Old People Use Subtitles, Young People Exploit

A brilliant new semi-Orwellian ad was released, playing on the American fear of squinty-eyed orientals (a tradition more than a century old) about the stimulus that saved us from another depression, the health-care overhaul the American people have been begging for during the past, ahdunno, couple generations, and the government "takeover" of GM that saved countless jobs around the globe (especially in light of Toyota, the company Republicans wanted to fill the void when GM collapsed, changing it's business model from "autos" to "careening death machines").

The gist is, China will own us, and we'll collapse entirely while somehow surviving to become employees of their government. Or those students watching the lecture - I don't know, there's no logic to the script. But it's well made, I have to give them that. Great lighting, and the special effects were just cheesy enough to excite my inner nerd.

The spot has a strange thesis, considering China made even more sweeping and dramatic moves than we did to keep its economy upright, and now they're doing their best to tamp down their economic success to fight inflation and avoid revaluing their currency. One could make the case that, in light of China's overwhelming success, the watered-down reform (a misguided attempt at bipartisanship) didn't go far enough. But that's not the case made by the conservative group that ran the following ad.

The ad begs for parody, and luckily enough the good folks at Campus Progress Action pounced, pointing out a bit of absurdity, and even throwing in a Christine O'Donnell jab at the end.

Ah, the youth.

(via HuffPost)

New Season, New Joys

I love politics. And, just like every other great American sport, there's a season when things get exciting - with politics, of course, it hovers around September through November. And goddamn is this year a good one.

Christine O'Donnell, for example. The Republican from Delaware was a surprise winner during the Republican Primary - prompting even Karl Rove to throw in the proverbial towel on the General. And, as the race has gone on, it's become disturbingly obvious O'Donnell is just what she claimed to be; average. Like most Americans, she has no idea what the hell is in that fancy "Constitution" thingy. It appears that during her week-long "graduate fellowship with the Claremont Institute in constitutional government" they didn't quite make it to the amendments. Which says, basically, that she must've skipped her first civics exam when (if?) she went to college.

The Rove prediction isn't entirely shocking - he seems skeptical of the entire Tea Party movement. The long-time beneficiary of the Republican establishment obviously has a dog in this race, but when he's got his analyst cap on, and especially when he's criticizing conservatives, there are few people who can speak with greater authority. His equating Teabaggers to members of the Civil Rights movement is retarded, at best, (Beck-esque, really,) but one should expect hyperbole from a professional spin doctor.

It's not all bad for the Tea Party - Democrat Jack Conway pulled the ultimate dirty campaign tactic (questioning his opponent's religious beliefs) in his battle against Rand Paul. Translation: Conway's desperate. And he isn't the only one - shockingly, a few Tea Party candidates seem like they're on the road to D.C. The bad news is that people would vote for unqualified candidates out of spite for established politicians. The good news, though, is that Republicans seem to be painting themselves into a corner.

During the Bush years, the Democratic Party was fractured, and the Independent party was made up of avowed liberals, progressives and even socialists. This led to easy exploitation - a house divided and all that, after all - by the right-wing, and created situations where, even in the face of majority opposition (ideologically speaking), the President went largely unchallenged on his legislative initiatives. The Tea Party, already sparring with the establishment, seems prepared to put Republicans in the same position. This isn't the Reagan Revolution, this is a dip into anarchy.

In fact, should the movement survive until 2012, it's easy to imagine a conservative third-party candidate siphoning votes away from Republicans. One can dream...

What a year to see, though, eh? It seems like both parties are taking it from all directions, with the American people seemingly, desperately, shooting themselves in the feet with every vote. God, I can't wait to see how this all works out.

(I'm hoping for Armageddon.)

I Like Ecchh!

Every so often, even on the smallest of scales, history repeats itself. I can still remember the heart-rending decision I had to make way back in 2004, choosing whether to support Kerry or Bush. On the one hand, Bush was the worst president of all time. We all remember that video surfacing that apparently showed him killing an infant and imbibing its blood for power.

