Song of the Week - “Sweet Victory” by David Glen Eisley

Song of the Week is, for now, the only feature on Stetson’s Garden. I absolutely love listening to music, and more than that, I love sharing the music I love with other people. So, I plan on showcasing one song at the end of each week and writing about why I love it, why I felt the need to share it, why I think it is a special song worth sharing.

My original intention in starting this blog was not to discuss day-to-day politics so often, but I got a bit excited over the past week or so (obviously).

Tuesday was a very sweet night for me, as I’m sure it was for a little more than half of my countrymen, hence the song choice.

Wednesday was not nearly as saccharine. The vindication of the President’s first four years in office as well as the demonstrable proof that hope and compassion could dominate cynicism and greed (manifesting both in the policies of the candidates and their campaign strategies) evoked in me a great sense of pride and happiness, both of which – unfortunately – receded back into my brain once I realized that not much had actually changed.

Washington remains set for another session of deadlock, just as it has spent the last few years. And the President has one last precious term to define his legacy. Although we presently seem to judge the man based on the recovery of the nation’s economy (which, by the way, is improving), history may come to rely on Obama’s attempts at social reform, failed or successful, to make a final judgment of his legacy.

Already, he has delivered with actions such as the Affordable Care Act and getting American troops out of Iraq. But now he will have to rely on bipartisan cooperation to improve upon his record, unfortunately bipartisanship in DC nowadays is as rare as a bloody steak.

It’s a victory, but right now it’s not so sweet.

4 More Please!

Can we talk about this? http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

I don't know if it's worse that people are making fun of the people who think Obama will ruin the country or that people think that Obama is going to ruin the country.

Speaking of the state of American political discourse, did you see Bill O'Reilly saying people (implying minorities) only voted for Obama because he promised them entitlements? Is that helpful to the country? Is that even true?

At least in 2004, when Bush was reelected and Democrats were apoplectic (and - similar to what Mr. O'Reilly announced - said he only won because of the religious right) it was because Bush had started and was continuing two unwinnable wars which were rife with corruption and scandal, were costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives. Not to mention, he had lied to the public about the reasons for one of them. Not to mention, he also sort of, kind of stole at least one of his two elections.

Obama's  ended one of those two wars and will end the other by the end of 2014. When he entered office, he got out the defibrillator to save an economy that was on its death bed. Since then, the United States' economy (for whatever reason) is currently recovering from the WORST GLOBAL FINANCIAL DISASTER to occur in the last 70 years. And because he signed a health care reform bill into law - a law that only bring the United States up to speed with the health care systems of other first world countries, mind you - because of that he's going to ruin the country?

By no means is he or his policies perfect but has he single-handedly destroyed the values of the country? Save for the NDAA, Obama has never wiped his ass with the Constitution in the way Bush and the Department of Homeland Security did from during his administration. Nor has the Obama administration been rocked by scandals in the way Clinton (Whitewater) and Reagan (Iran-Contra) were.

And remember how W became a laughingstock of the world because he couldn't properly pronounce a single word in the English language? People around the world were laughing at the stupidity of the President of the United States (and the stupidity of the electorate that voted for him) for eight years and now, when Obama concedes that a horribly offensive anti-Muslim video made in the United States is horribly offensive or when he shows respect to a foreign dignitary by bowing to him, now America has become the laughingstock of the world. Really?

Oh yeah: He also expanded anti-terror efforts which led to the revenge-murder of Osama Bin Laden.

So just shut up. If 8 years of George Fucking W. Bush bury the United States in a shallow, desert grave, 4 more years of Obama won't even come close.

Vote. Just Vote...VOTE!

“A simple understanding of statistics shows that my vote does not matter.”

This statement was made by Luke Banda, a 23 year old from Pennsylvania. This statement was published in an NPR article hoping to uncover the many reasons Americans don’t vote. This statement is technically correct, but still complete bullshit.

The article includes a few other rationalizations Americans have constructed in order to ease the guilt they must experience for failing to exercise the most important democratic duty. A person claims that it’s too difficult to stay informed (He must not know what the internet is). A Christian claims that to participate in politics goes against the teachings of the Bible (If that’s true, can someone inform Rick Santorum please?). A pacifist believes that by voting for a candidate, he will be “turn[ing] a blind eye” to the violence our nation’s Commander-in-Chief propagates. (Is there a difference between turning a blind eye and just sticking your head in the sand?).  Some insolent child doesn’t want to vote because it makes him more likely to be chosen for jury duty.

Perhaps the only legitimate reason for not voting in Tuesday’s election comes from a Native American, who hopes to assert the sovereignty of her tribal confederacy by not speaking her mind on Election Day.

However, the above quote is my favorite reason, in part because it is, statistically, more or less true. It is also one of the reasons most often cited (at least in my experience) for not voting. In fact, it is a fact I spent the last few years struggling with, before I ultimately decided assert my significance, register to vote, then request and mail in an absentee ballot.

