Ramblings of a Constipated Mind

I love The Onion.


Obama Runs Constructive Criticism Ad Against McCain

I came across this video on CNN. How much you want to bet this story is just as fake as the one from The Onion? The guy exaggerates his role so dramatically... I mean, come on. Like a battering ram? A "death scream"? Maybe there was a shark attack and he somehow rescued his dog, but there's no way he did it by punching the shark underwater. And if the dog was already completely in the shark's mouth I sincerely doubt it would have survived. I call BS.

Paul Newman is dead.

I just watched The Hudsucker Proxy yesterday, and he's in it. I am depressed now.

2008 is turning out to be the year for celebrity deaths.

So, the first debate between Obama and McCain just finished. I spent the entire time writing down my thoughts to what each of them said. I have no idea how much sense this transcript will make, but here it is, exchange by exchange, in order according to the question/issue.

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS:

Obama: A good overall plan, but nothing we haven't heard already. When will he get down to the specifics on how we're going to accomplish these steps?

McCain: We get it, Democrats and Republicans are coming up with a plan. But what is it? What about the fact that more than 90% of Americans oppose the bailout? You haven't even said anything about what the general solution needs to entail, let alone specifics.


THE PROPOSED PLAN:

Obama: Good philosophy, but you didn't answer the question. Will you vote for the bailout plan or not?

McCain: You're voting for it. You suck. Still, you're right about the need for accountability.

Obama: Correct. The current conservative economic philosophy leads to corruption and massive inequality. We can't just jump into action whenever there's a crisis.

McCain: Yay, more propaganda about how great America and American workers are. The workers may be fine, but that doesn't fix the problem at the corporate level.


WHAT THEY WOULD DO AS PRESIDENT TO FIX IT:

McCain: Yes, absolutely, we need to fix government spending. "We came to change government and government changed us" - I don't know if I necessarily agree with the first part, but you're right, the political system has been too manipulated and influenced by party politics. You'll veto every single spending bill? Firstly, I don't think that's true. Secondly, I don't know if I would be that general about it. Surely there are some things worth spending money on.

Obama: Yes, jump on the tax cuts for the rich. That's just a stupid idea, and I can't believe it's one we still practice. I'm not even sure if tax cuts for anyone is necessarily a good thing (the government needs all the money it can get right now to get out of debt), but if you're going to give them you might as well give them to the people who will benefit the most from them.

McCain: You say the system needs to be cleaned up, but on the whole you aren't arguing for radical change. The system needs more than janitorial work. Did I just hear you say that if anything we need to raise taxes? Holy crap, why did Obama have to interrupt you now? I was curious to see where you were going to go with that... I must have misheard you...

Obama: I get it. Tax cuts for the rich suck. Let him finish.

McCain: Interesting point about the business tax. I'm fine if you want to benefit businesses... my problem is when that extra money goes into the pockets of the richest 1% of people...

Obama: Yes! It's about the loopholes! I'm not an economist, but come on, you know they're there. The gap in wealth between the rich and poor has been increasing over the past few decades. The current plan is not helping the majority of Americans.

McCain: You're right, we need to look at the record of both candidates. Unfortunately, neither of you have perfect records, and Obama's seems better than yours.

Obama: You've denied the accusation about your voting record, as expected.


PRIORITIES YOU'LL GIVE UP TO FIX THE CRISIS:

Obama: Energy independence and alternative fuel development are priorities. Good. Health care is a priority. Good. Education is a priority. Good. I notice you didn't mention the war... that is disconcerting... especially since ending the war would probably do a lot to improve the economy...

McCain: Cutting spending is a priority. Good. Managing defense costs is a priority. Awesome, though the best way to do that is to not be so military-focused in all other aspects.

Obama: What are you going to cut? Answer the question! Be honest! HOLY CRAP. "GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT" SOUNDS AWESOME!

McCain: A spending freeze on everything except defense and veterans? NO! NO NO NO! Those are important, but there are way more important things out there!

Obama: Yes! Bring up the war and how it needs to end! Thank you!

McCain: That's right, ignore the war. You know if you talk about it you'll lose.

Obama: Bingo on the long-term priorities. Off-shore drilling isn't long-term, you should have pointed that out.

McCain: We get it. Cut spending. That's going to have to happen anyway because of the bailout. I still think you're wrong about veterans though (no offense to veterans). You're not getting as specific as Obama.

