JonathanDS2U

They are going to crucify this movie, everyone's going to say it got killed at the box office, but then it's going to be re-released and there'll be little bunny rabbits and hidden eggs and stuff. posted 07/22/2008 at 16:35:46

This type of cartoon is like a lending institution that is not particularly deserving of a direct bailout from those who love the First Amendment - let's bail out something else, something more deserving. It lends itself to the idea that the Right's absurd notions combine to make an absurd picture, it lends itself to those who guffaw at anything derisive about Obama and now have a stronger focus and a perceived group of people with whom they can do their guffawing, it lends itself to those who need someone else to be the first to break the taboo against a random assault on Obama's dignity. It probably lends itself to Indy Mac. It causes all kinds of trouble because of the stupid kind of mindset it lends itself to. The unfortunate part is that the cartoonist probably thought it only lent itself to making the Right seem absurd, and considers it sufficient to condemn those who don't see it that way as "not getting it". posted 07/14/2008 at 16:14:29

That you should have been held up as someone who is anti-Obama (pro-McCain by implication) is just another reflection of how much power resides in those able to define/contrive context. Anything you say can and will be used in a half-sentence soundbite. With all the free speech we're permitted, it's more like being in an environment where talking above a whisper can cause an avalanche. Those who sense this find they must continually confine themselves to remarks that won't trigger anything. As someone who will be voting for Obama, all I want to say in any political discussion on the election is.... go Obama! posted 07/11/2008 at 14:15:09

When you're in the crowd at a football game and your team's quarterback is running down the field with the football, he is doing EXACTLY what you want, and should you at that moment shout an expression of your perfect alignment with his actions, there are no complex gray areas holding you back, and he will never run down the field in the wrong direction (usually). Political rallies falsely imply the same opportunity to shout in the same spirit. And then you find yourself at a political rally, shouting support for your candidate because he just hit the nail on the head again. All of a sudden he says something you aren't crazy about (e.g., it's his role to tell parents to tell kids to turn off the television until they finish their homework), and it hits you: you do not have to love everything about this candidate.

If you plan to stay home on election day until you're offered the candidate of your dreams, maybe you have this situation confused with something else. When the NYT and others play with fire by suggesting holding back support for Obama, it has more to do with them always needing something to talk about, that's their job. My answer to them and everyone else is, Go Obama! (and once he's in the White House, I may just have a few things to add to my Go Obama). posted 07/08/2008 at 14:29:26

The presumptions of those fighting to make America stupid notwithstanding, people who need more than a soundbite to express a complex idea are not just getting off on the sound of their own voice. Obama clearly chooses words carefully, clearly places a high value on intelligently articulating ideas, therefore, he has a great need to be quoted in context. The way things work nowadays, where every five sentences one speaks get rounded off into a few words that only remotely approximate one's meaning, Obama will be continually finding himself seriously misinterpreted by certain folks among us. The real answer would be if this entire sort of problem that I've just described could be conveyed in one, brand new, cool-sounding, monosyllabic word. Just say that word to someone, and it'll mean they've over-soundbited (only, "over-soundbited" is too intellectual-sounding, too easy to deflect with a wave of the hand). posted 07/07/2008 at 15:26:00

You sure do put the question of Iran and nuclear weapon capability into perspective. When faced with that enormously serious a prospect, the first concern (as per the title of your piece) is gas prices. Sadly, with the 4th one day away, that has come to be a perfectly American way of analyzing things. If you're so afraid now of what Iran can do to us, I wonder how ready you'll be to share the guilt when/if that problem is dwarfed by Iranian nuclear weaponry. And that concern should not be diminished through bludgeoning everyone with a list of the negative consequences of acting against them. We're looking for a lesser of evils scenario at this stage, not a sunny day driving through the countryside in our Hummers scenario. posted 07/03/2008 at 14:43:29

When the Founding Fathers included gun ownership as an important principle, they were living on a planet without phones or police response times worth mentioning or tasers or pepper spray (if you can reach your handgun in time to ward off someone why can't you reach your taser instead?). That meant that back then if someone came to your farm with a gun you were totally at his mercy, without ever having had the option of buying an alarm system for protecting those particularly vulnerable. This may not be enough to render the Supreme Court decision ridiculous. However, discussions of the Supreme Court decision that refer to the intent of the Founding Fathers without mention of these factors are ridiculous. posted 06/27/2008 at 13:52:56

