Comebacks to use this Thanksgiving

For those of you not looking forward to conversing with the "Righteous Right" during Thanksgiving, 236.com has taken it upon themselves to make sure you enter Thanksgiving equipped with a list of comebacks sure to put Obama haters back in their place. For example:

• The "socialist" takeover of America's banks happened on Bush's watch.
• The "Democratic" Senate has been working with a one vote majority, and that vote is Joe Lieberman. If they get to the "Magic 60," that sixtieth vote is still Joe Lieberman.
• The majority of rich Americans voted to have their wealth spread.

Click here for the complete list. Happy Thanksgiving America!

Oxymoron of the Year

For the past few months, it seemed that Bush, a.k.a. Procrastinating Destructor Supreme, was playing catch-up to actually accomplish something positive. According to Tina Brown, that is no longer the case. All that is on Bush’s mind is his library.

Bush? Library? Does something not sound off? Are those two terms not mutually exclusive? I think it should be called the “George W. Bush Presidential Lie-barry”. Yup, that sounds much better. Underneath the library name it should read a play on Brown’s description – House of Horrors and Half-Truths.

And the fear-mongering continues...

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) fears a possible implementation of a “Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship” by President-elect Obama. It never ceases to amaze me how dominant the ultra-right’s obsessive-compulsiveness lets them visualise the big red dog digging in their backyards.


Obviously Clifford is not the dog that they fear - but their fear is just as infantile as the toddlers who love those books. A small amount of political education and open-mindedness would allow anyone to see how Obama is NOT even remotely tending towards Marxism. It is an entirely different cup of tea. The only Western world leader to invoke near-Gestapo-like security and surveillance is the only unelected President in American history - George W. Bush - by means of the Patriot Act.

Is the radical right genuinely this unenlightened, or are they indirectly trying to elevate the fear-mongering to mobilise mentally unstable individuals like Lee Harvey Oswald or these two skinheads? Do they not realise that the irresponsibility and the divisive consequences of their actions are inherently anti-American? (Sorry Michele Bachmann, but you opened a Pandora's box.)

Obama won. Now what?

Now that I have had a couple of days to let the words “Obama is the President-elect” sink in, my feelings of elation have given way to those of concern and worry.

Yes, Obama is the first African-American President of the US. I do not mean to detract from the significance of that. What worries me is the high expectation that America, and the world, now have of him. His predecessor has done an absurdly effective job destroying America. The damage incurred is of such colossal magnitude that the road to recovery will likely be painstakingly long. Obama inherits an America that has lost a fair share of its friends and most of its respect internationally.

It is imperative that we remember Obama is also human. He cannot work miracles, which is what people seem to expect of him. Mistakes will undoubtedly be made. One can be certain that these mistakes will be magnified to ridiculous proportion by the opposition (and Fox News) – you only need to look back at McCain’s election campaign to see that.

In fact, the radical conservative revolt has already begun. They are composing “Obama Administration Survival Guides". They are advising people to transfer money offshore for fear of being robbed by the government. They are calling for the impeachment of Obama, and this man has not even been sworn into office, yet! One statement in particular affronted any sensible political awareness:

“There are a lot of Americans out there that do not fully understand the concept of Socialism or Communism which is why they’ve elected Obama as president.”

Obviously the authors of the ignorant statement do not fully understand the concept themselves. (If you follow my blog, you know how much the misuse of the “S” and “C” words infuriates me.) They continue to call for Obama’s impeachment because of his support for “various unconstitutional programs such as the assault weapons ban, universal healthcare, and various schemes for wealth distribution”. Obama wants to elevate American society and Americans’ social responsibility to the 21st century! Oh no! Run for your lives! Candidly speaking, we are no longer in the Wild Wild West, where everyone needs guns to protect themselves from the unpredictable, potentially around the corner, savages.

