Barracuda. Indeed.

Currently listening : Little Queen By Heart Release date: 1989-09-06

3:30 AM - 89 Comments - 14 Kudos - Add Comment

Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?

For you very long-time readers, you are well-versed in my love for Mr. Stewart. In fact, he would be my reason for polygamy.

Much truth has been told in jest, and since news programs like FAUX News have become nothing but "Info-tainment" at best and propaganda at worst, that fact that America looks to a comedy show that is supposed to be nothing but mere entertainment for truth is pretty sad.

Why is that? Well, The Daily Show does not position itself as a source of "information" and "truth" so therefore, they can do whatever they want. Most news shows that are supposed to be communicating real information are run by people who are beholden to corporations, shareholders, boards of directors and advertisiers to uphold some VERSION of the truth. They have to pull punches as not to piss one of these constituents off, so, you will never just get "The News".

If you do one thing this week, watch The McNeill-Lehrer News Hour on public television. It is commercial-free news (so it's not broken up into soundbites). They are only beholden to those who donate, not people pushing religious-zealot owned services, like Blockbuster Video. There's no "Amazing two-headed baby, after this break!". I love it. After I watch it, I feel like I actually LEARNED something. Also, after I watch it, I have a headache because it communicates NOTHING but INFORMATION, and my mainstream-media-conditioned attention span can't handle the density of transfer of actual facts. Isn't that sad?

So, I don't watch The McNeill-Lehrer News Hour as often as I should, but I do catch The Daily Show when I can becuse they dispense the truth in a way that my addled brain can accept. And I also laugh out loud, which never happens with The McNeill-Lehrer News Hour. After THAT show, I need a stiff drink. Read on, from today's Times Magazine...

Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America? By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

IT'S been more than eight years since "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" made its first foray into presidential politics with the presciently named Indecision 2000, and the difference in the show's approach to its coverage then and now provides a tongue-in-cheek measure of the show's striking evolution.

In 1999, the "Daily Show" correspondent Steve Carell struggled to talk his way off Senator John McCain's overflow press bus — "a repository for outcasts, misfits and journalistic bottom-feeders" — and onto the actual Straight Talk Express, while at the 2000 Republican Convention Mr. Stewart self-deprecatingly promised exclusive coverage of "all the day's events — at least the ones we're allowed into." In this year's promotional spot for "The Daily Show's" convention coverage, the news newbies have been transformed into a swaggering A Team — "the best campaign team in the universe ever," working out of " 'The Daily Show' news-scraper: 117 stories, 73 situation rooms, 26 news tickers," and promising to bring "you all the news stories — first ... before it's even true."

Though this spot is the program's mocking sendup of itself and the news media's mania for self-promotion, it inadvertently gets at one very real truth: the emergence of "The Daily Show" as a genuine cultural and political force. When Americans were asked in a 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to name the journalist they most admired, Mr. Stewart, the fake news anchor, came in at No. 4, tied with the real news anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw of NBC, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN. And a study this year from the center's Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded that " 'The Daily Show' is clearly impacting American dialogue" and "getting people to think critically about the public square."

While the show scrambled in its early years to book high-profile politicians, it has since become what Newsweek calls "the coolest pit stop on television," with presidential candidates, former presidents, world leaders and administration officials signing on as guests. One of the program's signature techniques — using video montages to show politicians contradicting themselves — has been widely imitated by "real" news shows, while Mr. Stewart's interviews with serious authors like Thomas Ricks, George Packer, Seymour Hersh, Michael Beschloss and Reza Aslan have helped them and their books win a far wider audience than they otherwise might have had.

Most important, at a time when Fox, MSNBC and CNN routinely mix news and entertainment, larding their 24-hour schedules with bloviation fests and marathon coverage of sexual predators and dead celebrities, it's been "The Daily Show" that has tenaciously tracked big, "super depressing" issues like the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush White House to augment its executive power.