Republicans have worked very hard to curtail regulation of big business, while disguising this movement with the slogan, "Less government", one of their most repeated. The cry for "less government" coming from a Republican should be sending chills down our spine, like a demand for a reduction in the police force in order to render all dark alleys a no-man's land. posted 06/26/2008 at 14:34:02

I always enjoy it when matters that could easily lead to the obliteration of half the civilized world are discussed as if everything can be carefully figured out through referencing somewhat miniscule events of recent history.

Israel will not stand for a neighbor inching towards nuclear weapons capability while threatening to obliterate it (nor would anyone else, unless you are so self-centered that asking you to put the shoe on the other foot is beyond your ability). If the U.S. doesn't act against Iran, Israel will. Once either the U.S. and/or Israel do act (and we are not talking about some impotent, token action), Russia will side with Iran. This is where things stand, and all of the miniscule, incremental measures being advocated are like sedatives designed to avoid facing the overwhelmingly horrible nature of the situation. If Iran wasn't so oblivious to how it is backing everyone into a corner, it would grasp the fact that it has put huge numbers of people on a collision course, and that they OWE it to the planet to get rid of Ahmadinijad, one way or the other. posted 06/24/2008 at 16:04:16

I am among the variety of Obama supporters who don't mind disagreeing with Obama on several important issues, because I have confidence that whatever he ultimately chooses to do, his choice is informed by a sense of wisdom.

That said, Obama's path to the White House does not appear as a straight line to me. After the clock runs out on Bush and he exits the freeway, the clock on Iran and nuclear weapons capability will continue to tick. It will speak to the new president, not Bush, it will land in his lap, and I wonder whether the weight of it might not be enough to affect the presidential election. It would be wonderful if our enemies had no impact on our decisions, but not all fears are grounded in psychology alone. posted 06/23/2008 at 14:56:46

Look at how wealthy Cindy McCain is, and then ask yourself how much traction this story of her having to steal pills (however true it may be) will get as the telephone game takes it further and further into Middle America. Like a pharmceutical timecapsule, it'll transform into a black mark against the Dems for inventing something absurd in order to attack a poor innocent lamb. posted 06/19/2008 at 16:17:16

Reverse exorcisms, by which I mean, when one or more individuals within a society is chosen for demonization, are believed by primitive people to serve an important societal function. We call ourselves civilized because we change the word to scapegoat. Whatever word you use, you are channeling your own negative energy in a random way. That is my explanation for how the Byrne Grant program made it through. The only scrutiny such a program receives is whether it assists with the reverse exorcisms the primitives are trying to perform on those who smoke weed. Dress it up any way you choose, there are quite a few of us who see through this brand of "scapegoating" (way to generous a term). posted 06/18/2008 at 16:15:26

Something almost as disturbing to me as sexism is the whole-hearted willingness of so many women to ignore the way they're all being lumped together. Feminism was born out of outrageous prejudice. It is the consequence of women having a common enemy in stupid male chauvinists. Every time people have an outrageous common enemy they accept being lumped together, just because they have been forced into a circumstance where they have to react in a united way. I support the legalization of marijuana, but I do not enjoy the apparent requirement upon one who feels as I do that I take delight in being lumped together with everyone else who supports marijuana legalization, and/or those who smoke pot. Nor does my position on this inspire me to see it is the most defining characteristic of my identity. Such a response to having a common enemy, whoever it may be, strikes me as a manifestation of unrelated personal insecurity and confusion about who you are in the world. posted 06/12/2008 at 15:10:41

In a world where you could be going way out on a limb in attacking the Religious Right's literal Bible premise of a virgin birth, you're a very long way from establishing a logical pro-choice premise. It's time someone put some of our new technology to practical use by generating a believable optical illusion of Jesus endorsing some sane stuff (I know a few out of work actors willing to help). Then we could all move forward. posted 06/11/2008 at 16:13:48

The War on Drugs has made Organized Crime lackeys out of everyone involved. The same people who sell you pot are the last ones who want it legalized. Add into the mix all of the people who equate having a sense of community with taking a busy-body approach to everyone's personal business (reinforced by TV and other venues of American "culture"), and you have a situation held in place by some pretty daunting forces.

