have dominated the last sixty years. However, the belief that Trump is somehow above that, or apart from that, is misguided, when in reality American politics and forces of capitalism have been working together the entire time.

This false perception about Trump carries with it an indeterminacy and, in many ways, a suicidal urge— a desire merely to see what is going to happen as a result of sociopathic lack of empathy towards the very real outcomes of the election. This is not surprising in a culture where the ideology of some towards gun ownership usurps the very real lives being lost. This too is a lack of empathy in that it is based in a belief that one’s right to arms is greater than another’s right to life.

Ultimately, America will lean in on a form of authority that is acceptable, but not unlike the election of 1964, it will take time for the results to be known. As George Will wrote in 1980, the election of 1980 was really the ascendency of Goldwater’s politics, if not Goldwater himself. In a similar vein, while Clinton will not doubt win this election, at long last becoming the first woman to hold the highest office in the land, it has more to do with Trump’s personality than it has to do with capitalist-driven ideologies and politics. The marriage has happened already and ultimately, there will be a business person President whose charm and temperament will be more in line with the perception of being “Presidential” as it stands today. This time it is not Donald Trump, but eventually, he’ll have won this election, even if he is never President.

The Fourth Season of House of Cards (Spoilers Ahead)

As needed, refer to my season three post.

Also, N.B. There are spoilers ahead. If you haven't watched through season four, anything you read below and didn't want to know is your own fault.

Aidan Macallan, hired not only to spy on citizens searches, but also to analyze them, paraphrases to President Frank Underwood something I say often: "When they see (Conway), they see what they want to be. When they see you, they see what they want to become." Of course, this neatly covers a line by Nixon: When they look at him, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are. In the fourth season, we see what the Underwoods have become: at its start a bickering, angry couple, but by the end, a couple that realizes, for their mutual benefit, that they must stick together.

I wrote of last season that Underwood is limited by the office of the presidency and, as a result, we are limited as viewers to what he's stuck with. All the intrigue that made the first two seasons binge worthy made season three, where Underwood is President of the United States, feel trapped, locked in. As I wrote then, this was by design. While the outward appearance is that it "sucked," that's ultimately true of the Presidency: we lock someone into it for four or eight years in the hopes that they'll do what we as a group need them to do, what we ourselves are incapable of doing.

In season four, however, Underwood has not changed in any significant ways (even after being shot) but has learned to adapt to the system within which he must exist. Indeed, he and Claire, who had all but broken up at the end of season three, understand now how they must use the system to their benefit, from using a dying woman in Texas to manipulating every aspect of the Democratic Party mechanism in order to make Claire Frank's running mate for the 2016 election.

And indeed, it is impossible to view their 2016 election without the background of our election. Art, as ever, as able to obfuscate, and perhaps parallels are hard to find, but we can see one obvious one: the deceitful Underwood is able to manipulate by seeming to be the most honest, even if in their hearts, the people voting know he isn't. He forms a sort of plausible deniability: we know he's awful, but we didn't know just how awful he was. Could the same not be said of Trump? Of Clinton? 

On the opposite side, though, seems a near protege of Underwood's. The Governor of New York is just as awful, just as willing to do anything in order to get elected. However, whereas Claire Underwood is the Lady MacBeth to Frank's damned anti-hero, Conway's wife is new to this world. She's upset, she says, that Conway would be willing to sell her out. But she learns: she smiles when she realizes she will be First Lady (most likely).

Where season five will go, I have no idea. A deck of cards has fifty-two cards and season five will put us at 53 episodes. The house has not fallen, though it seems poised to. But we know, of course, that Frank will find a way to survive. Frank will never be beaten because he is always ahead. At least we believe it to be so.

Season four is strong. Season four doesn't have the intrigue of seasons one and two, but instead we have quick beats that keep the pace moving along. We are dealing with so many things at once that it hardly seems there is time to consider much at all. Is this not the Presidency in the modern world? As the voices of the two young men who have, in the name of Islam, killed the father of a family, their voices shake. But Frank's does not. Frank is fully in charge, even when things seemed to be failing for him. He's not worried about the dead man: he's worried about Frank Underwood.

Underwood is not someone to root for, I wrote about season three. True: he's despicable. But I'm dying to see how he gets out of it— that's the joy of watching House of Cards. Ultimately, I can't help but wonder if he is marked. He must be. For all his wheeling and dealing, MacBeth could not see his own demise before him until it was too late. Is Underwood doomed to die? Would that not be the proper ending? After all, Urquhart is assassinated at the end of The Final Cut. What will ultimately cut Frank down? I think the answer has been in front of him the whole time.

Go Ahead, Throw Your Vote Away

My Fellow Americans,

Let's stop living in denial. Let's stop pretending we have done a good job separating politics and business and let's just lean into it. Let's just accept that we live in a capitalist society where money buys influence and where corporations have more rights than we as individuals do. Let's stop pretending that we live in a society governed by laws and accept that it is governed by money and the influence only it can buy. Let's stop pretending there is hope for change. Nothing will change. We are incapable of change on a large scale.

Vote for Donald Trump. Vote for the richest most contemptible person running for President because he never had the milquetoast personality for politics. He tells it like it is and he's insane but hey, at least we can accept that he's super wealthy and that he's not interested in our well-being as individuals. Stop being lied to by politicians and accept this person as the one who doesn't give a shit about any of the things we only pretend to care about in an election.

The reason someone like Donald Trump is doing well is because we just don't care. The best and brightest figured out that government is a mess, that to run for office you have to meet criteria that matter for getting elected but not for the job that has to be done. You have to smile, say the right things and it doesn't matter if you have any intention of doing good. You just have to convince people you're there for a reason that sounds something like "good." And you just have to convince people you won't upset them and agree with them by smiling and nodding and not being too threatening.

In a celebrity obsessed society, Donald Trump is the perfect tabloid President. He's not only rich but also has a personal life we can obsess over while he makes more money for himself. Isn't that really what we want from our politics? At least it's transparent versus wrapped up in ideology that office holders generally fake for our benefit. President Trump won't do that.

