BlackChampagne.com -- No longer new; improvement also in question.

BlackChampagne Home Buy Crap! I get 5%. Direct donations to cover hosting expenses are also accepted. Site Information --What is Black Champagne? --Cast of Characters & Things --Your First Time. --Design Notes --Quote of the Day Archive --Phrase of the Moment Archive --Site Feedback --Contact/Copyright Info Blog Archives --Blogger Archives: June 2005- --Old Monthly Archives: Jan 2002-May 2005 Reviews Section Movie Reviews (153) Ten Most Recent Film Reviews: --Infernal Affairs -- 5.5 --The Protector/Tom Yum Goong -- 6 --The Limey -- 8 --The Descent -- 6 --Oldboy -- 9.5 --Shaolin Deadly Kicks -- 7 --Mission Impossible III -- 7.5 --V for Vendetta -- 8.5 --Ghost in the Shell 2 -- 8 --Night Watch -- 7.5 Book Reviews (76) Five Most Recent Book Reviews: --Cat People -- 4 --Attack Poodles -- 5 --Caught Stealing -- 6 --The Dirt, by Motley Crue -- 7.5 --Harry Potter #6 -- 7 Photos Section --Flux Photos --Pet Photos (7 pages) --Home Decor Photos --Plant Photos --Vacation Photos (12 pages) Articles See all 234 articles here. Fiction Original horror and fantasy short stories. Mail Bags Index Page Features --Links --Slang: Internet --Slang: Dirty --Slang: Wankisms --Slang: Sex Acts --Slang: Fulldeckisms --Hot or Not? --Truths in Advertising Band Name Ratings (350 Rock Bands Listed) FAQ -- Feedback A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- X -- Y -- Z Hellgate: London --The Unofficial HGL Site --The Hellgate Wiki Diablo II --The Unofficial Site --Flux's Decahedron --Middle Earth Mod
	BlackChampagne -- no longer new; improvement also in question.: Elections, Politics, and the Sliding Scale of Judging Human Performance Friday, September 12, 2008 Elections, Politics, and the Sliding Scale of Judging Human Performance The Sarah Palin for veep thing is still going on, and despite the fact that virtually everyone who isn't currently writing a right wing blog realizes she's entirely unfit for the office. It's become a surreal situation, as the election debate is now her vs. Obama, with McCain almost a forgotten man (which is almost certainly a feature, not a bug, since voters like McCain more the less they see/hear about him). Since Palin has no political accomlishments and no relevant experience, Republicans are fantastically unpopular after 8 disastrous years of Bush, and the national political media has become Gawker-esque in their obsession with personality issues over complicated things like... policy. This is nothing new; it's been the Republican play book for years, since Karl Rove used it so successfully to get Bush semi-elected twice. He "won" in 2000 since the media portrayed him as a folksy class clown type you'd want to have a beer with, while Al Gore was too intense and pointy-headed and intellectual. Bush was reelected in 2004, despite terrible approval ratings (which have only descended since) when the media portrayed John Kerry as elite and French-like and rebroadcast all the Swift Boat slanders of his Vietnam heroism. (That may go down as the most amazing turn of political events in American election history. That John Kerry, a well off young man who volunteered to serve in Vietnam, was wounded in battle, and received several combat decorations for valor, was slandered for his service... while running against a war-mongering president and vice president, both of whom used family connections to dodge the draft. It boggles the mind. Even 4 years later.) So, now we're in 2008, Bush's two terms are up, and since not even Republicans would suggest that Dick "Shotgun" Cheney step up a level and run for president, the horse race was on. John McCain won it, somewhat surprisingly, since he was the most moderate (at least by reputation) of the candidates, and therefore the one least embraced by the party base. He was competing against Barack Obama, a much younger and more vigorous man, a legendarily-gifted public speaker, and a very strong campaigner who had just pulled off a huge upset by outworking and politically outsmarting the entrenched front runner, Hillary Clinton. The contrast between the candidates was quite clear, and despite Obama's two major shortcomings (in terms of being elected in America), black skin and an Islamic name -- he was narrowly or substantially leading McCain in every poll, and massacring him in the unscientific "enthusiasm factor." Democrats, and tons of new, young voters, were itching to vote for Obama, and against the Bush legacy. Democrats were obliterating Republicans in new voter registration and campaign donations, Obama couldn't book venues large enough to hold the people who wanted to see him speak, and the slimy tactics of smearing him as a stealth Muslim and unpatriotic were losing their effect outside of the fever swamps. McCain, on the other hand, had been the least popular of the Republican candidates with the right wing fringe fanatics who push the publicity and internet debate, and they didn't like him a great deal more as a presidential candidate, despite his working for their support by flopping (back to the right) on every issue he'd ever supported to earn the "maverick" reputation the media so adored