I am veering off point. In this post I am trying caution Americans of the danger in raising their hopes too high. The groundbreaking, history-making outcome of this year’s US elections must not overshadow the reality-based possibilities in policy-making. It is easy to become exuberant and maintain exuberance about someone’s accomplishments when there were low expectations. Disillusionment can set in very quickly, and unjustly, when expectations are as high as they are of President-elect Obama.

History is made!

Practically every news network is now projecting an Obama victory, and I cannot help but get all emotional over this. I have the same happy feeling that I had when Angela Merkel became the first female Chancellor of Germany. The election would have been ground-breaking regardless of the result as Palin would have made history by becoming the first elected female VP, but I would have received those news with angst rather than joy.

Now I do not need to resort to my "The West Wing" DVD collection for my Democrat-President fix! Woo-hoo!

I really should be getting back into bed, but I am dying to see if Obama snatches Florida for the landslide win!

Poking fun at the GOP's campaign one last time

Just a quick thought before I go to sleep...

The Redskins (by way of their game against the Steelers) predicted that Obama will win tonight's election. If they turn out to be correct, does that make them anti-American?

**lol**

UPDATE:
LeftLeaningLady: "Nah, it makes them the Blueskins."

Ha! Brilliant!

ACORN and the perils of the uninformed vote

Kaffeetrinken with my in-laws always comes with the guarantee of a fun-filled discussion about politics, religion, the economy and/or ethics. (Well, perhaps not always fun-filled, but definitely interesting and passionate.) Today’s get-together did not disappoint.

My step-father-in-law, like most Germans, used to be crazy for everything American – the food, the buildings, the culture and, yes, the politics. Blinded by this love, he zealously shot down hubby’s doom-filled predictions for US economy and foreign policy after “Dubya’s” reelection. “Bush may not be the smartest, but the GOP would never allow for the decline of their country,” he said confidently.

He is now so turned off by recent American political events, that he followed this past election campaign without his usual level of interest. Among other things we had to explain all about “that ACORN business” – which solicited this question: Why would anyone court the vote from the uneducated, uninformed and uninterested?

ACORN’s aim to “get-out-the-vote” is fundamentally a noble one. Theoretically, the more people vote, the more democratic the outcome. The alleged “potential election fraud” by false vote registration cards was nothing more than a political manoeuvre. I would pay to see Mickey Mouse to show up at the polling station with valid identification in order to make use of that “fraudulent” registration. Hence, there is no way these false registrations will have any effect on the outcome.

With some of the recent, outlandish remarks by likely voters, my step-father-in-law raises an interesting aspect. Why is it beneficial to a democracy for people to cast a vote, and therewith influence the course of politics potentially substantially, based on utterly uninformed opinions and/or currently less central or irrelevant issues such as:

• Obama is a one-man terror cell.
• Obama is a Muslim.
• Obama is anti-American.
• Obama is a Marxist.

(I tried to find equally bizarre rumors about McCain, for balance. I was unsuccessful. I am not surprised.
UPDATE: LeftLeaningLady supplied me with a few; they are listed in the comments section.)

• Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
• The fact that Obama would be the first African-American President
• The fact that Palin would be the first elected female VP
• The fact that one candidate fought in a war and the other did not
• How many homes a candidate owns
• A non-American middle name

It disconcerts me that in the current economic climate some voters, such as Kevin Sheen, are solely centering their vote on abortion. I respect that to some people this is a very important issue, but I find it difficult to understand why this issue is so heavily weighted against the economy and foreign policy. Such debates find their roots in religious belief, and should stay there. For that very reason did the Founding Fathers of the US insist on the separation of church and state.

An uninformed vote adds no value to a democracy; in fact it subtracts, regardless of the political affiliation of said vote. But who would get to choose which vote is informed and which is not? The aim must be to educate, as comprehensively as possible, eligible voters of the political platforms out there. Desisting from perpetual attack ads one way or the other would be a first step. Instead, entering into an in-depth, respectful debate is far healthier and democratic than fear mongering.

The message should be: Get-out, get-informed, then vote.