Obama: You called it an "orgy of spending." I like that. Thank you for pointing out McCain's hypocrisy - he agrees with Bush, who has spent a ton.

McCain: We know, you're a maverick. That's good. But are you enough of a maverick? That's the question.


THE LESSONS OF IRAQ:

McCain: You say it's a strategy problem. You're right, we do have a bad strategy. But what about the fact that going there to begin with was a bad strategy? Stop saying we're winning in Iraq! We're not! We will never win a war against an improper noun, because that's impossible! Might as well declare a war on tacos, or happiness.

Obama: Yes! Hammer it in. Going to war in Iraq to begin with was a bad decision. We hadn't caught bin Laden. Nearly a trillion dollars and 4,000 lives have been lost, and al-Qaeda is stronger than ever.

McCain: Good point about Obama not going to Iraq.

Obama: Bringing up Biden's foreign policy experience is good. YES. Keep focusing on McCain's mistaken attitude about the war. He's right that you need to talk more about what specifically you're going to do in Iraq now, though...

McCain: No. We are not winning in Iraq. Waiting until we "win" to bring the troops back means we're going to be there a very long time. Whoa, did you just imply you're definitely going to do the same thing in Afghanistan? Slow down there, buddy, one war at a time!

Obama: I'm disappointed you're also talking about Afghanistan. You're right that we need to focus more there, but I hope you don't want to stop one war just to start another...

McCain: Please. Just shut up now.


AFGHANISTAN:

Obama: More troops in Afghanistan? Is that a good idea? How about we replace every soldier with a humanitarian aid worker. Try to patch up the wound instead of making it worse. Pakistan too? Look, I know that's where al-Quaeda resides, but we should have acted against them years ago instead of Iraq. To go after them now might be too much, too late. Send in special agents to track down bin Laden.

McCain: I'm glad you're not prepared to threaten Pakistan. Maybe Iraq has taught you more than you let on. Why are you willing to work with the Pakistani government but not the Iraqi government, which wants us out? I don't know if the same strategy we used in Iraq will work in Afghanistan and Pakistan...

Obama: History facts. Meh.

McCain: Yes, you supported all these military measures throughout history. But that doesn't mean you're right about this one... Wow, a sob story about a mother who lost a son in the war and still supports you. You're right, nobody wants defeat. But sometimes to be a good leader you have to accept it.

Obama: Good, counter with another personal story from a grieving mother. Two can play that game. You're right, we have to use good judgment.

McCain: We've already had a "calamitous effect" on Afghanistan and the region! That's going to continue no matter what! We can at least get out of Iraq!


IRAN:

McCain: Your idea about a league of democracies and imposing strict sanctions is a good idea. But please, stop using fear tactics about Iran getting nukes. Isn't that exactly what they said about Iraq?

Obama: Good point about the war in Iraq helping to strengthen Iran. Once again, McCain's foreign policy ideas seem wrong. I'm glad you're talking about trying to cooperate with Russia and China - just being a democracy doesn't automatically make you above everyone else.

McCain: Why is sitting down and talking with foreign leaders without pre-conditions a bad thing? That does not legitimize them! Wow, you're making huge leaps in logic here...

Obama: You're exactly right, you can meet with whoever you want if you're president. Using pre-conditions is a form of manipulation and control that comes across as arrogant. Good example of how cutting off ties with North Korea backfired.

McCain: You're coming off a bit too pro-Israel for my tastes. Did you just mention how tall South Koreans are compared to North Koreans? What does that have to do with anything?

Obama: You're right, preparations and pre-conditions are too different things.

McCain: Wow, you're totally mis-characterizing Obama here. That was an unfair jab.


RUSSIA:

Obama: You're holding your ground against Russia. Okay... I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion on it...

McCain: Wow. You're even more anti-Russia than Obama. Perhaps for good reason. Still, let's not jump to conclusions or be too militaristic in our response before we consider the long-term situation.

Obama: Defend yourself, of course. But you're right, you and McCain seem to agree on Russia overall. You're right, we can't drill our way out of the energy problem.


LIKELIHOOD OF ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK:

McCain: I don't have any issue with what you're saying, for once. I'm glad you didn't resort to fear-mongering and are maintaining your anti-torture stance.

