Mccain @ MindSay

Nope, but nice try, and thanks for clicking.

Some people will find any excuse to hate someone, to bring rationality to their dislike of something that is popular. Sometimes, you just feel an inexplicable burning hatred: deal with it, but do so peacefully. It reminds me of a review I read of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" when it came out on DVD. A lot of people loved that movie, including TV Critic Richard Roeper and Online Ebert Editor/Sick leave substitute Jim Emerson. And me, and all my friends, and everyone I know. But this reviewer was tasked with writing a blurb for this film littered with backhanded acknowledgements of its popularity. I didn't keep it on-hand, but it was loaded with "If you like that sort of things" and "for this audience"-type remarks. Basically to say, "I hated it, but everyone else loved it, so I don't know what to tell you." I mean, don't be afraid to speak your mind, when called upon... but it sucks being left out of public opinion. That's why I feel bad for American conservatives these days.

This particular review was in Metro, home to TV critic Rick McGinnis, who is, like most critics, kind of a douche, but a douche with good taste, except he occaisonally reminds his viewers that he's a righty. Why this should matter to his opinions of Mad Men and Life on Mars, I don't know, but he occasionally drops a stray barb at Barack Obama. In his TV column, "Intellevision." He does occasionally write a political/lifestyle column called "OmniVision" and in those cases I don't care what he has to say. But his heart is filled with so much hatred for Barack Obama that he can't resist complaining that Barack's ascent was prophesied by the last stretch of the West Wing. As if a show only being watched by then by Chris Brown was going to affect the American public. People love Obama. Except for Rick McGinnis (whom I'm pretty sure is Canadian anyway - like me, which makes me wonder why I'm writing this. Touche.)

That leads me to the anti-Christ thing. For whatever perverse, voyeuristic reason, I like reading LJSecret. Thinking about other peoples' problems helps put perspective on my life ("I can't believe I was freaking out about that test when such-and-such is starving" or "So-and-so is clearly too obsessed with finding a boyfriend... I have a test and such-and-such is starving!") as well as get guidance in my writing. You so rarely get to hear what people REALLY think as filtered through anonymous statements that can't be tracked. I love it. Except when I came across an image posting a likeness of Obama with a Bible quote saying that Jesus warned people many would come, claiming to be him, but not to follow them.

Now, this raises the interesting question of: How will we KNOW when the real Jesus comes back? More pressingly: the Bible quote + Obama photo had the tagline something along the lines of "This man is the anti-Christ."

Well, that's retarded.

For starters, I don't recall Obama ever saying he was Jesus. I'm pretty sure that at least would've been replayed on an hourly basis by Fox News and probably also at some point on the Daily Show. John Lennon once said the Beatles were more popular in Britain than Jesus (statistically likely) and they burned his records in the states, including probably a lot of the states that voted for Obama (looking at you, North Carolina.) Yes, people follow him, because he has powerful rhetoric and magnetic charisma. Whether you like his ideas or not, you have to give him that - he's just a lot more likeable than his opponent was.

Never mind the fact that there is an ACTUAL MAN from Puerto Rico walking around claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, performing supposed miracles and gaining a legitimate following. There is also a young boy in Nepal claiming to be the reincarnation of Buddha, which is perplexing because according to the Buddhist Sutras, Buddha cannot be reincarnated, having awakened to a higher level of being. But whatever. Why focus religious outrage on actual pretenders when we have a lefty in the White House.

Religious fanatics like that are just looking to give rationality to their otherwise difficult-to-express hatred of a man everyone else likes. It's a little like saying Obama is a socialist - he's not (Adam) and actual socialists are incredibly critical of his economic platform, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good hate?

I'm not saying there's no reason to dislike Obama. I like him, but am perturbed by his lack of a record. I want him to do something awesome and prove he deserves what he has been given, rather than just getting by on charisma (which, don't kid yourselves, is what every U.S. President besides Nixon has done since forever.)

In closing... it's fun to hate. Comedy shows like SNL and the Daily Show have been pampered by the Bush Administration. I think Colbert will do just fine, and with the state the world's in, none of these shows is on the endangered species list (even if SNL has been ridiculously inconsistent since Will Farrell left.) But we all got too used to seeing hilarious Bush quotes that probably won't turn up in the Obama Presidency. It's usually considered condescending to call a black man "well spoken" (Chris Rock does a whole routine about it) but here, it's just an apt comparative statement.

Oh, and politics is for assholes.  I hope I never feel the desire to talk about it again.