In addition, these people are my favorite type of people, who rely on hard statistics and “real-world facts” not only to inform their life decisions, but to assert their superiority over all the other sheeple in the world who do things like own a television or who fail to maintain a stockpile of weapons and non-perishable foods in a bomb-shelter out back. (These people also have intense opinions (both for and against) about the ownership of a Prius).

It’s so easy to agree with them, too, because their arguments are so persuasive; it all seems so logical. I mean, they refer to things like “statistics.” They must have something, right?

But it’s mostly stupid, nonsensical pseudoscience masquerading as fact.

First, I introduce Immanuel Kant, an 18^th century Prussian thinker and writer, who spent most of his life giving reasons for why people should keep doing exactly what they already have been doing for the previous centuries. (He literally does this, generally reinforcing already established moral principles with reasoned arguments.) Key to Kant’s doctrine is the Universality Maxim which, simply, instructs an individual not to do something that, if everyone were to do this something, would result in a bad thing. Don’t cut in line because if everyone cut in line, the DMV would devolve into a chaotic mess (which might be a nice change of pace).

Imagine a scenario in which everyone chose not to vote. First of all, we should note the paradox that the “statistically insignificant” argument. As less people vote, their votes actually become more (statistically) significant. But if nobody voted, nothing would get done. No presidents would be elected; no decisions would be made. Based on Kant’s Universality Maxim, not voting is a bad thing.

But there is another counter-argument. What I find most fascinating about the “statistically insignificant” argument is that it just seems inhuman. Recognizing one’s insignificance and succumbing to that realization just seems so contrary to human nature. Regardless of what anyone believes, there is a fantastically high probability that nothing anyone does on this planet will amount to anything “statistically significant,” because – statistically speaking –a human being amounts more than a speck of dust resting on a marble floating through an impenetrable cloud of darkness.

But that doesn’t mean anyone should give up.

The great conquerors still set out to conquer, knowing full well that there was a high statistical probability that their empires would fall apart after their deaths. The great inventors still set out to invent, knowing full well that there was a high statistical probability that their inventions would become obsolete within the next few decades (or, if you work at Apple, the next week). And so the great citizens should set out to vote, to perform their civic obligations, even with the knowledge that they won’t (statistically) amount to anything (significant).

Has no one read The Myth of Sisyphus?

Wait… I’m Confused: A Recap of the First 2012 Presidential Debate

I know this is a little late.

But I watched the debate for a second time last night, and I have to say, the second watching did not help me any.

It was a debate filled with small surprises, not many shocks (obviously due to the tight ship collectively run by the “bi-partisan” Debate Commission – where bi-partisan means “don’t bring up anything controversial for either candidate or that candidate will throw a tantrum and drop out of the debate”). We had some Big Bird, many assurances to the elderly along a shit-load of bullshit and pandering.

But I could not figure out what was going on with Barrack Obama during the debate. He seemed, depending on your propensity to spin left, somewhere between “overly calm and relaxed” and “tired and underprepared.” Perhaps he thought the campaign was over after Romney insulting and writing off nearly half the country during a private fundraiser became public. Perhaps he did not expect Romney’s campaign staff to slip a few teaspoons of cocaine into his afternoon tea, in order to give him a little more pep.

Obama is Mr. Charisma, not to say that he doesn’t have facts or arguments structured on logic or empirical data. It is just that the man’s one-word essence is charisma. That is how he coasted to a victory in 2008. Like Usain Bolt at the Olympics of the same year, Obama destroyed McCain with an early lead and then seemed to float to the inevitable. And that early lead, that initial destruction of his opponent was centered around his energy. He made the maverick McCain, who – by the way – is still feisty as ever in the Senate, look like a crippled, wrinkled retiree.

But last night that energy was gone. Maybe he just wasn’t “feeling it.” Maybe he was taken by surprise by Romney’s own energy and joie de vivre.

Wait a minute! Maybe Romney hired a secret corporation to break into the White House during the night before the debate and steal Obama’s charisma like in some sci-fi movie. Then, minutes before taking the stage, the Obama energy was consumed by Romeny! That’s it, either that or Romney took an assload of uppers and Obama forgot to sleep for the last week.

But I did not find Obama’s missing personality to be the most confusing aspect of Wednesday’s debate. That spot was reserved for Romney.

To me, this man is an enigma, not just over this campaign, but over his entire political career. He starts fairly moderate in his 1994 race against Ted Kennedy for the Senate. Then he is moderate, but a little to the right when he runs for governor of Massachusetts. Then he becomes governor and shifts much more significantly to the right. Then he becomes a near-fundamentalist, Tea Party extremist during his current campaign.

Then last night, everything changed. The largest point of confusion I encountered was that , suddenly, he was preaching about lowering the tax burden on the lower and middle classes while raising the rates on wealthier citizens. For most of the past few months, at least to my knowledge, Romney’s platform seemed very much in line what we all are forced to call the “Republican” party platform. More Bush Tax cuts, subsidies to oil and natural gas companies, cuts to entitlements, cuts to education and welfare, more defense spending.