Obama: You sound more focused on the terrorist threat than McCain... would it kill you to be a little optimistic? Good point about needing to regain America's respectability.

McCain: Shut up about Iraq! Al-qaeda won't put a base there if we make sure to work with the Iraqi government properly on the way out.

Obama: Once again, putting the focus back on bin Laden. I'm okay with this, just don't go too far. You're correct, Iraq is an unnecessary distraction from bigger issues.

McCain: You're correct, you have more experience in national security than Obama. I will grant you that. However, you say Obama is clinging to wrong ideas... but aren't you doing the same in regards to whether or not we're winning the war?

Obama: You're right in saying we need to change how the world looks at us.

McCain: You say you know how to heal the wounds of war. Why can't you see that that's what we need to do with Iraq?


MY OVERALL FEELINGS:

Neither candidate is perfect. Obama started out strong, but when it got down to issues of foreign policy McCain really started to gain confidence. In terms of the economic crisis, neither presented a detailed plan on how to fix it, but Obama came closer. However, Obama did say some things that concern me, especially in regards to how he'll respond to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Overall, though, I still think it's clear that McCain in many regards is the more naive of the two candidates, especially in regards to domestic issues. He's too militaristic and too Bush-friendly for me, no matter how much he tries to deny it.

I can't wait to see the Biden/Palin debate. Five bucks says she gets pwned.

So I finished reading Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna.

Wow. What a book. Viola has been called the leader of "a new Reformation" by some, and I can definitely see why. This book is basically a giant middle finger aimed at the institutional church. Well, it's not that disrespectful - Viola really does seem like he wants to help bring about positive change, and doesn't want to force anyone to leave the institutional church unless they want to - but it's probably the best deconstruction of Christianity as an institutionalized religion I've ever read. I found it to be such a thorough and challenging read that it's really thrust me into quite the spiritual quandary.

Basically, the book looks at the history of the main tenets of modern church practice, and reveals that the vast majority of them aren't found in the New Testament (indeed, many actually contradict the Bible) but were adapted from the surrounding pagan cultures centuries after Paul. Not all of them are minor matters of tradition. Many of them are foundational concepts and structures of modern-day Christianity. For example:

The church building itself
The sermon
The pastor (or rather, all clergy)
Tithing
Seminaries and bible colleges

Like those things? Too bad. Viola and Barna argue that the vast majority of time, these are things that aren't biblical (at least not in the way they're currently practiced) and are harming Christians more than helping them.

According to the book, the New Testament concept of "church" was vastly different from what it is today. Rather than an institutionalized and hierarchical performance, it was an organic, living organism. The authors outline several key elements that defined the first-century church and made it so unique, and the point of the book is basically: if you're getting this from your current "church", fine. That's great. But if you aren't, you might want to think about why or why not, and ask yourself whether or not that's spiritually what God wants from you. God can still work through the institutional church as it is today, but that doesn't mean that it isn't broken.

Everybody should read this book. I'm going to try and get my hands on a copy of Viola's next book, Reimagining Church. Whereas this book is pretty much all about how the current state of the church is all wrong, that one is evidently the one where he focuses more on how things should be and how to get there.

In the meantime, I've got to consider how I'm going to change my current church experience, if at all. Don't get me wrong - I love Vintage21. It's an awesome place. But as much as I try to deny it, it's still very much a practitioner of modern-day church practice and culture. Though it claims it wants to be like the first-century church, like most churches it doesn't want to apply that standard to its structure and format. Why? Because that would be revolutionary. And radical. And whether it's a conscious decision or not, most churches won't go that far because being revolutionary and radical can be dangerous. Just ask that Jesus guy. If I do end up "changing churches" (though this is actually a flawed concept in and of itself), it's going to be a big one. Not just a matter of, "I like this place's music better" or "I agree with them more." More like a complete system overhaul.

As a side note: After reading this book, I now hate Constantine. Damn him and his whole "make Christianity official and mainstream" idea!

*sigh*

You'd think after 2,000 years we'd be closer to figuring out what this whole "Christianity" thing is really about. Nope. Not even close, a lot of the time. I'm just as confused as the next guy.

So, an interesting idea was brought to my attention today.