For that matter, the Comedy Central program — which is not above using silly sight gags and sophomoric sex jokes to get a laugh — has earned a devoted following that regards the broadcast as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news. "The Daily Show" resonates not only because it is wickedly funny but also because its keen sense of the absurd is perfectly attuned to an era in which cognitive dissonance has become a national epidemic. Indeed, Mr. Stewart's frequent exclamation "Are you insane?!" seems a fitting refrain for a post-M*A*S*H, post-"Catch-22" reality, where the surreal and outrageous have become commonplace — an era kicked off by the wacko 2000 election standoff in Florida, rocked by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and haunted by the fallout of a costly war waged on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

MR. STEWART describes his job as "throwing spitballs" from the back of the room and points out that "The Daily Show" mandate is to entertain, not inform. Still, he and his writers have energetically tackled the big issues of the day — "the stuff we find most interesting," as he said in an interview at the show's Midtown Manhattan offices, the stuff that gives them the most "agita," the sometimes somber stories he refers to as his "morning cup of sadness." And they've done so in ways that straight news programs cannot: speaking truth to power in blunt, sometimes profane language, while using satire and playful looniness to ensure that their political analysis never becomes solemn or pretentious.

"Hopefully the process is to spot things that would be grist for the funny mill," Mr. Stewart, 45, said. "In some respects, the heavier subjects are the ones that are most loaded with opportunity because they have the most — you know, the difference between potential and kinetic energy? — they have the most potential energy, so to delve into that gives you the largest combustion, the most interest. I don't mean for the audience. I mean for us. Everyone here is working too hard to do stuff we don't care about."

Offices for "The Daily Show" occupy a sprawling loftlike space that combines the energy of a newsroom with the laid-back vibe of an Internet start-up: many staff members wear jeans and flip-flops, and two amiable dogs wander the hallways. The day begins with a morning meeting where material harvested from 15 TiVos and even more newspapers, magazines and Web sites is reviewed. That meeting, Mr. Stewart said, "would be very unpleasant for most people to watch: it's really a gathering of curmudgeons expressing frustration and upset, and the rest of the day is spent trying to mask or repress that through whatever creative devices we can find."

The writers work throughout the morning on deadline pieces spawned by breaking news, as well as longer-term projects, trying to find, as Josh Lieb, a co-executive producer of the show, put it, stories that "make us angry in a whole new way." By lunchtime, Mr. Stewart (who functions as the show's managing editor and says he thinks of hosting as almost an afterthought) has begun reviewing headline jokes. By 3 p.m. a script is in; at 4:15, Mr. Stewart and the crew rehearse that script, along with assembled graphics, sound bites and montages. There is an hour or so for rewrites — which can be intense, newspaper-deadlinelike affairs — before a 6 o'clock taping with a live studio audience.

What the staff is always looking for, Mr. Stewart said, are "those types of stories that can, almost like the guy in 'The Green Mile' " — the Stephen King story and film in which a character has the apparent ability to heal others by drawing out their ailments and pain — "suck in all the toxins and allow you to do something with it that is palatable."

To make the more alarming subject matter digestible, the writers search for ways to frame the story, using an arsenal of techniques ranging from wordplay ("Mess O'Potamia," "BAD vertising") to exercises in pure logic (deconstructing the administration's talking points on the surge) to demented fantasy sequences (imagining Vice President Dick Cheney sending an army of orcs to attack Iran when he assumed the presidency briefly last year during President Bush's colonoscopy).

Gitmo, the Elmo puppet from Guantánamo Bay, became a vehicle for expressing the writers' "most agitated feelings about torture in a way that is — not to be too cute — that is not torture to listen to, and that is not purely strident," Mr. Stewart said. And the cartoon strip "The Decider," featuring Mr. Bush as a superhero who makes decisions "without fear of repercussion, consequence or correctness," became a way to satirize the president's penchant for making gut calls that sidestep the traditional policy-making process.

As the co-executive producer Rory Albanese noted, juxtapositions of video clips and sound bites are one of the show's favorite strategies. It might be the juxtaposition of Senator Barack Obama speaking to a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin while Mr. McCain campaigns in a Pennsylvania grocery store. Or it could be a juxtaposition of a politician taking two sides of the same argument. One famous segment featured Mr. Stewart as the moderator of a debate between then-Governor Bush of Texas in 2000, who warned that the United States would end up "being viewed as the ugly American" if it went around the world "saying we do it this way — so should you," and President Bush of 2003, who extolled the importance of exporting democracy to Iraq.