Donald Trump is everything that is wrong with America and I think that's exactly why you should vote for him at every opportunity.

Give up. Give in. Vote Trump.

Notes:

1) I edited the image above from here: http://stopabusecampaign.com/donald-trump-who-is-doing-the-raping/

2) Obviously this is a joke.

The Third Season of House of Cards (SPOILERS AHEAD)

N.B. Please, seriously, do not blame me if you continue. There are spoilers here that literally will ruin the last seconds of the season. You have been warned.

“Sometimes, I think the Presidency is the illusion of choice.”

Season three of Netflix’s wonderful House of Cards suffers from exactly what Frank Underwood suffers from: one can no longer be enveloped in intrigue when one is the President of the United States. What made Underwood such an engaging character, in fact, was all the wheeling and dealing he was able to engage in behind the scenes, whether that be politics or manipulating the lives of those around him. And that was possible for Representative Underwood and even Vice President Underwood, but for President Underwood, the stakes are much too high, the exposure too vast.

What Underwood did brilliantly, even when illegal and immoral, was work in the cover of darkness. He could walk out of a subway station after having pushed his lover in front of a train or out of a garage after having left a car running with another representative sitting in a car. Underwood, like a clandestine agent, was able to walk in and out of situations that made the show interesting, even if it removed the realism from the series.

However, for President Underwood, the privacy in which he thrived is gone, like it is for all Presidents in the age of modern media and technology. The President does not have the ability to sneak away under the cover of darkness in the same way that, at the very least, Underwood’s version of a Congressperson is able. President Underwood is the “Hotel California” president: he can check out, but he cannot leave.

Further, the President suffers from another limitation, at least in the eyes of Underwood: the two-term limit, which has served us as a nation incredibly well, is a major issue for President Underwood. Whereas primary challenges and elections were forgone conclusions for the Representative, the term limitation means Underwood has only a set number of years to get anything done. If I recall correctly, a Vice President who ascends to the Oval Office may finish out the term of the President they served under (so President Walker’s term in Underwood’s case) and then run for two subsequent terms as President, though I believe everyone is limited to ten years. While this has not happened in our history yet, it seems plausible within the world of House of Cards.

Consider, however, the alternative: Representative Underwood could remain in the House in whatever capacity for a lifetime, functioning more or less how he chooses. As President, he is severely limited and, regardless of Mrs. Underwood’s eyes for office or glory herself, Frank himself is very likely in the last job he will ever have. It is, however, at the point of achieving, seemingly, everything he had wished for and more since the opening episode of the series that he seems to lose his grasp on the things around him which made him so powerful to begin with. While he cannot escape the job of the President while still holding office, it is Claire who has the escape, the way out: when realizing that the glory was for Frank and not for the both of them, she has no trouble leaving. She has no trouble stepping away from him when the rules of the game have changed in front of her.

Obviously, on one point, there can be no argument, which is that Frank Underwood is by no means a character to look up to, which in a way makes his impending downfall all the more welcomed and satisfying. Claire had to leave, regardless of the fact that she herself was not entirely innocent of the crimes Frank committed in order to reach the station in life they both desire.

In three seasons, I have never quite figured out what that station is. Initially, I felt it was the slight of Frank being passed over for office. But that does not seem to be it: there is something deeper which drives the Underwoods and some glory which is always just out of reach. As the writer Tom Yates, who is hired by Frank to write a book on AmWorks, says, legacy is their child, the thing which they will pass down. But I have to wonder: at some point, ex-Presidents, even if they eventually become First Husbands, end up playing golf or saving the world by other means.. No one can do the job forever, which is the benefit I mentioned earlier of the 25^th Amendment. So what, then, drives the Underwoods?

Of course, we may not find out, but I believe this to be a central question of the series at the end of season three, especially as Claire has come to understand that that goal is at an end, that whatever glory they might hope to achieve together has truly slipped away. Ultimately, however, it seems that Frank has his own agenda, his own dreams, and whether or not he believed that his actions were both of them, clearly something has gone awry.

Regardless, there are no easy fixes, either for America in during the Underwood administration or for the relationship central to the series. Even Stamper, who has had his own journey throughout the season and, in fact, throughout the series, has come to a point where he has destroyed the very thing he loved in order to serve the President. What happens when he realizes that his loyalty is too high a price, as Claire did? Assuming a fourth season is in the works, obviously some of these questions will be answered. However, with good television at this point in its history, not all answers are forthcoming, simple, or even answerable. Television needs not provide us the answers we seek simply because it is a conventionally simple medium.

(I say "television," though this is clearly not broadcast television. However, only the artifice of delivery has changed: it is still a serial program, even if you binge watch it.)

There is a malaise, it seems, that has set in in the series, but only because there is a malaise in the White House, in the Underwood administration. This is not something that is happening due to bad writing but fine writing, writing which brings us into that malaise. It is, in many ways, the malaise of the office which Underwood holds: the inability to make real change in a job considered to be all-powerful weighs on this President and, ultimately, on the series itself.

That said, I do not see this as a problem: I see it as a sort of triumph. No, it is not the most enjoyable season of the three but it is, in many ways, the most intriguing, the most developed as a whole. It draws us so deeply into the Underwoods's world in the most subtle of ways that it is hard not to end the season, which itself ends on a series of devastating notes, with some hope for the future of the series, with some hope that the downfall of the Underwoods can provide some satisfaction that some level of good can eventually triumph.

Hindsight

I must admit, despite the damage to my liberal street cred, I am torn on Syria.

The reasons are too complex for me to post on in any meaningful way, but ,unusually for me, this process of thinking through has lead me into a poem. I don't normally post poems here because, well, it's a blog about poetics and things but not necessarily about showcasing my own work. However, because this will likely go nowhere beyond me, I thought this "thinking through" poem could be posted, just this one time:

Hindsight

a fourth, typed draft

The boy has cried

and we heard him

but we're so tired now. It's

a new wolf and an old 

boy is dead, swallowed

in parts, I think. In our

uncertainty, cries are heard 

again but we know that

wolf already and have

seen it's eyes and  teeth that

pervade.