Favourite Election '08 Videos

Here are a few funny Election '08 clips to help calm down the election day jitters:

Getting Punk'd by Canadians

Wow - a couple of days away from the news and so much happens! As SWC correctly guessed, I found this prank very amusing. 'Ustler's Nailin Palin - Hahahahahahaha!!!!!

Hmmm... A Republican being pranked by Canadians with a joke involving foreign leaders. Does that remind you of someone else? Watch the video below - he makes his appearance starting at 1:53. Huckabee and Gore also get pranked, and I love the kid at the end of the clip!

(For non-Canadians, Rick Mercer is a Canadian political satirist, similar to Jon Stewart, only he has been at it for much, much longer. Poutine is not the name of a Prime Minister, but an inherently Canadian specialty consisting of Fries topped with cheese smothered in gravy. Delicious!)

More from the Not-So-Straight-Talk-Express

During my midday news headline check I came across this headline from MSNBC that made me laugh: "McCain: Racism will barely affect election."

Of course racism will not affect the election very much **end of sarcasm** - which is why it was made into such a big deal. For those Republicans out there who will shout at me otherwise: watch videos of the mobs screaming that there is no difference between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden. Notice how half-heartedly the McCain camp counters these cries. Now try to convince the rest of us that the candidates themselves did not contribute to the racist frenzy in this election and that it will not affect the outcome. You can't.

Perhaps McCain should have been more specific. Racism against blacks did not play a large role in his election campaign. That kind of racism is sadly reliant with a small percentage of Americans. The GOP did not need to play on that racist aspect, as that small percentage will categorically not vote for somebody black.

Aside from that, "classic" racism against blacks has become something of a political taboo and, if mentioned out loud, is most likely a political suicide mission. The majority of Americans are no longer afraid of black people, per se. This fear has been replaced with an irrational fear of anything Arabic by association. Note how important it is to McCain's campaign to link Obama to terrorism - unfortunately viewed as an Arabic prerogative in the current, collective American conscience. Hence racism, in that sense, plays a central role in the GOP's campaign.

It is apparent that McCain's statement is really the GOP stepping back from the milk they helped to spill, so that it does not question the legitimacy of their potential election victory.

What I think Americans need to ask themselves as election day nears is whether they want a President who has platitudinal experience but has been divisive from the start, or a President who has very atypical qualifications but fought as inclusively as possible.

(bottom image from perrspectives.com)

Lions and tigers and...

...pot smoking, gay loving Canadians! Oh my!
























(cartoon from mapleleafweb.com)

Barbara West gets owned by Biden

Biden: “Are you joking? Is this a joke? Is that a real question?”

I kept thinking the same thing whilst watching this video. Normally Barbara West’s careless use of the word socialist would infuriate me, but she was so ridiculous that all I could do was laugh at her harebrained and biased conduct.

How in the world did Sweden become part of the interview? How can she portray it to be a worse-off country? I suppose nobody told her that Sweden consistently ranks higher than the US in multiple quality of life indices. This is reminiscent of McCain mentioning Canada and the UK during the health care segment of the third presidential debate.

Thank you modern mommy for starting my day with a laugh =)

A Man after my Heart

I just read that Michele Bachmann is trying to back away from what she said during her Hardball interview. Huh. After a little more research at this nifty blog, I found out this isn't the first time she has tried to back out of controversy.

But this post isn't going to be about her. I don't need to say much, because Keith Olbermann said what I think most Americans (and most of the world, for that matter) are thinking. Le sigh. Right now, he is a man after my heart.

If I had a top five list of men, like Lainey's list, Olbermann would definitely be on top. Yes, even beating my dear Colin Firth, for now. Watch this oh-so-eloquent rant and enjoy =)

Is Michele Bachmann the new Joseph McCarthy?

I have never heard of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) before today, and already I am deeply disturbed by her. In an interview on MSNBC's Hardball, she essentially equated the terms liberal, leftist and anti-American. Therefore, in her eyes, if you have a left-leaning opinion, you are anti-American. Period. She also called for a probe of Congress for "anti-American views".