Regarding the Republican spin on Libertarianism (which you, Mr. Barr, have yet to demonstrate a total break from - we'll have to see), we hear the phrase, "less government". Well, the phrase "less government" is to less government what the phrase "pro-life" is to being among the only group that values life. When Republicans say less government, it really means less governing of what the big corporations do. They come this close to saying it out loud. I'm actually surprised that no Democrat has ever identified the true significance of this phrase for Republicans and thrown it back in the face of those who use it (i.e., all Republicans). posted 06/10/2008 at 15:35:24

Yeah, and Bush could read Putin's soul. Being, or rather, sounding magnanimous has always been a golden opportunity for a politician to win credibility, not that different from a farmer knowing about harvest time.

Because you fail to show any amount of cynicism whatsoever, you increase the burden upon people like me to sound extra cynical, just to maintain the proper balance. Who has been passing out all the rose-colored glasses to look at Hillary with? I fail to find her style of expressing popular platitudes particularly inspiring. posted 06/09/2008 at 15:38:50

You presume a general consensus on precisely what post-Beatles work of Lennon and McCartney we should value or not value. This is a perfect reflection of a predisposition to pigeon-hole - I do not see taste in music as being all that cut and dried, especially when it regards people of their caliber. The thing about Obama is that he ultimately defies, more than most, those who pigeon-hole, beginning with those who need to lock in their minds exactly how black he is. You are not alone in seeking a pre-fab handle on him, and I'm getting the feeling we can expect to see a whole lot more attempts at correlations from pigeon-holers throughout the world.

Interestingly, when Lennon and McCartney got together in 1974 with a few others for what turned out to be their very last studio jam session, one of the songs they did was the old classic, "Chain Gang". If Obama and Hillary wind up together on the Democratic Party ticket, it certainly will feel to a lot of people like being chained to someone. posted 06/06/2008 at 13:54:49

Back in the '90s I was all about defending the Clintons. But for those of us who have been paying attention, something has Seriously changed, or maybe it was there and we just didn't see it before. I feel like I've witnessed Annette Benning and Warren Beatty transform into Bonnie and Clyde. posted 06/04/2008 at 17:18:14

When Huckabee stayed in the race despite the math showing it was virtually over, McCain looked like Don Quixote fighting an imaginary opponent. Now you have Obama versus Clinton. People with 20/20 hindsight are going to look back at this point in time and say Obama already had it in the bag, yet perceived his fight to be with Clinton. Yet if Obama were to start acting as if Clinton is no longer his real opponent, it will seem rude or arrogant. The chorus of people asking Clinton to drop out, while knowing full well she won't, therefore, are actually serving as lightning rods, attracting all the accusations of being rude and arrogant, while freeing Obama to move at least a litle bit beyond this obligatory Don Quixote mode. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:14:15

Meant to say, "Democratic PARTY state charter or whatever it's called". posted 03/24/2008 at 16:36:18

Those who chose to hold the Michigan and Florida primaries with full cognizance of the fact that it was in violation, that it would be hollow, the votes not counting: What kind of Democratic state charter or whatever it's called even empowered them to make such a decision (holding early primaries in violation of National Democratic Party rules) that would render such votes impotent? Clearly it should never have been within their power, so why is culpability being shuffled around like some Three-Card Monty game? posted 03/24/2008 at 14:30:29

Way too simple. You're asking those with a "willing suspension of disbelief" disposition toward the VP and McCain to suddenly say (in essence), "What kind of movie is this? How the hell can that Harry Potter fly? People don't fly!" You just gotta Believe. Besides, can anybody really believe those guys are quite as bloodthirsty as all that? More likely, Cheney and McCain themselves willingly suspend their disbelief with regard to the Iraq War, convincing themselves that if so many aspects of it work so well for them and their kind, then all those other less pleasant factors must only be suffering from a shortage of faith, a shortage caused by us bad, politically-minded non-believers. posted 03/21/2008 at 15:22:00