Often a video clip or news event is so absurd that Mr. Stewart says nothing, simply rubs his eyes, does a Carsonesque double take or crinkles his face into an expression of dismay. "When in doubt, I can stare blankly," he said. "The rubber face. There's only so many ways you can stare incredulously at the camera and tilt an eyebrow, but that's your old standby: What would Buster Keaton do?"

Given a daily reality in which "over-the-top parodies come to fruition," Mr. Stewart said, satire like "Dr. Strangelove" becomes "very difficult to make." "The absurdity of what you imagine to be the dark heart of conspiracy theorists' wet dreams far too frequently turns out to be true," he observed. "You go: I know what I'll do, I'll create a character who, when hiring people to rebuild the nation we invaded, says the only question I'll ask is, 'What do you think of 'Roe v. Wade?' It'll be hilarious. Then you read that book about the Green Zone in Iraq" — "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrasekaran — "and you go, 'Oh, they did that.' I mean, how do you take things to the next level?"

Mr. Stewart has said he is looking forward to the end of the Bush administration "as a comedian, as a person, as a citizen, as a mammal." Though he has mocked both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama for lapses from their high-minded promises of postpartisanship, he said he didn't think their current skirmishes were "being conducted on the scale that Bush conducted things, or even the Clintons; I don't think it has the same true viciousness and contempt."

SOON after Mr. Stewart joined "The Daily Show" in 1999, in the waning years of the Clinton administration, he and his staff began to move the program away from the show-business-heavy agenda it had under his predecessor, Craig Kilborn. New technology providing access to more video material gave them growing control over the show's content; the staff, the co-executive producer Kahane Corn said, also worked to choose targets "who deserved to be targets" instead of random, easy-to-mock subjects.

Following 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the show focused more closely not just on politics, but also on the machinery of policy making and the White House's efforts to manage the news media. Mr. Stewart's comedic gifts — his high-frequency radar for hypocrisy, his talent for excavating ur-narratives from mountains of information, his ability, in Ms. Corn's words, "to name things that don't seem to have a name" — proved to be perfect tools for explicating and parsing the foibles of an administration known for its secrecy, ideological certainty and impatience with dissenting viewpoints.

Over time, the show's deconstructions grew increasingly sophisticated. Its fascination with language, for instance, evolved from chuckles over the president's verbal gaffes ("Is our children learning?" "Subliminable") to ferocious exposés of the administration's Orwellian manipulations: from its efforts to redefine the meaning of the word "torture" to its talk about troop withdrawals from Iraq based on "time horizons" (a strategy, Mr. Stewart noted, "named after something that no matter how long you head towards it, you never quite reach it").

For all its eviscerations of the administration, "The Daily Show" is animated not by partisanship but by a deep mistrust of all ideology. A sane voice in a noisy red-blue echo chamber, Mr. Stewart displays an impatience with the platitudes of both the right and the left and a disdain for commentators who, as he made clear in a famous 2004 appearance on CNN's "Crossfire," parrot party-line talking points and engage in knee-jerk shouting matches. He has characterized Democrats as "at best Ewoks," mocked Mr. Obama for acting as though he were posing for "a coin" and hailed MoveOn.org sardonically for "10 years of making even people who agree with you cringe."

TO the former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, Mr. Stewart serves as "the citizens' surrogate," penetrating "the insiders' cult of American presidential politics." He's the Jersey Boy and ardent Mets fan as Mr. Common Sense, pointing to the disconnect between reality and what politicians and the news media describe as reality, channeling the audience's id and articulating its bewilderment and indignation. He's the guy willing to say the emperor has no clothes, to wonder why in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's "It's 3 a.m." ad no one picks up the phone in the White House before six rings, to ask why a preinvasion meeting in March 2003 between President Bush and his allies took all of an hour — the "time it takes LensCrafters to make you a pair of bifocals" to discuss "a war that could destroy the global order."

"The Daily Show" boasts a deep bench when it comes to its writing, research and production and has provided a showcase for a host of gifted comedians who have gone on to other careers — most notably, Stephen Colbert of "The Colbert Report," as well as Mr. Carell, Rob Corddry and Ed Helms. But while the show is a collaborative effort, as one producer noted, it is "ultimately Jon's vision and voice."

Mr. Stewart described his anchorman character as "a sort of more adolescent version" of himself, and Ms. Corn noted that while things "may be exaggerated on the show, it's grounded in the way Jon really feels."