She wants to bring back the McCarthy witch-hunts! I swear to God, this woman is McCarthy reincarnate, and I hope that Americans are as equally disturbed by this as I am. Once it starts, where does it stop? In America's super-Orwellian surveillance state there is already easy access to all phone calls, emails, chats, etc. And perhaps more importantly: why is a slightly left-leaning idealism inherently anti-American? Isn't an individual's critical nature a sign that they care? The thought of suppressing critical voices has a bitter aftertaste reminiscent of Stalinism - and who wants to go there?

There are others who have probed their government and populace for anti-nationalistic views and opposing ideologies: the Communists. I highly recommend those in favour of Bachmann's probe to watch The Majestic and, even better, The Lives of Others, and decide if they want their lives scrutinised in the same way.

I suppose the silver lining in all this is that it seems the Republicans are desperate enough to continue this "Obama is anti-American" campaign route. It is absolutely mind-boggling how someone with such outlandish thoughts, such as Bachmann, can even become a voter's choice. Where is the America that held dear the universal ideal of freedom?

"I'm not Bush!"

Really Senator McCain? Your dance ability begs to differ. =)


(photos from news.bbc.co.uk and news.yahoo.com)

My Night with Obama and McCain...

...wasn't as explosive as I hoped. I even popped some popcorn, ready to throw once McCain got into his condescending groove. It's almost 2am - yes, I missed the rerun of the rerun. Thankfully I could watch the whole debate on cnn.com. Here are a few, sometimes trivial, points of piqued interest:

• No pin on McCain! I suppose Palin's pin was big enough for both of them.
• There was Obama looking all presidential with his nice tie and pin, and then there was McCain looking like... a director of a funeral parlour about to give a eulogy.
• Too many mentions of Joe the Plumber - by my count (by name) 15 from McCain and 5 from Obama. Oh, and it wasn't just Joe for McCain, it was "My old buddy Joe the Plumber". If Obama mentions my name 15 times, can I be his old buddy?
• McCain didn't mention "middle class" at all. But then again, that really shouldn't come as a surprise, eh? After all, they are the most important consumption factor in the US today, and are generally neglected by the GOP.
• Obama was a little flat at the beginning, but picked up later. If you weren't sure this was the case, McCain emphasised it with his visibly increasing irritation, negative and angry body language, constantly interrupting Obama, increased stuttering and change of topic when he ran out of things to say.
  
• Glad to see that Obama was no longer reduced to "that one" who "doesn't understand".
• "I'm not Bush" was a brilliant rebuttal, but leaves me wondering who he is. He's changed his position several times on some issues, which made this statement lose a little punch for me.
• McCain referred to his campaign as "truthful". WHAT?!?!?
• It's Obama's fault that the Republicans went extremely negative on advertising, as he refused to do more town hall debates. Boo-hoo!
• Obama spent an unprecedented amount on attack ads. He stole the GOP's modus operandi and beat them at it. Boo-hoo!
• It seemed that every time Obama started to paint a vision, McCain interrupted. Maybe because he lacked his own vision?
• McCain on health care: "If you like that [Obama's plan], then you'll like Canada and England." So? Is he implying that's a bad thing? Canada and the UK (albeit their systems not being perfect) are both ranked higher than the US on WHO's ranking of health care systems, so I'm inclined to believe that's a good thing.

Good night and good luck.

(photo from nytimes.com)

From the Canadian to the US Election (nur auf englisch)

I'm not happy with the result of the Canadian election. The first words to come to mind are "waste of time". All that money spent on an election that pretty much resulted in maintaining the status quo. It's a shame the Green Party did not win a seat in Parliament - I was really rooting for May.

I'm sure that there are Conservatives celebrating the win. They now have more seats in the House of Commons. They believe that Canada is becoming ever more conservative. What do they have to say about the all-time low voter turn-out? It speaks to me of the population having lost its confidence in government and none of the major parties having the right answers for the problems at hand. It is possible that the same number of people voted Tory this year as in 2006.