The boy cries, a leg is

gone and blood has

our wolf lusting over there. We've

heard it before, though:

we've known the stench of

death, eyes rolled back

and white, entrails spread down on

clay and read enough. We

can deceive, unknow,

unbecome when it's only

the ears which have been

sprayed across.

The boy is dead, anyways, but

it's not our boy, our blood or 

even a neighbors': we can keep

the door shut, yeah, but we 

linger in the outer hall, wondering

when one leg became a hand or

liver. The boy was left an

eye and gristle.

Otherization

This post was written in a moment of anger and frustration. It contains strong language as a result. You've been warned - ADT

Life must be easy for those who get to decide which morals and laws apply to them and which apply to others. In making the case for all Americans to be able to enter a legal contract with one another (however you define that- marriage or civil unions or zargax) the primary issue in my opinion is that laws cannot be applied as people choose. Laws apply to everyone.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means that you, me, Ralph Reed and everyone who is a resident (and not citizen, as François Luong points out to me) of the United States has laws apply to them equally. If you can't murder someone else, neither can I. I can't rob from someone, neither can Ralph Reed, even if he's friends with Jack Abramoff.

Marriage is a big word. It means that thousands of years ago, someone decided they would like to be in a business relationship with someone else and thus had their children have sex and make more children so that your stuff and their stuff would become this kid's stuff and then he or she (ok, he) could then pass it down to some other person who could then continue to be wealthy and not have to live like everyone else, covered in shit and dying of disease.

Societies made rules about who could marry. In India, it's the caste system. If you're thinking there's no caste system elsewhere, you're very wrong. People made rules so that their ideologies would be followed by people in generations after so they could guarantee, after their own deaths when they would have no idea, that their shit went to people who represented them in some way.

I am not denying that this is wrapped into the history of civilization. Quite simply, we've never figured out how to handle dying so basically, we have to make sure that the shit we accumulate goes to a good home. Forever. I get that: I have several guitars. I'll be damned if anyone who goes to the University of Florida ends up with them.

Unfortunately, when I die, I won't know. Actually, come to think of it, I probably won't care. I'll be dead. My brain cells, which care at the moment, will either rot or be turn into ash and scattered on the mound of Turner Field. Actually, I don't care if they don't end up where I want them: I'll still be dead.

Anyways, marriage is a big word, but what it means has changed over time. The one constant, it seems, is that you're supposed to have kids and give your shit to them to give to their kids. That's apparently the only thing anyone cares about.

And that still applies, but now life has changed. You can actually CHOOSE, through the use of a will, who gets your shit. That's right: if my future child goes to Florida (and I never speak to them again), I can give all my shit to someone else. I can actually use a pen and give my shit to someone else. I can sign my name, even.

But, at the moment, having a blood relation is still more important. The children I have will automatically have a claim to my shit because they have my blood (even though they went to the University of Florida, which clearly makes me think they are not MINE, but whatever).

Somehow, modern society (read: religious types) have decided that gay people don't want to give their shit to anyone. The shit they accumulate has to go to someone, but that cannot a child because they are gay and can't have sex to make babies, therefore, there's no point in letting them get married because they can't have babies to pass their shit down to.

This is it. That's the whole point. That's the entire argument that anyone religious has- oh sure, they use religious text to back it up but the bible was a book based on society 2000 years ago. As far as I know, it's 2000 years later and shit has changed. Hell, people who previously couldn't have kids are having kids. Actually, people are having kids- all people: gay, straight, white, black, Asian, conservative and, ugh...University of Florida peoples (I know...I'm repulsed as well). People are having kids. And people have shit. And people want to give their shit to their kids.

I know, change is scary. There was a point in time where society didn't progress. People had slaves then. People drank water with shit in it. There weren't refrigerators and we ate fresh food because everything else killed us. But somehow, we've evolved and changed and matured and grown and managed to make life a thing that's not a huge challenge to start or hold on to. In fact, the biggest problem with life is people being assholes about how you want to live yours.

Somehow, religious types get the keys to...I was going to say "kingdom," but they actually believe that...keys to some kind of magical societal Ferrari. They get to say "BASED ON THIS BOOK WRITTEN BY RANDOM DUDES WHO HATED CHANGE, I GET TO TREAT EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO LIVE LIKE ME LIKE SHIT." The caps are not mine. This is how these people sound. Religion has given people who are already tools more tools to basically say "I am right and you are wrong and that's that."

I'm not...against...religion. There are good things. Like bake-offs and Habitat for Humanity projects. But by and large, religion is a tool used to create an other- an us vs them society. "They don't like having sex with the people we like having sex with!? GOD WILL SMITE THEM!" I assume if God really wanted to smite folks, they'd have done it by now. Probably starting with those making life unbearable for the rest of us.

Well, I say unto you "You don't like giving people equal protection under our laws in this country? Let me help you pack." Yes, that's right. Let's find you another society to live in. Heck- how about we build us a time machine and you can go hang out with the folks that made the rules you want us all to live by? Hopefully you don't get stoned to death for shaving! You're not a hippie are you?

I am fucking sick of this shit. Society has moved on. People can fuck who they want and subvert nature itself because nature is indifferent to your rules. You can blow up laboratories, try to make laws and be a jerk about it as much as you want, but you physically cannot stop time from moving forward. I guess you can stop the Earth from existing by blowing it up, but until then, I will stay on the side of change.

Society and marriage have been a way for a long time, yeah. I wonder where it will be in 5000 years, assuming "we" as humans are even still here and breathing.

What's funny is that religious folks otherize themselves all the time. It's clever: claim you're the minority being persecuted and then blame everyone else's wanting to have equal legal protection as persecuting you and bam: you get what you want by being a dick to everyone else.

No, I don't believe this is what the modern LGBTQA (and I consider myself an "A," or ally) wants. I don't believe they want to seem persecuted so they can persecute the religious groups. However, what else do you call wanting laws to apply to you and not to others in a systemic way? Is this not the definition of persecution?