him for. McCain had clearly hoped to win by holding the right wing base and appealing to moderate voters. That's how he won the nomination, since the fringe makes 99% of the noise, but is numerically only 20 or 30% of the Republican voters. They hated him, but all the regular people and lower-information voters remembered him from previous campaign runs and punched his ticket. Indications were that McCain was leaning towards ex-Democrat Joe Lieberman for his VP, in an obvious attempt to get moderates to vote for him. Lieberman was Gore's VP back in 2000, before he lost his mind and went all neocon after 9/11, and while he's now very right wing on "national defense" (funny how the Bush Doctrine turned that term into an oxymoron) he's still essentially a liberal on social issues (like McCain used to pretend to be). Someone in McCain's campaign realized that wouldn't work, since it wouldn't reverse any trends. McCain wasn't going to steal Obama's support amongst the moderate voters, and he wasn't going to compete in the election if he didn't get the right wing base fired up and score some media coverage. He needed someone young and energetic, and he needed an outsider. Just picking another ranting Christian white male politician, like the dozen he'd defeated in the Republican primary, wouldn't get anyone's attention. So, in what's turned into a move as politically savvy as it was functionally preposterous, he tapped the obscure, inexperienced, but culturally conservative, fire-breathing, right wing female governor of Alaska as his VP. While this led to some hilariously bald-faced hypocrisy on the part of various Republican talking heads, it's got a real possibility to swing the election in McCain's favor. In any normal situation, picking someone clearly unprepared for the job of VP, especially to serve under an elderly president with a very checkered medical history, would be enough to terrify even the party loyal. In this day and age, when the Republican base cares only about ideology and not results, it's actually seen as a benefit. The fun thing is to switch the roles, or the political parties involved. Imagine if an older white male Democrat had won the nomination, and trailing in the polls, had flailed for a life rope and decided to pick a younger, little-known female to be his VP, (Aside from the fact that this already happened.) then thrust her onto the national stage without adequately vetting her background. And imagine that she was a liberal female, from some obscure corner of the country, who no one had ever heard of before. And imagine that as soon as she was in the national spotlight, one scandal after another came to light. She displayed a voracious appetite for pork as the mayor of her tiny town, left it deeply in debt, tried to ban books, and fired the town librarian. Her husband, who she insists on CC'ing in on state business, is a member of a wacky fringe pro-treason/secession party. She's being investigated for a variety of ethical issues, including pressuring a government official to fire her sister's state cop ex-husband, and then firing the official when he wouldn't bend to her will. Her money-grubbing only increased as governor, and she never met a pork project she didn't like, including several that landed her on the avarice list compiled by her now-running mate, back in his mavericky, anti-pork days. Better yet, in terms of inciting fury from the "family values" conservative base, she selfishly endangered the health of her unborn daughter, putting her career first by making speeches and flying cross country while 8 months pregnant and leaking embryonic fluid. And she's got a teenaged daughter who's unmarried and knocked up by the school jock. I think it's fair to say that woman would be incinerated by the national media, led by the right wing media. Sanctimonious aging white male hypocrites like Rush "Dominican Whores" Limbaugh and Bill "settled out of court" O'Reilly would devote their their entire shows to slamming her inexperience, her criminally negligent mothering, the damage her first slut daughter, baby daddy boyfriend, and bastard grandson would do to the nation's morals, etc. And if the woman's only real defense against these denunciations was that they were being mean to her because she was a woman... they would simply turn up the volume and use that as further argument against her. As they did when Hillary obliquely complained about the sexism and double standards she was facing in her primary campaign. Needless to say, none of this has happened, since this particular woman is a right wing Republican herself. More surprisingly, the fact that virtually her entire bio and resume would doom a liberal female are actually working as selling points for her. Those things humanize her and make her more middle class and help people identify with her. It's basically the whole, "George Bush is the candidate you'd want to have a beer with" argument, in a dress. Competency, experience, professionalism, knowledge, temperament, statesmanship... everything we're supposed to value in a president or vice president is not supposed to be applied to Sarah Palin, since she's not just another old white