Let's put everything into perspective: The Tories won 37% of the votes of 59% of registered voters which are 69% of the population. That means that 15% of the population supports Harper and 85% does not. (I hope the math makes sense!) Neither do the majorities of the three major urban centres. That is Harper's "mandate".

Oh well. What's done is done. Time to move on to the US!

I'm glad that CNNI runs repeats of the presidential debates. This third one is going to be interesting. The two candidates are going to be sitting down at a table with the moderator - similar to the Canadian Federal Leaders Debate earlier this month. As I said in this post, knowledge of key issues and communication skills will be much more in the spotlight. This might work against McCain, especially with all the name-calling ridiculousness that has defined his campaign as of late. It is much more difficult to insult your opponent whilst you are sitting down with him/her at the table than not facing him on a stage.

McCain needs this win against Obama. What can he do? Hubby suspects that he is going to try to pull off what Reagan did in his 1984 debate against Mondale. He was also trailing in the polls going in. In his closing statement, he did not summarise his plans should he be re-elected. Instead he went on talking a letter he wrote several years before, fondly remembering the beautiful California surroundings whilst he wrote it. He emphasised that the actions of the present will form the world that the people who open the capsule live in. He spoke of destructive powers, preserving freedom, and the "blessed planet called Earth". He used sentences like "...what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny", which mean nothing whilst sounding like something. It was sappy. It painted a beautiful picture. It spoke to the populace. And even though he was cut off, it was perfect. He was re-elected.

Reagan was the perfect candidate to deliver such a speech. He had all the training he needed from acting. He knew how and when to control his voice and mannerisms. McCain does not strike me as someone who can pull a similar stunt off. Take a look at this clip, watch McCain saying "Enh? Enh?", and I think you'll be inclined to agree. In either case, if this turns out to be his strategy, it will be interesting to see it unfold.

Now I'm off to bed, so that I can catch the debate re-run tomorrow morning.

Giving Birth to the Republican Ticket

Oh. My. Goodness. The poor child never had a chance. Behind his wife's back, Mark Ciptak did not enter the name agreed upon, Ava Grace, on the birth registration form. He proudly named his daughter Sarah McCain Palin. Seriously.

Leaving this insane decision aside, can you imagine what the wife's reaction will be? He changed their daughter's name without consulting the mother. The parent who carried the child for nine months. The parent whose hormones are all over the place. I foresee major drama in Ciptak's near future.

(photo from Baltimore Sun)

My Abbreviated Take on Social Policy (nur auf englisch)

I realise I already had my “rant” about taxes on this blog, but I have just come across two articles which I believe need to be read.

Socialism and Taxes = Not Necessarily a Bad Thing
I always find an argument to be stronger when put forth by someone who has previously opposed it. Christina G., who was Republican when she moved to Germany over six years ago, explains eloquently in her blog why she now calls herself “a believer”.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives contends that betterment for society does not necessarily lie in tax cuts, but in the re-arranging of revenue distribution. And yes, with that I mean implementing policies into government that slightly lean towards the left of the political spectrum. Currently the implementations of such policies appear impossible for a country such as the US, where McCarthy, Nixon and co. have done a brilliant job fostering the irrational phobia of socialism. Decades later, many Americans are still allergic to the mere thought and theory of socially conscious policy-making.

Socialism ≠ Communism
At this point, I need to point out that the word socialism needs to be used with great caution. There are many shades of socialism. Communists frequently hailed themselves as inherently socialist. Obviously, I’m not talking about that kind of socialism. I’m talking about the “socialism” of free-market, western countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France and, of course, Germany. I sincerely hope that those individuals who falsely equate socialism with communism realise that adopting a couple left-leaning ideas into government does not turn you into a raging red Communist. It will likely improve the societal quality of life.

NB – I wonder how many Americans realise that by comparison within the G-7, the Democrats are not at all left-wing, or even centre-left, but find themselves in centre-right territory.