My not too distant future

April 30th is coming up fast... The thought of fatherhood brings a wider range of emotions than I would ever have suspected, ranging from a giddy and joyful anticipation to an absolute feeling of dread and anxiety. I suppose most new fathers are like this, though I don't know if my waiting till my 40's and hence the wisdom of age helps me deal with this better or being an old fogey set in my ways makes me more ill prepared. I think of John Leguizamo's stage performance Sexaholic, where he tells his newborn son he is going to fuck him up in all the ways his father did with him. And my father was only 27 years old when I was born, I will be 41 when my child arrives, a lot more grumpy old man to impart.

Happiness is overrated

Very interesting...

This brings up the question: Are we really that happy or just that delusional?

Can the Democrats blow it (again)?

Sad to say, but I think we are seeing from the Clintons what I have always accused them of: putting their short term political fortunes above the long term interests of the Democratic Party. While I thought Bill Clinton was a step up from the wrong headed Reagan/Bush years, one of my biggest gripes was their moving the Democratic Party towards the right. In essence, their response to the demonization of the left and liberalism from the right wing was to say "We're not liberals anymore" and sell the American public on that. They essentially forced the Republican Party, and by extension the country, further to the right. They played a big part in why the word "liberal" these days is considered an epithet by many, despite the long proud history of liberalism. The failure of this strategy though showed up in the takeover of Congress by the Republicans shortly after Clinton's election and the subsequent failures in years after for the Democrats to regain power or to make any real meaningful change to the country (something which Obama pointed out and which earned the special wrath of Bill). Now we see the Clintons essentially dividing the party and potentially alienating black voters (whom the Democratic Party will need at the voting booths come November if they are to win) in a scorched earth drive to become the Party's nominee. Despite my loathing for Ronald Reagan, his famous truism of "Thou shall speak ill of no Republican" remains sound political advice for a political party hoping to make long term gains. The Clintons, if they are serious about putting this country in a better state, should speak ill of no Democrat. But for them it is about power, not the good of the country. And if the Democrats fail at this unique and crucial moment in our history, it will be unforgiveable. And the terrible disrepair of the last 7 years will go unchecked and unchanged.

Long lost footage proves Hitler was a Cowboys fan...

FOX ATTACKS! Obama Staffer

Anybody who still takes FOX news seriously is suffering from serious Republican Dementia.

Off the cuff

As I was watching the presentation of the American Film Institute's 100 Greatest American Movies, I found myself oddly troubled by something Steven Spielberg said. When discussing Schindler's List, a great film which made the Top 10, he stated that the Holocaust was the greatest crime in recorded history.

To begin with, let me state flat out that I am not one of those whacky Holocaust deniers. The kind that go to pretzel like bending of the facts to deny it ever happened, and then vote for Pat Buchanan for president. Those that deny the Holocaust are not only denying recorded history (the Germans were meticulous in their documentation, so the truth is plain for all to see), but they are denying the unspeakable grief and angst experienced by millions of survivors and relatives. My issue is simply as follows. I don't think it right or desirable to compare historical atrocities, at least from a barbarity standard. If you want to argue that the Nazis systematically killed more human beings just for the sake of their ethnic or cultural identity than anybody else in human history, fine. But I think when you compare one atrocity to another in terms of the barbarity, then in my view you start down a road of "My suffering was worse than yours because mine was part of the greatest atrocity ever" etc. In effect you create a "gold standard" of suffering. And then you begin to lessen the suffering of those who were victims of a "lesser" atrocity. Does it help an Armenian or a Cambodian that somehow their suffering was part of something "less"? Did they somehow suffer less because their numbers were less? Did they lose less in the process? If you were a Gypsy in a Nazi camp, you had a greater chance of being killed statistically than if you were Jewish; does the fact that less Gypsies died (because they had a smaller population to begin with) make their pain any less significant? The genocide in Rwanda was done with gruesome barbarity; a majority were hacked to death with machetes; many women were raped. In terms of butchery, it might not have the same number of dead as the Holocaust, but the savagery is possibly worse, if physical mutilation is your criterion.

Also, please do not take this as some sort of anti-Semitic rant. I do not mean it that way at all, and certainly do not want to imply the converse, that somehow victims of the Holocaust somehow suffered less. The unfortunate effect of all this seems to me to be like a child looking for the biggest roller coaster at the amusement park; only the biggest is worth his or her attention. Unfortunately we are not talking about children's amusement here, but sobering facets of our history as a species that should give pause to any idea of innate human goodness. These are ugly aspects to our shared humanity which we must come to grips with if we are to evolve into something better as a species. It doesn't help when we indirectly tell someone that their suffering doesn't hold the same validity as someone else's, because somehow it wasn't up to the gold standard of suffering.

New Hampshire

Unlike the pundits who are expressing their usual "Gee willakers!" wonder over the results in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, I have a much darker view. Bev Harris of Black Box Voting has been tirelessly leading the cause concerning voting machines much of this decade, and prior to the New Hampshire primary she expressed concern about the voting machines in New Hampshire. Looking at the anomalies between polling and actual numbers, Edwards and Obama are about what you expect, while Hillary's disparity is ridiculous, even though the writer seems to think it makes sense due to undecided voters (all the undecideds voted for Hillary? That seems to be what the majority of pundits and pollsters are saying. How likely is that really?). Where electronic vote tallying was used, they went for Hillary; where hand ballots used, Obama. All this talk about women moved by Hillary's tears and the Bradley effect aren't enough to explain this. If my hunch is right and the vote was rigged, who is behind it? On the surface, one would expect the Clintons. There is speculation though that the Republicans would prefer Hillary over Obama though. And we've seen these shenanigans before, usually on the Republican side.

I do admit the possibility that I'm wrong, and I really hope I am. Is it too much though to ask our media to maintain the sort of skepticism one would think is necessary to do their jobs? Instead we get the reaction of naive wonder one would expect from a 6 year old watching a firework display.

The Conspiracy nuts are at it again...

This has them in a tizzy. They seem to think this is proof of the big governmental cover-up, and Bhutto was murdered to protect that cover-up. These people really need a life.

Barack Obama Iowa Caucus Victory Speech