male Republican. I've had theory I've been meaning to write about for years. I'm not going to get fully into it today, but it postulates that humans use a sort of sliding scale of ability vs. type, when judging performance. It's about expectations. For instance, if a model, or an actor, or a jock gives an interview and doesn't completely mangle the language and seems to have a thought or two in their heads, we're impressed. Whereas we would simply expect that (or a higher) level of competence from a college professor, or a journalist, or some other thinking profession. Example: Angelina Jolie. Everyone thinks she's brilliant since she's a statuesque beauty, she can speak with composure while on TV answering softball questions from a star struck reporter, and she does those UN humanitarian missions that largely involve looking radiant while posing with emaciated refugees. It's as if her entire life prior to about 2003, when she was on drugs, fucking every guy in Hollywood, drinking Billy Bob Thorton's blood and getting a giant tattoo of his name on her arm, etc, didn't happen. Or more to the point, those years actually make her seem smarter now, since our initial impressions of her were "big-lipped stupid slut actress" and now that she's not embroiled in regular scandals, has a pretty husband, and is making a lot of babies, she's a role model. Example: Tyra Banks. This might be somewhat less true now than it was a few years ago when I was initially formulating this idea and talking it over with Malaya, but back then Tyra had just started her own talk show after a few guest hosting show appearances and some visits on Oprah. She was horrible. She wasn't anything approaching a journalist, she was clearly quite stupid, she couldn't speak very well, etc. But she was a famous ex-supermodel, she was very pretty (after several hours of makeup and hair work), and she exuded some level of personality. So the media kept saying she was good, and that people liked her, and her show became a hit based largely on people admitting that her show wasn't really any good, but that it was a lot less bad than it might have been. Example: Shaquille O'neal. Circa 2004 he was the best player in the NBA. He'd won three straight championships with the Lakers, he was a scoring and rebounding monster, and an unstoppable force on the court. The most talented "big man" in the game. And he was, but judged objectively... he wasn't actually any good. His success was based entirely on him being physically gigantic. He was coordinated and agile and athletic... for a 7 foot, 350 pound man. Only the fact that he was taller and stronger than almost everyone else made him successful. If you took his basketball skill set and put it on a guy who was 6'6", he couldn't have cracked the starting rotation at a junior college, much less starred in the NBA. Shaq couldn't make a shot beyond 8 feet, he had no fade away, no hook, no drop step, nothing. He was just power to the basket, and the fact that he was historically awful at free throw shooting did much to limit his effectiveness in close games, since his team couldn't give him the ball in crunch time or the other team would just foul him. Eventually smart coaches realized it was better to just "hack a Shaq" him even without the ball, an approach Shaq frequently rewarded with 8-22 free throw shooting efforts. Announcers used to rave about Shaq when he occasionally dribbled and ran, but think about that. The man was earning $20m+ a year to play a game that he'd played every day of his life since about age 6. And we were supposed to be impressed that he could semi-adequately perform one of the most basic elements of it? An ability possessed by 95% of 5th grade boys on earth? What kind of grading on a curve is that? It's the sliding scale of human performance. Sarah Palin encapsulates this. She'd have no career at all if she were a Democrat, since most women politicians are, and therefore only the really talented or charismatic ones rise to high positions. But since she's a Republican, and a fundie/right-wing type, and she's not a empty-eyed, jowly white male squeezed into a shiny suit, she's a revelation. It's the same reason Ann Coulter and (especially) Michelle Malkin are famous and successful. Neither of them are actually any good at what they do, and when white males try the same angry, attack politics they pursue, it usually takes them nowhere. There are tens of thousands of white men pursuing the same niche market, and very few of them make a living at it. Men doing that screaming, five-minutes-of-hate shtick are that are seen as angry and scary, and while the base might embrace them, they get little cross over or national appeal. But when pretty (?) women (?) dance their way through the same routine, it's novel and fresh and interesting. And less threatening, scary, and angry, as well. Which brings us to now. Two months until election day, and once again, despite the best efforts of Obama and most of the liberal blogosphere, we've got an American presidential election that's almost entirely devoid of content. The right wing blogosphere is doing all it can to concoct utterly disingenuous daily outrages, and