This may shock folks but I don't believe two men or two women or any other combination of LGBTQ folks getting the same legal protection as everyone else will cause the downfall of human society. I know. It's scary. There was a time when these same folks believed that African-Americans receiving equal protection would lead to the downfall of America. And the best part is that I'm sure these folks could make a case for it: they could point to a number of things that they define as now un-American from 50 years ago and say it's because of all these awful things. I could point to things being better, but that doesn't matter: I'm just wrong and they are just right.

I know, it's hard to want to change, hard to allow things to be different than they were in your imagined past, where you believed everything was good for everyone. But it wasn't the case- it simply wasn't. If you want to be who you want to be (religious- whatever), why is it beyond the realm of possibility that others want the same thing? Are people so unable to see beyond their own lives that they cannot imagine the lives of others?

It's sickening. And I hope things are changing. And I will do my best to promote this change, no doubt. I have since 2006/2007 and will forever.

Ultimately, I'm a Federalist (Draft)

The battle has been the same in American politics since the very beginning: do individual states deserve power, or should the Federal government be the ultimate arbiter of what goes on in this country? Historically speaking, Federalism has always won out, and, I believe, led this nation to be among the best (at least in terms of technology, quality of life, etc.).

When the first government of the United States was formed under the Articles of Confederation, it was discovered rather quickly that having a weak central government was not in the best interest of the nation. Later on, it has been the direction of the federal government that has led to our greater achievements as a nation: a coast to coast, border to border highway system (which we take for granted, but try driving across Southeast Asia or Africa); a relatively stable political system, which so far hasn't led to too much upheaval (check out, well, EVERYWHERE else); etc. The Federal government led the way in these things. The Federal government took us into space, which has led to many of the advancements of the modern era.

It's been the Supreme Court that has been at the forefront of the changes to American life. Desegregation generally would not have occurred had it not been for Brown V. Board, and then later, leaders calling on Federal troops to enforce these changes. Many, of course, will say that the Federal government had no right to enter a state battle, however, this is still ONE country, and in that country, there must be certain standards.

I believe this in no way conflicts with what the Founders had in mind. I don't think Health care or highways or any of that conflicts with what this nation was founded on, which was the ability of each person, regardless of who they are, to succeed. In fact, I would, and have argued that something like Universal health care allows for greater prosperity.

And so what if it does conflict with what Thomas Jefferson wanted America to be? We treat the founders of this nation with some kind of religious fervor, as if they were not only perfect people, but God himself guided Jefferson's drunken hand to write out the Declaration of Independence.

Times change. Things change. America has evolved, the world has evolved. We should have a system that continually moves with these changes.

And we do. We have a document that allows for it's very core to be changed and interpreted. There is literally nothing in the Constitution that is supposed to remain untouched. If we as a nation agree on a course that requires a change to the Constitution, we have the ability to change or add to it. And I don't imagine James Madison or George Washington would be too upset over it.

See, they knew they were building a system which would have to adapt. Heck, they themselves rarely got along, why would they expect us to get along? They didn't: they knew we'd have disagreements and want to go in different directions. And so the system made in Philadelphia in 1787 was meant to be malleable.

So what's my point? My point is that it is because of a historically strong central government that America has progressed. In fact, I would say that states acting under their own power has traditionally set us back as a people. I cannot think of a single act by a lone state which has not ended in trouble. Obviously each state has it's own laws on certain things, but I would mostly say that any law that was less progressive than a national average has led that state to suffer, generally in terms of health care and education.

(To be continued...)

An Open Letter to John Edwards

Note: I refer you to this post.