On the other hand, John Kerry looked dorky even when he was doing cool stuff. My grandma could hop on a wakeboard and still look kind of rad, but seeing Kerry out on the waves made me think of the time I put my cat on a foam floaty and set her adrift in a wading pool. They both seemed to have the same look of confusion and desperation, the same awkward body language.

I'm at the same crossroads today, but on a smaller level. Voters are never satisfied with their choices, I suppose, but it's getting downright ridiculous. I'm talking, of course, about Scott Eckersly.

THE REAL ISSUES

Let's get to the important stuff first, the real issues. Like, the dude has a horrible last name. Eckersly is proud of his misfortune, it seems, making a slogan of “Give 'Em Eck!” I should say I usually have a pretty firm rule about voting for people who use the word “heck,” and I'm less inclined to like someone who makes a pun of it. But – and maybe this is just because I read Mad Magazine as a kid – all I can picture is Alfred E. Neuman campaigning to “Give 'Em Ecchh!” or something.

It's the most unfortunate advertising since MSU's ill-advised “I Heart New York” rip-off, where they plastered campus with a slogan that seemed translate to “I Bear MSU.” How true, MSU.

This Dem In Name Only flipped parties a few years ago, because ideology apprently means little to him. And this supposed fiscal conservative once essentially sued our state, costing taxpayers nearly $2 million, counting legal costs and the settlement.

He was doing the right thing, suing Roy Blunt's Chief of Staff over some Sunshine law email kerfuffle. But suing the government is sort of like (and by that I mean literally the same as) suing your neighbors. I see it the same way as I see protesting – sure, it'll make you feel better, but that's only if you ignore the facts that you're accomplishing nothing and generally annoying everyone around you.

So that's the Democrat. An anti-choice fiscal conservative who cost the state millions, whose plan to save the local economy is having a “hard look at the Federal deficit,” according to the Springfield Business Journal. He wants to gut healthcare, can't decide if individual freedom outweighs the threat of terrorism (uh, in Missouri?), and thinks “taxes are too high.” (Uh, in Missouri?)

BILLY LONG

But then there's Billy Long, Eckersly's opponent. I don't vote for anyone who wears a cowboy hat, first off. It's just bad policy – I'm a firm believer in the Separation of Hick and State.

The first thing you'll learn about Billy Long, should you decide to do a little research, is that his webmaster has never heard the word “Favicon.” Things seem to go downhill from there – he wants to dictate tax law through the Constitution. He figures, were he in charge, he could would scrap healthcare plans and save you up to ten percent by outlawing medical malpractice suits, or something.

(Don't worry about losing the house because of the surgery, Granny, just remember we saved up to ten percent! So, really, those blankets were free. If you think about it, the sicker you get, the more you save!)

The guy is so against a woman's right to choose he wants to block foreign aid to nations that allow the practice. He thinks the current tax code, which allows the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us to grow daily, “penalizes success.” And, most damning of all, the goddamn cowboy hat. He's wearing it in every picture! And it's one of those nice ones, too – the kind you can't even work in. I grew up in a honky-tonk, and I'll tell you that kind of cowboy hat would cause many a real cowboy to strap on what they affectionately call their “shit-kicking boots.”

Scott Eckersly is an imperfect candidate. He's right-wing and smiles like a goober. He spends too much time trashing the colleagues he's campaigning to work with. But Billy Long is a moron. And when choosing between a flip-flopper and an idiot, I think Kerry/Bush taught us all that we should ignore the shivers in our spines and pick the flip-flopping, dorky lesser of two evils.

(Originally published in The Standard)


UPDATE: I just found out, via an internet-obsessed friend, that an anti-Billy Long blog picked up on this post and reposted it in its entirety. I'd sue, except the author stroked my ego just the right way. Check it out: Long Is Wrong