Isn't Sarah Palin really just Laura Roslin from Battlestar Galactica? I mean, Laura Roslin didn't have much political experience. But she was thrown into leadership after the Cylons wiped out the human race, and though it's been a bumpy ride, overall she's done a great job! Who's to say Palin can't do that?

The answer: No one. Except of course that Laura Roslin is a fictional character, and if anything like Battlestar Galactica happened in real life, the human race probably wouldn't last 5 minutes in her hands.

However, I will say that that's probably the best argument for Palin being qualified that I've heard yet. The McCain campaign needs to jump on it, and use it to win over sci-fi geeks. Just take a clip of Battlestar Galactica and replace Roslin with Palin. Then run it as a campaign ad: "Sarah Palin, savior of humanity."

You know some studio exec at Disney just went "Eureka!" and is putting it into development. Plus, he's right about the dinosaur thing. That would be really good to know.

As inspired by this article in today's News & Observer:

Why is it that the same people who throw a temper tantrum any time you bring up the idea of the ordination of women will rally in full support behind a woman as vice president (and potentially president)? Are they that anti-Democrat?

Of course, the common retort is, "Well we just don't think women should have any power over men in a religious sense, not a political sense."

The only problem, though, is that the same that make this claim don't usually view religion and politics as separate. They think that the president and people in office should be Christians and running the country in a way that promotes Christian values. So, basically... politics and religion should go hand-in-hand except when there's a woman running, because that would be hypocritical.

Come on. If you're going to be sexist, at least be consistent.

First things first: The (Hide And) Seeker won big at the Campus Movie Fest and is available for viewing online. Details here.

And now onto the real purpose of the post - as promised, I've been thinking a lot about the presidential race, and here are my thoughts on the matter. Or rather, it's a rant. Because, as most people know by now, I'm an Obama fan. If I recall correctly, a few months ago I predicted that he would win by a landslide because people were so hungry for change.

Now, I know better. Obama isn't going to win by a landslide. I still think he's going to win, but it's going to be close. Because the GOP, for better or worse, have run a campaign that by all intents and purposes deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed and shown to be the farce that it is, but that appeals to their base group of supporters. The choice of Sarah Palin as the VP nominee, in particular, has revitalized the campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Obama is a perfect candidate. I wish he had a few more years of experience. I wish his campaign finances were handled differently (though this is more of a systemic problem, since let's be honest, the USA is more of a plutocracy than a democracy anyway). But most of all, I wish he had bigger balls. Instead he seems to be trying to run the cleaner campaign, and play nice. I used to think this was a good idea. But let's face it - most people consider "niceness" to be one of the reasons that Kerry lost in 2004. And I'm sorry, but when you're acting as hypocritical and foolish as the McCain campaign, you deserved to be called on it, and called on it hard. Not just given a slap on the hand. Unfortunately, the hard right-wingers that previously were going to stay home and on election day now have found reasons to vote McCain. And no offense to any McCain supporters, but if you guys win, I believe it will be the single worst decision of the past few decades, and one that will haunt this country for years to come.

A few random ramblings:

1) Why is the guy who was raised by a single-mother and worked his way up the chain called an "elitist", while the guy with nine houses is seen as more of an average American?

2) Once again, why is personality and charisma clouding the issues? Obama clearly trumps McCain on the issues (and personality/charisma as well, for that matter), and only your hardcore neo-conservatives will deny that. But throw in a moose-hunting hockey mom from Alaska, and suddenly everyone's back on their side. When did "elitist" become a bad word (especially when by that definition McCain is the bigger elitist)? I don't want a President who is like me. I would not make a good President. People voted for President Bush because they wanted to have a beer with him. If that's all it takes, then by all means vote for Palin. She's a hockey mom! She likes guns! She has five kids! If those are your main criteria, then there are plenty of people out there who would qualify for President. But nope, can't vote for that guy who went to Harvard and studied constitutional law. He isn't "patriotic" and "American" enough. When did being smart, articulate, and white-collar become un-American? Not to suggest blue-collar workers and "rednecks" aren't smart or articulate, but you get my point. I wasn't aware hunting moose was a valuable skill to have when trying to run a country.