John Edwards for President,
~~~~~~

Dear John,

My wife and I were proud to support you during the 2008 Democratic primary. We caucused for you in the state of Iowa, in Iowa City. We both moved on to the second level of the process, even though you had dropped out by that time. I was elected to go forward to the state convention but was unable to make it. In January 2007, you visited Iowa City and spoke at the University’s student union. We were honored to hear you speak and meet you after.

The reason I’m writing you today has nothing to do with the money we donated to your campaign. In fact, the pecan pie recipe we purchased was totally worth it and we’ve used it several times. Thank you for that.

No, I’m writing you because on that day in January 2007, my wife, our friend Susie, and I gave you a MoonPie.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a MoonPie in Iowa?

We brought it with us from Georgia (where we’re from) and we gave it to you because we adored you and we trusted that you would probably enjoy it, being a fellow Southerner. You said thanks, gave us your autograph (which we still have) and you handed the MoonPie to your handler. We figured it was a security issue and that you would eat it later, when you had the chance.

Do you even like MoonPies? I have no idea now- you seemed so excited at the time, but honestly, I have no clue anymore if you were genuinely excited or just lying to us, as it seems you’ve been doing.

Anyways, I don’t want money back. Heck, I don’t even want an apology. I just want a MoonPie.

It can be single decker and of any flavor, though the original chocolate is preferable. You’re welcome to send us a box, as they’re only about $4, but that’s up to you.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Whatever you may think, I do wish you well and hope that things turn around for you.

All Best,

Amish

My Problems with the Long Poem as Documentary Project

Rarely is this blog a place to discuss my own personal aesthetics or problems, but tonight, I feel inclined to spill/dish.

I never thought I would work on a real documentary project. Mostly, the idea just never appealed to me. However, I'm taking a class with CD Wright in which I am to work on a documentary project.

Well, I was searching around in the dark for a while when, one morning, I heard the phrase "public history". I don't know why I had never heard it before, or maybe I had, and it finally hit me in a specific way. Either way, I was intrigued. That, and I saw a press having a chapbook competition. I started thinking "What is a 'public history'?" and decided it would make for an excellent poem. Or two. Or maybe a long poem. Either way, I was going to have something for workshop with Forrest, that was for sure.

One morning, after I'd written section I and workshopped it, and I was working on sections II and III, it occurred to me that yes, I am working on a documentary project. I didn't even know it. Suddenly the way through become clear.

Unfortunately, I've hit a snag. I've finished I and am mostly finished with II and III, but four has really got me stuck. I don't even know where to start. Section IV is going to be called "A Loser's History of the United States" and I want it to focus on a narrative of American history that isn't just the oddball stuff, but about the people on the losing side of the issues we know so well. Because there is a very clear progression through American history: guerrilla warriors win fighting guys in redcoats in the forests, and loyalists worry about whether or not they'll be hanged in a new country. Paul Revere rode about 20 miles from Boston to Concord, but Israel Bissle rode from Boston to Philadelphia- but of course, we all know who Paul Revere is. Bissle is one of the many losers in American history.

But where to start? Maybe talk about how the "Earth is flat" story from the Columbus voyage is completely untrue? In fact, people had known the world was round for centuries.

Recently, my parents sent me my notes from Mr. Sneed's 10th grade history class. Sneed, by the way, is the central figure in section III, coincidently titled "Talk Like Larry Sneed Day". My goal is to form a narrative of those fantastic stories he told us, but I'm worried about whether or not I can do it. I have been intimidated by the stack of papers my parents sent me because there is so much in there. And it's from another time for me as well: a relatively quiet 10th grader who was into Latin and playing guitar. Perhaps I'm afraid of myself in this too.

Not too say it should be too difficult a project. It should have been pretty easy. But the task isn't all that simple, I suppose: take our consensus history that has created a national identity and break it down. Even though many seem to have done it so far, I feel no one has done it poetically per se.

The President's Health Care/Move to Providence

1. That Barack Obama was elected by no small majority of Americans seems to have been clearly wasted. No, I don't always think that legislation ought to be forced through, but clearly, Americans chose to give the Democrats a certain level of power and they have fucked it up royally.

That Obama backing down from these incredibly well-organized faux grass-roots lunatics is kind of surprising to me, honestly. There have been nut-jobs all along and Obama has done an amazing job of avoiding them in order to, for example, get elected. To back down now is much worse, I would say, than simply losing this fight. Obama has weakened himself throughout much of this term and is certainly in no position to help Democrats maintain their numbers in 2010. I think there's a good chance that we could well lose enough to be back to even in the Senate and House.

That the Right and conservative Democrats have been able to maintain their funding from the health care industry at the expense of the American people is nothing short of corruption. That the organized Right have been able to cause such a ruckus as to make it so that facts have been completely obscured and their "bull" (to use the phrase of that NRA guy in Montana) has become larger than life is disgusting. They claim that people are mobilizing themselves at these rallies, even when faced with the evidence of busing and corporate sponsorship.

The removal of the public option is disgusting, and that Obama seems to be on the verge of abandoning it is nothing less than denying the mandate which he was given when elected. That Obama and the Democrats are so afraid of these fuck-nuts protesters to the point of changing their tactics is perhaps one of the greatest let-downs in modern American politics. Without a public option, this bill is just an excuse to force Americans to buy expensive health care with no alternative.

As Mark Wallace points out, the fat lady has yet to sing, but I fear the Republicans, smelling blood in the water, are circling quite close.


2. Providence has been...interesting. We've had a rough time of it so far, to be honest, though I have no doubt we've been spoiled a bit in the past. It has been HOT and with no A/C, Jennifer and I have had a rough time sleeping (at night) or doing much of anything during the day time.

Providence is lovely but quite busy, and moving from the quiet streets of Iowa City hasn't helped. There's constant noise from the street and I think it's just contributed to the feeling of things being different.

The car decided to pick this period to mess up, so now that we've spent a chunk of money on it, we're not doing terribly well on money, which of course simply adds to our nostalgia for Iowa City.

On the plus side, all university-related issues have been easy and fun. I've hung out with the Waldrops and emailed back and forth with students who are coming in. I'm unbelievably excited about school, though slightly nervous about, you know, actually HAVING to write on a regular basis. School starts in a few weeks, so we'll see how it goes.

Needless to say, I've been glued to the television watching the news, especially regarding the Healthcare quagmire.

Soon: a post of the motivations of the Right in all this mess.

An Open Letter to Sarah Palin

Dear Sarah (I know I can still call you “Governor,” but that doesn’t seem like either of us, really):

I hear you’re recently unemployed. Isn’t it kind of liberating to walk out of a job? I actually quit my job recently as well because I’m headed back to school. Are you going to school this fall? It’s good to have a back-up plan, so my father tells me. My “back-up” plan has always been music, so I guess it’s not much of a “plan” at all. We can’t all listen to our parents, as you are no doubt well aware.

