With the NFP up and rolling, and the Party Platform out there for all to see, we have decided that we just can't stand the thought of going on about subjects political any further. The people who need to read it aren't going to read it. And won't be swayed at any rate. Hence, some final thoughts, in the form of an exciting Jumble!
*THE FINANCIAL CRISIS! If you are still attached to the idea that one party is responsible, then you really are either too stupid or too uninformed to participate in the election, and I mean that sincerely. This is one of the reasons political blogging has become so tiresome. There are actually people, (and that term is not used here in the intellectual sense) who actually believe that one party or the other is to blame. Given that these people are truly not smart enough to vote, and should rescind their registration on the grounds that their IQ is not high enough to comprehend the process, it doesn't do any good to mention that in 1999, a bill sponsored by a republicrat senator was then signed by a democrublican president (who bragged about it like he had just saved the economy). This bill paved the way for the current mess by eliminating the line between investment banks and traditional lending institutions. But because you can't use that fact to nail the opposition, few people want to hear about it. Moreover, it only serves to frustrate the poor messenger who tries to inform Obamaniacs that three years ago John McCain tried to introduce legislation intended to reign in Fanny May and Freddy Mac and hold them responsible for corrupt practices. This legislation was shot down by senators like Schumer, and Dodd, and OBAMA, who happened to all be receiving large sums of money from the companies just mentioned, the fat cat executives of which happened to be liberal democrats. It only leaves one forlorn to mention to McCainiacs that the only reason their man doesn't shout this fact from the housetops is that he was implicated in the last big banking scandal that shook the governing bodies lo these many years ago. People starry-eyed enough to vote for something as nebulous as "hope" will not be influenced by footage of democrats shrieking that the financial institutions that started the meltdown are fine and should be left alone, or treatises by community activists who pushed said companies to make bad loans. People opposed to the hopesters don't want to hear that they had had both houses and the presidency for long enough to see this coming and do something about it.
So screw all of you. If you ever wake up and realize that you replaced your brain with the panties you had in a convenient wad, we'll welcome you with open arms into the Arena of Ideas. Until then you are dismissed sans further comment.
*THE DEBATES! Never mind McCain's pretty smart attempt to make Obama look out of touch by begging out of the debate to go and do the only job they're both currently sworn to do. And never mind Obama's deft response, making Mcain look old by insisting they could do both. The debate itself left me with a bizarre, twilight-zonesque feeling that these two men had been cloned and trained to state the same position in different ways, so as to try and fool the public into thinking there was a clear difference between them. Admittedly, I was listening to it on the radio, and so couldn't appreciate how creepy and old McCain must have looked, and how dynamic and young the man who invented hope must have appeared. I could only listen to their words, and so lost count of how many times they disagreed to agree, fumbling to restate what the opposition just said, in a way that pleases their constituency. It reminds me of that great episode of Futurama (ah, that show of shows!) where the two candidates actually are clones of each other. I was disappointed in McCain, who had a chance to hit a home run when Obama lectured on how to treat disabled veterans. All he had to say was "Hey, guess what? I am a disabled veteran. I might know a thing or two about it." He might be too dedicated to appearing civil to be president. There are not words to describe how sick I am of these two, pretending to take the high road while their "people" dig for dirt and splash it all over the television. At any rate, I'm sure they are, as this is being written, engaged in fervent discussions with their campaign managers on how to differentiate themselves from each other. And how to keep their apparently insane VP's from talking to the press any more.
*WAR IN IRAQ! Remember when we were treated daily to news of the inefficient bloodbath that was destroying all hope for any decent future for all humanity in Iraq? Did you hear the news that their recent casualty totals are at all time lows? I almost missed it, too. I had to dig for it. Did you hear the General's recent declaration that we should definitely be out of there by next summer? Did you hear about the thousands of soldiers who beg to go back when they are discharged? Look, I was totally in love with the fact that the war was questioned so stridently. I also believe firmly that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place--(even as I admit that to debate whether we should have gone at this point might be the most useless exercise since the thigh-master). Finally, I hate to sound like one of those whiners who complain about how there's never any good news on TV. But seriously, if there is something good going on there, and the situation is better at this point than it has been in a long time, what's wrong with reporting that?
*OCTOBER SURPRISE! Wouldn't it be weird if Osama Bin Laden was captured just days, or even hours before Americans went to the polls? Yes it would be odd. But I'm pulling for it because that was time frame for his capture that I had in the office pool. I stand to win a good sum of money if he's captured or killed any time between now and the election.
*HOLLYWOOD! Do you think that McCain would see a bump in the polls if Tom Cruise made his endorsement of Obama more vociferous? If Palin ends up Vice President, do you think she'll take action against Oprah for not letting her on? Do you have as much desire as me to NOT see this so-called "conservative comedy" starring John Voigt and Kelsey Grammer? It was made by a man (Zucker) whose last great film was Airplane! and stars Chris Farley's little brother for heaven's sake. Does he have any claim to fame except that his dead brother was as talented as he was fat? I will not be watching any comedy that advertises its ideology before its other credentials. But I'll give them props for having the guts to say what they were after, unlike the even fatter (but less talented) Michael Moore and his "documentaries." (He'd get a lot more mileage with me if he admitted to making propaganda). A good example of how to do this correctly was Year of the Dog, starring the genius Molly Shannon. If they would have gotten PETA involved in their advertising (it was, in the end, a transparent animal rights advertisement) I would have avoided it, and missed a really charming, well made movie. Speaking of PETA . . .
*HOORAY FOR ICE CREAM! And mad, mad props to PETA for finally doing something that is not bitch-slappably annoying. Their recent attempt to pressure Ben and Jerry's to replace the cow's milk in their ice cream with human breast milk was an ingenious way to highlight how creepy milk really is, without highlighting how creepy PETA people can be. (Not that I'm going to stop eating an occasional bowl of ice cream. Even if the only frozen treats in my freezer are Tofudi Cuties). How many of you, upon hearing the news, called your friends to suggest that you get into the "dairy" business? Jason Adair swears that you'd save a fortune in sugar making ice cream that way, because you wouldn't have to sweeten the milk. OK, that joke is creepy as well. But send your complaints to PETA.