"He really does care," she added. "He's a guy who says what he means."

Unlike many comics today, Mr. Stewart does not trade in trendy hipsterism or high-decibel narcissism. While he possesses Johnny Carson's talent for listening and George Carlin's gift for observation, his comedy remains rooted in his informed reactions to what Tom Wolfe once called "the irresistibly lurid carnival of American life," the weird happenings in "this wild, bizarre, unpredictable, hog-stomping Baroque" country.

"Jon's ability to consume and process information is invaluable," said Mr. Colbert. He added that Mr. Stewart is "such a clear thinker" that he's able to take "all these data points of spin and transparent falsehoods dished out in the form of political discourse" and "fish from that what is the true meaning, what are red herrings, false leads," even as he performs the ambidextrous feat of "making jokes about it" at the same time.

"We often discuss satire — the sort of thing he does and to a certain extent I do — as distillery," Mr. Colbert continued. "You have an enormous amount of material, and you have to distill it to a syrup by the end of the day. So much of it is a hewing process, chipping away at things that aren't the point or aren't the story or aren't the intention. Really it's that last couple of drops you're distilling that makes all the difference. It isn't that hard to get a ton of corn into a gallon of sour mash, but to get that gallon of sour mash down to that one shot of pure whiskey takes patience" as well as "discipline and focus."

Mr. Stewart can be scathing in his dismantling of politicians' spin — he took apart former Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith's rationalizations about the Iraq war with Aesopian logic and fury — but there is nothing sensation-seeking or mean-spirited about his exchanges. Nor does he shy away from heartfelt expressions of sadness and pain. The day after the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, he spoke somberly of the tragic situation there and asked his guest, Ali Allawi, a former Iraqi minister of defense, how his country handled "that sort of carnage on a daily basis" and if there were "a way to grieve."

Most memorably, on Sept. 20, 2001, the day the show returned after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Stewart began the program with a raw, emotional address. Choking up, he apologized for subjecting viewers to "an overwrought speech of a shaken host" but said that he and the show's staff needed it "for ourselves, so that we can drain whatever abscess there is in our hearts so we can move on to the business of making you laugh."

He talked about hearing, as a boy of 5, of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. He talked about feeling privileged to live where you can "sit in the back of the country and make wisecracks." And he talked about "why I grieve but why I don't despair."

Mr. Stewart now says he does not want to listen to that show again: "The process of the show is to bury those feelings as subtext, and that was a real moment of text. It's laying bare the type of thing that is there hopefully to inform the show, but the show is usually an exercise in hiding that."

In fact, Mr. Stewart regards comedy as a kind of catharsis machine, a therapeutic filter for grappling with upsetting issues. "What's nice to us about the relentlessness of the show," he said, "is you know you're going to get that release no matter what, every night, Monday through Thursday. Like pizza, it may not be the best pizza you've ever had, but it's still pizza, man, and you get to have it every night. It's a wonderful feeling to have this toxin in your body in the morning, that little cup of sadness, and feel by 7 or 7:30 that night, you've released it in sweat equity and can move on to the next day."

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

4:51 AM - 89 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Why you guys don’t get laid

Some boys got into a discussion recently about why they have to do a whole song and dance and fake like they want a relationship to get laid.

Until most BOYS stop punishing girls for having sex, girls will still need the "story". They don't do it for themselves, they do it for the 90% of dudes who don't want "damaged goods" and whose first question they ask is "How many guys have you slept with?".

Guys say they ask because of "diseases". They need to know. But the sorts of folks that DO have diseases will lie anyway so why bother except for your own sick curiosity or insecurity? Just use a condom until you are in a relationship, stupid.

To get the girl, there does not need to be any pretense. I'm not saying girls don't like to be buttered up, but a simple "you're hot" works without promises as long as you make them FEEL like the only chick that night. Just don't ask THE QUESTION.

The Question has forced girls who like to be with guys underground - to be a stealth slut - put on the act, fuck guys in touring bands or find someone outside their circle who won't tell the guys at work/school/whatever or hate them right after fucking them for being the kind of girl who would fuck them, if you can follow that.

So, don't judge. Promiscuity is neither a virtue or a sin. It just is. It's a choice. Girls who go that way can be anywhere on the spectrum from confident to insecure, just like dudes.