I worked at my job for nearly four years, which I heard is the term for the Governor in Alaska. Did your term expire? Oh right, you quit your job too, which is why we have so much in common of late.

Unlike you, I didn’t go in planning to work at my job for four years. Wait...did you? I guess my job never had a set “term,” if you will, and honestly, I never imagined being there more than a year. How long did you think you were going to be in your job when you started?

I have to admit, I really admire your stance on quitting so you wouldn’t waste tax payer money. I did quite the opposite: I quit in the middle of the month so that my health insurance, etc. would continue until the end of the month. I guess that’s probably not something you have to worry about since you’ve apparently got a lot of money, yours or donations.

I hear you don’t really like the “Gotchya” media. Did you have to go through an exit interview? I did and while I understand that they have a right to know certain things, I was a little upset that they asked so many personal questions, like “What did you do on an average day?” There goes that machine again- politics as usual, right? Well, none of that for you and me anymore, right?

Wouldn’t it be strange if you quit your job just to join the media that has had it out for you this whole time? Actually, that’s not a terrible idea. If you could somehow control a small part of the media, maybe they wouldn’t talk about your virgin daughter who had the child or all these made up allegations they have all this evidence lying around for. Maybe YOU could be in charge of finding other people to make stuff up about. That’ll show ‘em, Sarah!

Anyways, best of luck with your future plans. I’m sure you’ll land on your feet. As long as you find something and keep at it, even if you don’t like it, you’re bound to get where you want to go eventually.

Best,
Amish

Speaking of David...

David talks about his run in with Neil Boortz when we were in high school so many years ago.

David does not mention that:

a) it was AP European history
b) we were watching a video (Kenneth Clark's 'Civilisation')
c) we and many others were asleep
d) I bet David a penny that year that he would not read an entire book of 1000+ pages that we didn't have to read. He swore he would. I won the penny easily.
e) D has nothing to do with the story other than me winning a bet.
f) we both did incredibly well on our AP exams, despite Neil Boortz and his attempts at ruining David's life. And despite sleeping a lot in that class.

The Obama Scorecard

Many who disliked Obama are on a fantastic kick of trying to find every flaw in everything the guy has done so far (hasn't even been a weak and America's already ruined, right?). That's cool- we did the same thing to Bush and were called Un-American and Un-Patriotic for not supporting "our" President. I won't go the same route, mostly because I'm not an asshole. You shouldn't support anything simply because you feel you should. You should want to support something.

Anyways, for those of you interested in finding fault in the guy, and for those of you who are able to be "objective" in viewing him (ie not in love with everything the guy does, but not out to watch him fail like that bacon of Fatassery, Rush Limbaugh), then you might enjoy this site:

The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

I'm not sure of the bias of the site, though I'm sure both sides will find something they don't like, which means it's probably quite good.

I'll add a label for "Obameter" so that there is a link on the right hand side towards the bottom of this page.

Poetry and the Uncanny Valley

What we've been through as a country for the last eight years is little more than the rhetorical equivalent of smoke and mirrors. Language that has been both familiar and duplicitous is something we now find disgusting the point that someone who for the longest time was known as a real "Maverick" could not escape the projectile nature of our anger. Language has been used against us in order to further and ideological goal that had been created by opposition politicians while they were waiting for a leader of their own party to come to power.¹

Language is and always has been the tool of power to control those that ought to follow. Americans have been blindly following the piper for the last eight years (at least) into the deserts and wars that only language has brought us into. You and I never saw the charts and maps and vials of yellow cake uranium. What we heard was George Bush on television pointing and telling us the problem was our (and his Dad's) old enemy, Saddam Hussein. Fortunately, most Americans were still in such post-9/11 shock and terror that they listened to Bush's tune. 4000+ have died as a result.

Judith Butler talks about the paradigmatic shift after 9/11, but what about the realization that we'd been lied to? What about the shift in national thought that has lead to the backlash the Republicans couldn't avoid? How blindly will we follow in the future? What does language do to us now?

In the latest shift of paradigm, Americans, now revolted by the language of hate and the politics of finger pointing, have turned to Barack Obama and the language of hope and opportunity. Things aren't sunshine and puppy dogs, no, but instead of telling us who to blame, Team Obama has chosen to figure out how to fix the problem. Whether he or any person in his position can fix the problems we're facing in America at this time, I can't say. However, for the first time in a long time, it just might be a fair fight.

But what can poetry do at this point? What is the goal of poetry at a period when we have reached the opposite slope of Masahiro Mori's Uncanny Valley?² Now that we're coming out of the point where language has disgusted us as the tool by which we were tricked, what can poetry do to avoid the naive peak at the top?

Poetry ought to continue to explore the construction of language, especially as we've been victims of the rhetoric that's been built around us. The goal of poetry is the create the detachment by which we can understand the nature of our designs. In the past, poetry has been used to describe a sunset or a lover, simply because it was felt that there was no other format in which language could adequately express our emotions.

But poetry should not be about emotions. Poetry should be about the process of examination into the rules and constructs that we have created as a society. Poetry can function politically in this manner, like my paper on Mark Nowak's Shut Up Shut Down suggests.³ Poetry can and ought to be *the* tool by which we examine "his master's voice" - the language of those in power.

For this purpose, however, poetry ought remain the depths of the uncanny valley. Poetry ought to be the language and themes that disgusts us with it's familiarity. Poetry ought to be nauseating, to the extent that the ideas and abstractions within it should provoke a physical reaction. The realization ought to be that poetry is itself manufactured language that is a tool by which to understand manufactured language. Poetry should, and I believe already has, move beyond language for the sake of "beauty" or culturation and should refocus itself on the detachment that I feel only poetry can attain.

Eventually I'll write about detachment and poetry- once I figure out what I want to say.

________________________________________________________________________________


¹ Like Donald Rumsfeld working for neo-conservative think tank Project for a New American Century and "realizing", while chair for the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States everyone he had hated for a while could suddenly send a missile over the oceans destroying blue jeans, Rock and Roll, and freedom.

² Wikipedia article on the uncanny valley

³ A paper I will be presenting at the Louisville Conference on Literature and Culture Since 1900 in mid to late February.

I Miss Georgia Sometimes

There's this Simpsons episode where Ranier Wolfcastle, an ego-centric Germanic actor who is basically Ahnold, fights with a group of "Commie-Nazis," the joke, of course, being that these groups are only linked really in the American conciousness. Fascism, of course, is quite different from Communism or Marxism. However, because we went directly from fighting one group to not fighting the other, they are forever linked in the American mind, especially if you're mentally challenged in some way.

One of these mentally challenged people is Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), who represents North East Georgia, including parts of Clarke County. He seems to think that Barack Obama, who is the most Right-Wing Marxist I've ever heard of, will start a Gestapo-like force to promote his "Marxist or fascist dictatorship" upon the American people, depending on which way the Chicago White Sox 2009-2012 seasons go.