Keep on rockin'
-Scott

posted by Noah TA

1. His candidacy is being used to claim that racism in America is essentially dead, killing the need for programs such as Affirmative Action and along with it civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If you Google Obama and Race or if you listen to analyst on News programs, it’s obvious that Obama's strong showing is being used to slam the door on the issue of race in America. Some entities want you to believe a fallacy of composition by suggesting to you that because some whites vote or support Obama that such serves as vouchers for the remainder of whites. Thus, if 20% of voting age white America is willing to vote for Obama, how does that logically imply that the remaining 80% who don’t are not potentially or in fact racist? How does a white person voting for Obama mean that I will not be racially profiled and pulled over by a white cop? How does that mean that I will not get denied a job by the hiring manager of a company, due to the fact that I am black? How does that mean I will not be charged a higher interest rate for a loan than an equally qualified white? How does that mean I will not be followed around and watched at an upscale store? How does that mean that I will not have a noose hung at my office? To suggest that because some whites are not racist it demonstrates that all whites are not racist is as absurd as suggesting that because some whites are racist that all are.

2. There is a high possibility that America will sink into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression in the next 5 years. If there is a black President in office, it will be seen subconsciously or consciously as the fault of the President. There are so many ominous economic signs such as a falling dollar, rising consumer and government debt, trade deficits, the loss of comparative advantage, outsourcing, high oil prices; inflation….the list goes on and on. There is no monetary of fiscal policy which will solve these problems. Our nation simply consumes more than it produces via our borrowing growth far exceeding our income growth. The American economy or GDP needs a downward correction so that consumption falls in line with production and our spending is based upon what we have earned and not what we borrow. Attempting to hold this off via monetary and fiscal policy, especially the former, makes the correction that much worse when it is forced upon us in the form of a deep recession or depression. As a Michigander, I witnessed the Decline of Detroit proper nearly totally blamed on Black leadership, and not the declining fortunes of the Auto Industry that gave it life.

3. His platform of “change” has little substance. Obama is popular because he gives great speeches about a vision for a different America. Yet, he has not explained how he has the power to essentially change the “System”. The only thing that he really has the power to change is the perception that a black people are hindered by race in America and or its corollary that whites in America are racist. Obama has not been asked many tough questions, especially questions with racial overtones. Such questions and his response to those questions will have a seesaw effect. His response will increase his support among blacks, but lower it among whites or increase it among whites but lower it among blacks. The only answer that will have a neutral effect is to avoid answering the question and simply use a slogan such as “Change” or “Working together” or “Getting along”. That way each side can interpret it as getting the other side to see things their way. In reality, however, in a representative republic such as our, the interest or side that will be favored is the majority rule, which is the side of whites.

4. John Edwards is the best choice for the Democrats based upon empirical evidence. Southern white males have been the formula for defeating the “Southern Strength” of the Republican Party. Johnson, Carter and Clinton were the only democrats to win office since Kennedy. Politics changed drastically after the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 60’s and many Southern whites left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party as a result of democratic support for desegregation. Every since then, it has taken a Southern white male Democrat to win the presidency. Also, the best candidate for Democrats should be in sync with the Democratic candidate that Republicans despise the most, which is Clinton. I cannot help but use the analogy of how much Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were hated by whites in their time. The blacks that whites hated and feared the most were the blacks that were the best for our struggle. It may be true, following the same reasoning, that the Democrat most hated by Republicans is the Democrat best for liberals.

5. It’s easier for a white person in power to do the right thing towards blacks than it will be for a black person to do so. Unfortunately, it is often the case that when a black person is elevated to a position of power from a predominantly white source, they become harder on blacks. It maybe the case that they do not want to appear that they are showing favoritism towards blacks when their position of power is by virtue of whites. They may subconsciously feel that they must not only represent the white way of thinking, but must over compensate to demonstrate that way of thinking. They don’t want to risk alienating or angering the hand that is feeding their political viability. Consequently, a black person put in power by the white majority can often be the least likely to fight for policies that help the black masses. It’s tempting to fantasize that a black candidate can sneak into office by telling whites what they want to hear and then get into office and become a zealous advocate of black causes. However, there are to many checks and balances for that and power is so addictive that the office holder will not want to risk it, lest they or their party not be reelected.

Read and Review Here

one of the best speeches I have ever heard, given by a man who fought hard but in the end lost. In this speech he showed his true colors, if only he had done so during his campain.