Honestly, can any of you punishers say that you haven't tormented some girl you liked about her sexual history? Then wonder why you can't get laid. DUH.

My Manifesto - Greetings, fellow terrorists...

I have contacted each one of you for this special mission - to destroy commercial music as we know it.

The fact that bands have stylists, that publicists create buzz and that focus groups dictate "product" is abhorrant to me. These have no place in the artistic arena. I don't care about soundscans or image or whatever - just the message. I want to rail against the opiate of the masses - celebrity culture and worship of the false.

I want the music to express an angst that a lot of people feel deep inside, and articluate in it a way that the culturally aware will recognize. It is what we have all been feeling for some time but that no one has expressed, because it "will not sell".

My theory is that so many people unconsciously feel this way, that tapping into this dormant zeitgeist BEFORE anyone else WILL create demand for it. I am convinced. Not that this is my goal, but I feel it is my ethical duty to create this sonic manifesto in the universally uniting medium of "music". I have been given a gift, (I know - debatable!), but most of all I have been given a vision to speak for all those passive consumers of media who do not have something that speaks to them or for them and do not have the means by which to create it themsleves.

So, as culture genrator, political instigator, social arbitrator and chronic masturbator, I hereby dub myself fascist dictator of The Sound of Terror. Will you join me? Please feel free to let anyone know whom you think will be key to this mission - and have FUN with it.

Just so you can get the idea, here are some songs I am working on:
I'd rather be raped by 1001 lepers with AIDS that have George Bush be President
Abort Me
Paris Hilton Must Die
Jon Benet Spears
I killed Little Miss Colorado
Fuck Me - no, Fuck You
Cunt is a nice word
Whore
Shop 'til you Doom Yourself to a Trailer Park
I. R.A. Q. ( I RAPE A QUOTA)
Marilyn Monster
At least I Didn't Fuck a Whore
Meat Me
Prostitot
I'm Gonna Chop you up
Daddy says I'm the best

I fully expect to get death threats.

your loving friend and conspirator,

Currently listening : My War By Black Flag Release date: 1990-10-25

9:31 PM - 89 Comments - 12 Kudos - Add Comment

...and in this corner, John McCain...

Looks like we will have Obama in one corner, and John McCain in the other, unless Hillary can stop coming off as completely bitter, or the superdelagates override what seems to be the popular vote for the Democratic nomination.  As stated in my previous blog, Obama has the only fighting chance against the Republicans, but I fully expect a dirty fight.  The Clintons felt its full force over the years, and Obama has just come out of training.  Will he be able to survive The Karl Rove Playbook?

Obama has already set his sights on McCain.  He barely attacks Hillary anymore, not that he ever did a lot of that.  That is not Senator Obama's style, which is why he is so appealing to voters.  He doesn't attack people, but he does attack the current state of Washington. Will McCain keep the status quo?  Is he business as usual with Cheney, Inc. waiting in the sidelines?  A look at his record suggests he is not.

Barack Obama has specifically mentioned that he is against special interests and lobbyists.  He has implied that Hillary Clinton is in the pockets of these special interests.  But what about John McCain?  Will he practice the same nauseating cronyism that we have seen, laid bare in our times of crisis, like The Iraq War where Halliburton gets paid $100 to do a load of GI's laundry they are not allowed to do themselves, or like after Hurricane Katrina, where "Brownie" the flunkie horse judge was doing "a heck of a job"?

2:33 PM - 89 Comments - 12 Kudos - Add Comment

Is Rational Behavior becoming a thing of the past?
Category: News and Politics

I was recently reading a new book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter", which set to prove that even though people think they vote with their heads, they vote based on their emotions. It argues that democracies make bad policy, largely because the average person doesn't understand, or doesn't care, what economic policies are beneficial to them and which ones are not. They vote on what they think, even though it is an opinion often mistaken for fact. People just FEEL better being protectionist, even though in economic terms, it hurts them. They vote for war AND less taxes at the same time and wonder why our economy goes to shit. They don't want the minimum wage to be raised as they think prices will rise in proportion, yet they work a job based on the minimum wage themselves. They vote for the policies that benefit rich people, hoping that, as in high school, if you vote with the in-crowd, you will be accepted by the in-crowd. Is this rational behaviour? I think not.