Obama's "Commie-Nazi"-ism aside, I personally am enjoying the new rhetoric by which the Right is attacking the Left and the new President that 62M+ Americans seem to like. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) implies that while the campaign was going on, America was simply hitting an economic slump. Now that Barack Obama has been elected, however, we're in a full-on recession. As my Dad used to say, "When your neighbor loses his job, it's a recession. When you lose your job, it's a depression."

The goal of this Gestapo, of course, will be to force people into homosexual marriages and force abortions on any non-mutt people (high fives all around). Gun-owners will be forced to spend an extra $.50 on trigger locks and reperations will be forced out of White Americans, especially those who had nothing to do with slavery.

If You Can't Say Something Nice, Now You Know How I Feel

Having spent the last eight years as an "other," I'm really not sure what to do today. Jennifer and I have spent most of the last eight years being told we hated America and that we were Un-American and that we were terrorists for disagreeing with George Bush and his plans (or lack there of).

For the last eight years, Republicans have been throwing around the word "mandate," which supposedly meant they had the right to do whatever they want with the country and constitution. What we saw last night was the American people saying enough- no more will we continue to allow a President to run wild through the world with false information. No more will we allow an administration to terrorize us into doing their bidding and believe their "patriotic" mantras.

But Facebook today is filled with those that wish a Socialist America well with our Socialist President. "I can't believe it!" says one person, going on to say just how sad they are that America would allow a big goverment to get bigger under Obama. Somehow, they've forgotten that it was a Republican that made it larger over the last eight years.

My wife says I should be kind- I should be above the partisanship that has been going on in this country that the Republicans have basically been waving at all of us. She's quite right: I should manage to be better than them, be the bigger person- the better person.

And while I really want to be, I feel that the Left has endured so much crap over the last eight years that perhaps the Right deserves a little of its own medicine, splashed back in their faces with a hearty laugh. Perhaps the Right should hear that if they don't support President Obama, they are Un-American and hate America and want to see the terrorists take over. Perhaps the Right ought to hear that by saying no to health care (which the last few months has pretty much wiped out- so thanks for that, George & Co.!) that THEY hate America and that we, the Left, are the bearers now of all things American and that Progressivism is the mandate this country has asked for.

But maybe I don't have to. With a seven million vote buffer in the popular vote, perhaps Americans are just plain tired of the same Republican games. Maybe Americans have decided for themselves what they consider American. Maybe the this election was a referendum, not of President Bush, but of the McCarthy-esque calls for "Communist!" Maybe America is moving into the 21st century.

But how can we not? Look around: Europe is coming back big. China and the East are our saviors in this financial crisis. We as Americans are falling behind. We're blowing all kinds of money on things, but still cannot manage to help with the basic necessities in life (health, education, etc.). And in this, the Republicans have been holding us back.

The last eight years, it seems, are the final pulses of 20th Century America. We can finally say that America no longer needs to lead with bombs and guns- we can lead with influence and not bullets. We can move on to the next phase of being Americans, and while I believe we're no longer a Super Power, that doesn't mean the world can't look to us as a beacon for freedom and a model for justice. 

During the last eight years, we lost that, but hopefully President Obama can help us with our world standing. And while some parts of America claim they could care less for how others feel about us, many on the Left believe this is the first step towards combating global terrorism. Instead of bombing people into not hating us, maybe we can start giving people a reason to like us. Maybe if terrorists had a reason to like us, they would stop trying to hurt us.

I actually spent a few minutes today feeling bad for Barack Obama: he's fighting an uphill battle due to the ditch that the Republicans have been digging for the last eight years, and the six before that as they controlled Congress. President Obama is starting off in a position of losing in that there's pretty much no way he can succeed with all the things he wants to do because he is starting a half mile back from the starting line. And instead of being aware of this, the Republicans will attempt to take advantage of it in 2010 and 2012. They will say he's done nothing in his four years as President, but he's been given nothing to work with. George Bush and the Republicans have all but destroyed America. Not physically, but in pretty much every other way, America has regressed or been stalled from moving forward. Obama's going to have a hard road for the next four, and God-willing, eight years.

But we ought to be gracious. The past is just that. George Bush, in 70-some odd days will be put out to pasture. Rather than blaming him for all our modern ills, we should forget them and move forward. 

He was, after all, sooo last century (or close enough).

Why Sarah Palin Will Still Be On the Ticket Come Election Day

Everyone says Palin's going to withdraw this week before the debate. Several, including Kathleen Parker of the National Review have come out and said she needs to withdraw, but this doesn't mean she is withdrawing. Heck, my brother and I have a $1 bet over it. I think she's staying in.

This isn't to say she's at all qualified for the job, mind you. I'm just saying this is still the Republican party of George W. Bush.

Regardless of the excuse Palin comes up with to say she's leaving, everyone's going to see through it, which means McCain's going to be asked whether or not he regrets having chosen Palin in the first place. If he says no, then he's an idiot. If he says yes, then he can't make a decent decision to save his life. If we've learned nothing from the last eight years, we've at least learned that the McCain campaign has learned nothing in the last eight years.

They will not, under any circumstances admit that they were wrong, and that means keeping Sarah Palin right where she is.

And regardless, the rest of the short-list, the people who maybe even thought they'd get the call from McCain, would not sign on now. Who would play back up to Sarah Palin?

The bigger problem is that this person would either already be training for the debate, which means somewhere there's a bunker with debate practice going on because as far as I know, no one's in the bullpen waiting to go in. Anyone would certainly need a few days to get ready to face Joe Biden in a debate.

All save for Rudy Giuliani.

When Jennifer mentioned Giuliani, several factors did come together in my mind: he claims to be ready for foreign policy issues, Biden's strong suite. He's also swarmy and slimey and has perhaps been waiting to get the hand off from McCain as soon as Palin is out. He would have no qualms to being second choice and he would be able to step in and out 9/11 Joe Biden, at least in his messed up mind.

But that's not going to happen. Even if Sarah Palin comes on TV and cries about her Down Syndrome son needing a mother at home, or her daughter having too much trouble planning a wedding with morning sickness, her dropping out of the race not only *unfortunately* brings back into question whether or not a woman can run a country, it also brings Sarah Palin's political career to an end. If her entire claim to the job was that she's been governor and mayor, and she's been selling that she's prepared to be Veep as a result, her leaving the race for any reason will be a cannon blast to her political life. It will be back to hockey momming and sleeping with Todd Palin's business partners.