3) Even though I think he's one of the nicer high-profile religious right-wingers out there, when it comes to issues and politics, James Dobson makes me sick. Before Palin, he wasn't going to vote McCain. Now he's fully behind her, and is dragging the religious right with him. Despite being big on family values, he won't call her out on having an unwed daughter that got pregnant. Not to mention McCain's multiple wives. How much do you want to bet that if Obama had a teenage daughter that got pregnant, the religious right would be throwing a fit about him not promoting strong values? But because Palin is militantly pro-life and has ties to dominionist groups, it's okay for her.

4) If Obama doesn't win, there will be more racial tension in this country than ever before. Just think about it. Obama gradually had to win over the African-American base from Hillary by showing he could actually win. Now 80-90% of black voters are behind him. What happens when an articulate, educated, charismatic, half-Caucasian black man runs for President and loses? Heck, he's a black man that even managed to get himself called an "elitist"! Like it or not, it's going to be viewed as a race thing by many African-Americans. If the "whitest" black man out there can't win, who can?

5) Will somebody please tell me why forcing a 17 year-old pregnant teenager to get married is viewed as the smart and morally correct thing to do? Statistics show the vast majority of young couples that get "shotgun marriages" aren't happy and quickly divorce. Not to mention that Levi (Bristol's husband-to-be) had clearly posted on his MySpace page, "I don't want children." I'm not saying sex out of a wedlock is a good thing, but should we really punish two teenagers and force them into a situation that they'll most likely regret later down the road, just because they couldn't keep their pants on? Give the baby up for adoption (or keep it, if that's what Bristol really wants), but don't force them to get married. Again, I think the only reason they're doing it to begin with is to help mommy's campaign appeal to the religious right.

6) I don't want my Vice President to be someone who's afraid to take interviews with the press. The fact that Palin has kept such a thick wall between herself and the media just further demonstrates that when push comes to shove, she's not qualified, and John McCain knows it. Why stay away from a free press and try to limit their coverage of you unless you know that you can't stand up to thorough investigation?

7) Why is being a POW even relevant to whether or not someone is qualified to be president, or how "American" they are? Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for McCain and his service to this country. But let's think about this for a second. His grandfather fought in a war. His father fought in a war. He fought in a war. He wants the new generation to keep fighting a war in Iraq. Isn't it possible that McCain might be a bit too focused on the military?

I don't really want to write a novel. But to summarize:

McCain: experienced, flip-flopping, old-fashioned, Bush-agreeing, hypocritical, militaristic, rich, white, elitist.

Palin: inexperienced, redneck, dominionist, gun-toting, ignorant, book-banning, hockey mom.

Biden: experienced, grassroots, family-loving, foreign policy expert. Admittedly, I don't know as much about him as I should.

Obama: somewhat experienced, hard-working, charismatic, black, secular (in the good way), educated, young and fresh, change-inspiring, leader whose views on the issues seems to take the majority of Americans to heart.

Am I generalizing? Yes. But not as much as some might think.

Some interesting links:

Aaron Sorkin, writer of The West Wing, wrote a mock exchange between Barack Obama and the fictional president Jed Bartlet. It can be found here.

Don't think Palin and McCain are hypocritical elitists who capitalize on institutionalized racism and white privilege? Check out this short essay by Tim Wise, a white anti-racist activist.

Good citizens of America, please stop looking at things from a purely religious or individualistic perspective. Our country is in a really dark place right now. It's time we looked past our differences and voted for the person who won't just represent our own personal beliefs, but will focus on what's best for everyone and will bring the change necessary for our country to get through it. Can I guarantee Obama is that person? No. But I think it should fairly obvious that he has a better chance of being that guy than McCain.

I know I haven't posted as a while. I had planned my next post to be a very long, in-depth one about everything that's going on, but it doesn't look I'm going to have time for that any time soon. So here's the lowdown:

1) School has started. I'm taking 18 hours. It's keeping me busy.

2) I think Sarah Palin has a great personality and I can see why McCain picked her (to bring in the religious right). That said, she's an awful pick for Vice President, and certain facts about her (attempting to ban books, ties to dominionist groups, etc.) really don't strike me as the kind of characteristics we need in someone a heartbeat away from being leader of the free world.

3) I'm still contributing regularly to my various podcasts.

4) Review of Clone Wars here. Review of Bangkok Dangerous here.

5) Nursing homes suck.

6) Tomorrow I begin production on a short film for a nation-wide film festival that's coming to campus. You can find a production blog for it here. This is what's going to be consuming the vast majority of my free time for the next week. Wish me luck!