I see this in the ongoing Clinton vs. Obama debate. If I were an employer, and each job applicant showed me their resumes, I would hire Clinton based on her seniority and relationships with the global network of nations by which our position in the world is negotiated. Support for Obama is like a cult of personality. Not that I don't like the guy, but I think the junior Senator from Illinois would make a great president in about 10 years. No matter how thoughtfully I tried to build a case for Hillary, I had to factor in the irrational hatred for Hillary. "She just rubs me the wrong way", I have heard repeatedly from people in both parties, in some way, shape or form, as much the opposite outpouring of love for Obama's persona: "I just like the guy". Hillary's mistake was that she was TOO rational, building her platform on her experience and describing in detail the implementation of her policies, not realizing that the audience's eyes had glazed over from overload of the facts. She speaks from the head.

In the primary, I wound up voting for Obama. Hillary was the better candidate, and I know she would take New York, but that this point, I realized the Obama is the only candidate that has a fighting chance against any Republican candidate. WHY? Not for rational reasons, but for the Rebublicans' knee-jerk reaction to any politician with the last name of Clinton. Remember that whole Whitewater fuss? Remember Monica Lewinsky? Was this the behavior of a rational body politic? Certainly not. Both were witch hunts that pushed emotional buttons in the court of popular opinion, whom neither understand complex investments nor true threats to national security. Oh well. The Clintons are bad, m'kay? The damage is done, and no rational argument can change that.

My vote for Obama, though it was against my rational choice, was a STRATEGIC vote. Why? The whole point of the Democratic nomination is to choose the candidate that can beat the Republicans in November. Full stop. Hillary cannot win because no Republican or Conservative would vote for Clinton Redux, whereas a Republican or Conservative could be swayed to vote for Obama. He has a slight track record, but by the same token, that comes without baggage. Hillary has too much, and undeserved or not, she carries with her all the goodwill of the Clinton administration as well as its skelatons in the closet. If you want to focus on winning the presidency which is the object of this game, you have to deal with the way people behave in real life, not relying on rationality to prevail, or that anyone would have researched the issues or candidates enough to make an informed decision.

Obama is a promising force in politics. In fact, I posted a bulletin about this curious Senator from Illinois, the one with the last name that rhymed with "Osama", as being a politial figure to watch about two years ago when I was living in Sweden. Unlike Hillary, he speaks from the heart. His victory speech after the Iowa caususes approached "I have a dream" stature. How emotionally satisfying is it to hear a politician speak who is SMART? While I feel he stumbles when responding to questions on the fly, as in the debates, when he gives a speech, he is the antithesis of Dubya. There will be no book of Obama-isms.

I predict if Obama is president, he will be a great diplomat, but it will be a challenge for him to make the hard, military decisions: Take out that training camp, blow up that weapons factory, send an assassins squad after bin Laden. The Clintons were good with that - a military operation would be ordered, carried out and announced at a press conference with little fanfare. Can Obama do that? Not that I want blustery speeches, chest beating, the scare tactics of the current administration, but we do have to protect our interests with military force in a war against cells that are not a government or a country but everywhere, and show that if you f*ck with us, there is a price to pay. Can Obama do that? He has been compared to Kennedy, but could he handle a standoff with North Korea or Iran a la the Cuban Missle Crisis? I'm not so sure. Hillary could. (Although a VP position for Hillary would be a demotion, I think she'd be a GREAT candidate for Secretary of State, given her familiarity with the players.)

We can't imagine Obama being a more imcompetent president than Bush. At worst, he would be the younger generation's Jimmy Carter. Mark my words. For you folks who do not remember President Carter's single term, it came as a reaction to the Nixon/Ford years. The Governor of Georgia's brains and southern gentleman's manner were a welcome departure from the disgrace of Nixon's resignation and the mediocrity of Ford's succession. Nixon was smart but his personal quirks caused him to make stupid decisions, and Ford was just pain stupid. We were thirsting for an elequent intellectual, a smart man who could earn back the respec tof world leaders and the country. He did that, with the Middle East Peace Treaty, but blundered badly when it came to rescuing the hostages at the American Embassy in Iran, proving he took too much time to think, and could not be a decisive military leader.