Karl Rove will find a way around it. He knows that Mac and Co. can't admit they were wrong. Let's put it this way: Rove is more likely to run Palin out into the woods and push her out of the car doing 90 than having her stand in front of the press and quit or have McCain put out a statement saying Palin was the wrong pick.

If I'm wrong, I'll be happy, but I don't think I am.

Expect to see Palin at least until election day.





* Just a note on whether a woman can run for the highest office in the land: Yes, of course. Just not Sarah Palin, in my opinion. Not because of paternal/uxorial duties but because she's just too uneducated to be President or Vice-President. Stay in your current job, run for Senate, stay there for a while and then come back and run for office, Governor Palin. I will still not like you, but I'm not most Americans.

A Defense of Obama and Liberalism to Fence-Sitting Undecided Voters Who Will Probably Vote McCain Regardless

I believe the term "Maverick," which McCain certainly earned the right to call himself until 2004, implies a certain loneliness. You're not with a group if you're working against them, as McCain claims to have been doing his entire career/life.

That said, if the Maverick, and not the awesome Jim Garner version, becomes President, I believe he will still remain alone because the implication is that no one else thinks like he does, which means that he'll have to fill the rest of the White House, etc. with current Bush cronies and other Republican bureaucrats. So what you're really getting when voting for McCain is a President who has people under him who don't care what he says because he's "The Other" in his own White House. The mainstream Republicans who you yourself annexed from will continue to run the White House and the government.

Regardless of experience, because that issue has now been negated by McCain's own choice of running mate, I believe what it takes to run a government is not bringing in the people from the last administration but a vision, however murky, for the future. Vision's a tricky thing: you can't clearly state anything because you have no idea what kind of situation you're going to inherit. All the Republicans complaining about Obama not having a plan are quite naive: George W. Bush is the only person who can move forward with the same ideology regardless of reality. Any decent human being would adjust to fit the circumstances, which is why experience, sadly enough, isn't the greatest factor for success as President. I believe strongly that it's about having an idea of what you want America to be and finding the way there, versus forcing the square peg into the round hole.

I believe Obama has this proper vision of the future, at least in that he and I share a similar hope for what America can be. I believe McCain, in a very un-Maverick-like manner, wants to take America back to some golden age that never really existed except for those that were so sheltered from reality in the first place.

Now, the real issue, I believe, is that it comes down to what you believe the basic function of government to be, an argument my brother and I get into all the time. I argue that it is the job of government to do what individuals cannot on their own. That does mean helping the least among us in society through government and through taxes because there's nothing the uber-wealthy won't be able to do as a result of paying a slightly higher tax. I believe that "providing for the common defense" doesn't just mean bombing the hell out of anyone that looks at us cross-eyed. I believe it means strengthening education and health care and making sure that even the least among us in society is still better off than others around the world- our own brand of patriotism. It's not just exporting arms and armies, it's exporting the example of what a modern society can do when they create a government together of ideas.

If you believe that government is in charge of making sure people don't attack us, but that everything else is up to you, then I guess you're better off voting for the Republican. I heard a thing on the radio this morning wondering where all this money that the banks are losing is coming from. Basically, the person explained, it's all about promises. Say I tell you I have a million dollars to give you and you go to the bank and say you've got a millions dollars so they give you a million dollar loan. When you come to me and I don't actually have a million, the bank is now out two million dollars. However, people are still owed money, so banks dip into that massive pile of money- our money. So the $85 billion AIG got this morning isn't from anywhere other than our pockets.

It's nice to know that after 70 years, the Republicans finally embraced the New Deal. I know it was hard for them, but I'm glad they've seen the error of their ways. Unfortunately, as you well know, the New Deal was considered a Socialist tactic- a way for us to lean to the Left in order for us not to fall head first to the Right in a period where another formerly strong government that had fallen on incredibly tough times due to debt ended up embracing a far Right leader. But now, the Republicans have turned it into the most Capitalist act of making sure their friends still get their $26 million dollar golden parachutes while the people at the bottom, who got up and went to work everyday like we all do, get to go home and explain that they won't be getting to retire or do any of the things that they were promised by their bosses.

You know, when my Dad voted Bush (hissssss) in 2000, he wanted to change the culture in Washington- the Clinton "Every body's a Victim" culture- that he really hated. Maybe you're not fed up with how the country's been doing in the last eight years, but I sure am. We're falling behind other countries, especially the juggernaut that is the European Union. Everything America had been able to be to the world for the last 90 years is what the European Union is quickly turning into. Soon, the "third world" won't need America anymore. And I believe that begins with this election.

Immediately, regardless of what the rest of the world knows about us, they'll look at the election of another Republican as a sign that America has no interest in moving forward or changing. The ideals will be as they have been for the last eight years, and that's not something the world wants to deal with. America will be written off as lost- a once great nation that used to stand as a beacon of freedom- now a husk, a shell of a nation that is so crushed under the weight of it's own bloated systems that it's of no use to anyone, even itself.

And saying that McCain is a Maverick won't matter then. Slapping a toupee, a tie, boots, and suspenders on a pig still makes it a pig.

It's just a pig that looks like Newt Gingrich.

About John Edwards

As many of you know, I adore(d) John Edwards. Jennifer and I were both elected delegates for him in Iowa. Though I couldn't continue on due to scheduling issues, I never lost admiration for Edwards.

And to an extent, I still do like him, though I'm very glad he hasn't won the Democratic party's nomination. While his actions are quite awful and I hope that Elizabeth beat the crap out of him, that does not change the fact that many of his ideas are similar to mine. While I guess I can't really trust him, if he actually does stand for the things he talked about, I can say that my ideals are similar. Minus, of course, adultery.

While John Edwards is very much done in politics now, and deserves to be done, I truly hope he continues down the path that he began after the 2004 elections. The work he did, regardless of his personal life, was good. This includes work in Africa and the Gulf Coast post-Katrina.

Too, I hope that Edwards follows Jack Profumo, the British politician who was disgraced by an affair in the early 1960s. He spent the rest of his life attempting to rectify his mistake and when the Queen and other English folk wanted to Knight him for his efforts, he said no. He was hoping to spare his wife any of the publicity— he knew the old affair would pop up again.

It's a good lesson for the new John Edwards, I think.

Terror

Well, the Right is always trying to scare me, and they've really succeeded:

I'm terrified of John McCain.

I did not dislike him before and I certainly thought he would have been a better choice in 2000 than Bush, but now, the idea of actually being President has sent the man into orbit. He's insane and he's scaring the Hell out of the American people.

He's filled with contradictions and crazy statements, not to mention fucking singing about bombing Iran, which may well be a joke to him.

I'm really, really terrified of McCain becoming President, not only because he's going to ruin our lives, but also attempt to ruin the lives of so many around the world.