Then, last night, he spoke about slowly tapering off social security and medicare spending, rather than taking a hatchet to it as he and his running mate Paul “The Conservative Intellect” Ryan had spoken about, again, for the last few months. He refused to agree with Obama’s assertion that his economic plan would increase kill-machine spending (colloquially referred to as “defense spending”) by multiple trillions of dollars. He also completely side-stepped the issue of his tax cuts, again refusing to address Obama’s claim that the Romney plan would cut tax revenues by about 5 trillion dollars.

I have to disagree with those who claim that Romney “won” the debate last night. Perhaps he won the battle, but if he continues fighting this way, he may lose the war. Sure, in the short term, some undecided voters (like myself) may be convinced to support this new, much less radically Republican Romney. But he has a Massachusetts campaign gives him a definite history of going back on many of the campaign promises he makes, perhaps more so than the average politician. Objectively examining this history may indicate to some voters that Romney has not trouble lying to get into office and then throwing his campaign promises away and becoming something else entirely once he is elected.

Regardless of how moderate voters react to this new Romney, I think that if he spends the last month of his campaign completely undercutting the policies he espoused during the last six months of his campaign, Romney will very likely alienate his base of supporters, the ones who got , and most likely lose the election. 

Mercenary Politics

Hired Hands Fight to the Death in America’s Greatest Gladiatorial Showdown

I first became politically aware during the summer of 2004. My grandfather, who I believe was a wisely non-partisan, would spend his drive time by listening to the fart-filled zeppelin Rush Limbaugh rant about the upcoming presidential election and how, if Democrat challenger John Kerry were to squeeze out a victory, all that was American would come to an end. Unfortunately, obesity remains a dire issue in contemporary world health.

I remember that a most of the attacks Limbaugh and his fellow dirigible-shaped conservative colleagues centered around John Kerry’s “waffling” on the issues and that somehow he was given Purple Hearts for his military service that he didn’t deserve. He waffled and he lied. He lied because he waffled.

Upon reflection, and after taking into consideration my accrued experience with the decrepit political system of the United States, I have decided to pity John Kerry and his unfortunately doomed 2004 presidential campaign. Never the charismatic man, Kerry was unable to toss back the grenades lobbed towards him by the dipshit Republican media. When he attempted to fight back (see the aforementioned military service controversy), it all seemed to blow up in his face.

Interestingly, nearly all of the charisma involved in the current presidential race is being horded by one Barrack H. Obama, leaving only a shadowy residue of a personality for Mitt Romney. But that does not mean Mitt is not an interesting man to consider.

He burst onto the scene in 1994, positioning himself as a pro-business, socially moderate Republican candidate in the Massachusetts Senate race against Ted Kennedy. During the campaign, he stated that he was “committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs…and you will not see me wavering on that.”

Within a decade, he became governor of Massachusetts, where state instituted a landmark health care reform law, a law which would serve as the foundation for the Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act, a law that Romney is now fundamentally opposed to.

I will repeat what I said earlier. Mitt Romney is a pro-business, socially moderate Republican. So how could he be running as a right-wing, Christian ultra-fundamentalist nut-job?

Because he wants to win.

In order for Mitt Romney to have won the Republican nomination, in order for him to have any support among what is unfortunately referred to as the Republican base, in order for him to have any support from the blowhard, but dominant Republican media – ultimately for him to have any chance to become president – he had to become what is now (unfortunately) the prototypical Republican. He has become a bigot who wipes his ass with thousand dollar bills. Before he was just a pro-business, socially moderate Mormon who wiped his ass with trillion dollar bills (I assume image-consulting firms lowered the currency value because shit-stained thousand dollar bills tested better with focus groups).

Count this as a reason the two-party system needs to be brought out behind the barn and shot in the head like a lame racehorse. In order for any individual to become successful in politics, especially presidential politics, he or she will have to fit nicely into one of two slots. To say nothing about group polarization, this ultimately comes down to money. There are rich people one either side of a line. The rich guys on the left side of the line get together and agree on some political viewpoint. This becomes the Democratic party’s platform, the first of two acceptable political slots. The rich guys on the right side of the line get together and agree on a different political viewpoint. Then they hear Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh jerking each other while shouting about communist feminazis and the businessmen begrudgingly shuffled a hundred yards or so to the right. And this becomes the second slot.

Like poor, old John McCain, whose true maverick moderateness was neutered by the toothless bible-thumpers in 2008, Mitt Romney has – just within the past few years remember – crafted himself into an ultra-conservative. And this very evident shift in his political pretentions denotes one thing: American politics has become a mercenary exhibition.

Romney and Obama are hired hands. They literally espouse the views of the highest bidder, ultimately doing whatever it takes for them to win. It is obvious in Romney’s case; during his history, he has gone from not wanting to use government to impose his more conservative beliefs onto others to vowing to use his presidential authority to enforce or strengthen bans “immoral” social practices like homosexual marriage, abortion and pornography.

It is less obvious in the case of Mr. Obama. But in my opinion, his meteoric rise from freshman senator to president of the largest superpower in the world, indicates that he has been groomed to become the archetypal democrat since the day he was discovered. All his billionaire handlers needed to do was slap on an easy to remember slogan and he became the perfect candidate.

In summation, politics is corrupt.

We’re fucked, aren’t we?