The most anti-Bush we can get is Obama: it is readily apparent he is Ivy League educated, he is idealistic and untainted, eloquent and inspiring. Obama is rational, very good at speaking in sweeping terms, putting forth ideas that capture the imaginations and the hearts of the voters. And that's why he will win the nomination, and perhaps the presidency. He speaks to the emotional side of the voter while keeping a rational demeanor. He looks like the smart choice, without requiring the average citizen to have to do their homework.

You think The Republicans, the conservatives, are supposed to be the rational ones, while the liberals are painted out to be the emotional bleeding hearts. The Reign of The Retarded Cowboy has been anything but rational. Dubya has exhibitied the typical unfathomable behaviour of a dry drunk. We've also watched the Bush family exchange barbs with the Clinton Family for nearly 15 years. Most people are sick of it. Most people are sick of the Good 'Ol Boy network. We're sick of having a stupid person embarrass us on a world stage. We watched Baby Bush squander the outpouring of support this country received after the 9/11 attacks. Irrationality prevailed, and with emotions running high, we went to war with Iraq, a secular government that with no ties to Al Queda, to ruin this country's economy with our first outsourced war (the military doesn't even make it's own meals or do it's own landry anymore!). This republican is not even a fiscal conservative, spending money like a drunken sailor and issuing more currency to devalue the dollar. Completely irrational.

Susan Jacoby just published a book "The Age of American Unreason", additing to the rash of books noting this pheonmemon of anti-intellectualism (the attitude that "too much learning can be a dangerous thing") and anti-rationalism ("the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion") have not been lost in the cultural landscape, I just don't know if either of these books will make it onto the bestseler lists. One, because "The Myth of the Rational Voter" drew parallels with economic theory that even made this MBA graduate's eyes cross, but as Jacoby concluded in her book, "not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, but they also don't think it matters." Yes, you do not need to take a test to pull that lever in November, you just have to have an opinion. And though as most people (mistakenly) think, "they have a right to their opnion", though like assholes, yada yada yada.

So, I am following the strategy to pick the candidate in November that I think has a shot at winning, even though it went against my initial analysis. At this point, that decision just happens to coincide with the feelings and opinions of the juggernaut that is Senator Barack Obama.

Whatever happened to CBGB

Yes, it will be a place where I am sure they would appreciate residents from the BRC stumbling in to bum change every once in a while. I love how The Bowery is an "up and coming" neighborhood still after a decade of trying desperately to sell out. You know what that means? It's not there yet, but we'll charge you the same rent as if you DIDN'T live in a shithole.

from Gawker: "John Varvatos, the fashion designer who has made a career of co-opting rock n' rollers from Alice Cooper to Chris Cornell and Iggy Pop [and Velvet Revolver - see above - Ed.], has taken over what used to be CBGBs. His store will open in the spring. Unrelatedly, the New York City Coroner Office officially pronounced Punk dead this morning at 11:03 am. He is survived by his younger brother Emo and his sister, Balkan-infused Pop. Memorial Drinks and canapés will be served at Whole Foods Bowery."

Out on the prairies, kill a wolf and leave it in the middle of the range as a warning to the others. They are smart enough to stay away. We need to bring crack back into fashion so, like that fucking Darwin-award winner on the Lower East Side a couple years back, all the suckers who bought $3 million dollar studioss in that Financial Services Back Office looking thing on Cooper Square can proclaim during a stick-up with haughty milk-fed confidence, "What are you going to do, shoot me?" and get their response in lead.

Before you ask me for sex or relationship advice, read this...

YES, I am thinking about getting the Sex column up again, but just as the questions that come up seem to follow a pattern, maybe I can give you some stock relationship advice that might head off some questions at the pass.

SO, here are the answers the the questions you didn't even ask yet. There are a few things that are common sense that it takes a while for some people to figure out:

1. Selective hearing: if someone tells you they are not sure, or some other wishy washy bullshit, believe the worst. This is not the time to be optimistic. "I'm not sure" means "I'm not into it". The glass is half empty in this case. If they give you something positive and negative in the same sentence, they really mean the negative part.

2. Sometimes stable and "boring" is better than "intense". Fighting, anger, and drama is not passion. Don't confuse a hate-fuck for intimacy. If you are addicted to the adrenalin rush, note that it's creating those kind of situations you can't get enough of, not the person - the person is irrelevant. Think about what is self-created and the patterns you repeat in each relationship. Remember, you picked it, so if you wonder why you are always in this situation with someone else, it IS you. You made it. YOU did it. They just played the part you set them up for.

3. You've been in love before, you'll be in love again. "Because I love him/her" is not a reason to be treated like shit. You are really telling the world, "I am afraid to be alone" or "I think I am unlovable" when you spout this shit. You are wearing a t-shirt that says, "I Don't Love Myself" for all the world to see. And don't EVEN dare to use your kids as an excuse. They would tell you the same thing if they could. YOU have to be the adult. Suck it up and get out. You'd be surprised about the support you get AFTER you make the decision.

4. When your friends say, "dump him/her", do it. Your friends love you and are looking out for your best interests. Your partner is probably looking out for their own. If you counter good advice with , "But he/she..." and make excuses, then you deserve your own punishment for staying in that situation. Your friends may not stick around long enough to say, "I told you so" when you finally stop degrading yourself and come to your senses, so keep the friends, and dump the other.

5. Sometimes there is something more important than being "right" in an argument. How far are you willing to go to prove you are right - and why? Making someone you love feel like shit? Destroying a friendship? Ask youself why you need to prove that you are right and why just KNOWING you are right inside is not reward enough.

6. If you suspect they are cheating on good evidence, change in lifestyle patterns, lying, etc., they ARE. If all signs point to cheating, ask yourself why you are ignoring it.

NOTE to painfully insecure people: EVERYONE is insecure. Some people just hide it better than others. PLEASE don't take your own jealousy/fears of abandonment/fragile ego/posessiveness as "evidence" of cheating. If you let your insecurity show, it is so annoying, your worst fears will be realized if you keep it up. Even the most faithful will cheat on a jealous partner - they have already been punished for the crime by counteracting your suspicions and your constant need for reassurance when they have done NOTHING wrong - so why not? I would. If you punish them continually for something they did not do, after a while, they might actually do it as they have already paid the price and there is no convincing you otherwise.

Same goes for people who whine all the time to their partner, "You won't leave me will you?" Drive them crazy by asking this shit every fucking day for god knows how long, you will finally get the answer you secretly wante dthe whole time - "YES"!!!!! Why did you want them to say YES when you appeared to want them to say NO? Becuase then you can say to yourself, "SEE! I was right all along!!" How fucked up is that?

Hie thee to a trained professional! I am just a myspace HACK!

STOP hacking, spamming and phishing from someone who knows...
Current mood: irritated
Category: MySpace

No, I don't go posting shit about ringtones, designer handbags or porn sites. I've been getting a lot of weird e-mail and comments from people whom I know would not post that crap, so I am not reporting them...I don't want them to get deleted becuase they were hacked! Hacking is preventable because you unwittingly give the hackers your information!
(Shake, Lori, you were hacked!!!!)

This is what happened to me - so you won't fall for the hack.

1. I was trying to leave a comment on someone's page. There was a video in the first comment box. I think I clicked it.
2. I was "logged out" automatically. No big deal - I've been logged out of myspace before for no good reason, so I logged in again with my username and password.
3. the wierd thing was, I had more than one window open, and when I went back to the other myspace window, I was NOT logged out. I just thought it was a bug.

Peter told me this page was hacked this morning. I told him what happened and he said the "login" page that looked like myspace collected my info, but it was a mirrored page on a fake URL. He said if you get a page like that, make sure the URL is www.myspace.com. The fake ones have an extra character like www.. or www.mmyspace..com - the URL looks the same but is not.

SO, if you are logged out unexpectedly, especially after clicking on something in your comments or an e-mail that looks like it is from a "friend", before logging in again, just retype the URL www.myspace.com before you give your info. It's that simple.

motherfuckers.

Blood Lust & Glory

We are a society in love with violence.  We are one of the few countries where death, dismemberment and decapitation are forms of entertainment (guess what other region loves this?  You got it – the Middle East).  People cheer out loud in the theater when a certain deserving character gets his or her comeuppance and gets "taken out".  It's in videogames, movies, TV and advertising.  We all understand that at the end of the day no one really gets hurt, if we are sane.  Sane people regularly use phrases like, "I'm gonna kill that person" and everyone knows you don't really mean it.

3:30 PM - 89 Comments - 15 Kudos - Add Comment