while the national media is growing less willing to continue their false equivalences, and having more trouble ignoring the slimy, substance-free campaign McCain is running, they're institutionally predisposed against doing their duty and flatly calling a lie, a lie. And even if they did, I don't know if it would matter. After all, it's not like anyone's supporting McCain/Palin for logical, scholarly, policy-based reasons. That's the whole point. For a final digression, Kevin Drum recently posted on something I found very interesting. Where will this lead? Most of us, myself included, are only looking as far as the election. What happens afterwards, though? If McCain wins, he'll face a Democratic congress that's beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk. They won't even return McCain's phone calls, let alone work with him on legislation. It'll be four years of all-out war. And what if Obama wins? The last time a Democrat won after a resurgence of the culture war right, we got eight years of madness, climaxing in an impeachment spectacle unlike anything we'd seen in a century. If it happens again, with the lunatic brigade newly empowered and shrieking for blood, Obama will be another Clinton and we'll be in for another eight years of near psychotic dementia. With such a hotly competitive presidential election, I've heard little about congressional elections, but the Democrats made huge gains in 2006, narrowly taking control of the House and Senate, and President Bush and Republicans have only gotten less popular since then, in the opinion pols I've seen. The consensus seems to be that the Democrats are almost certain to at least hold their advantage, and are most likely to pick up numerous additional seats in congress. If Obama wins, he'll have a clear mandate for change, and since he's campaigned on a lot of issues, he'll get right to working on them, and will have legislative support. If McCain wins, he'll not only be opposed by two very hostile houses of congress, but since his campaign has no issues, and those it does have are perpetuations of things Bush did that people have come to hate, what will he do? Seriously? What will he do? I have no idea what he wants to do domestically, but even if he had some major agenda, there's no way the Democratic congress would go along with it. McCain's first response to international disputes is to start a war, but I don't think he'll be able to talk the country into another one at this point, even if the military had the capability to fight it, after 7 years of being overextended in Iraq. There are major problems with the economy, but McCain is uninterested in that and he'll just follow the institutional Republican approach by trying to cut taxes on the rich and praying that invisible market hands fix things. Which sometimes works, but isn't exactly proactive, and in any rate, isn't doing anything. Which was my question. It looks like the last 2 years of the Bush Administration will be entirely bereft of notable events. Aside from the Telecom Amnesty plan that legally erased the criminal sale of our privacy to intrusive federal authorities, is there a single important piece of legislation, or other act of political consequence, that's happened since 2006? When's the last time anyone saw Bush? I don't remember anything involving him since that chest bumping he did at the Naval Academy Graduation. Can you imagine 4 more years of this? It's looking like you might not have to imagine it. You might get to live through it. Buy a fiddle. Rome's smoldering. Labels: john mccain, politics, sarah palin Posted by: Flux # 1:55 AM Comments: A furious Democratic congress that refuses to work with a President McCain? Don't count on it. Let's not forget that the Democrats completely caved on the telecom amnesty issue after insisting that they wouldn't. This was at the behest of a lame-duck president with approval ratings dipping into the high 20s. Also, plenty of the Democratic pickups in the last midterm election (and in this upcoming one?) were / are going to be conservative types who don't care much for Pelosi and her ilk. I'm sure they'd be happy to work with McCain, who has a certain history of bipartisanship, regardless of the right-wing party line he's pushing now. Besides, he will (probably) be more of a moderate if elected. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much of a point in having a Democratic Congress instead of a Republican one. Sure, these guys will make more of a fuss along the way, but in the end, the results are about the same. See also: Congress' approval rating. "You get the government you deserve." We'll find out what that looks like in November. #: 11:25 AM posted by Anonymous I've got to ask...what do you think of Obama's qualifications for the presidency? #: 8:11 AM posted by Anonymous I don't really know that much about Obama's bio. I know he lived abroad when he was very young, and that his mom was poor and he earned scholarships and pulled himself up by talent and hard work. Kind of the anti-Dubya. He worked his way up through local politics in Chicago, and got elected senator there. He's clearly not that experienced on the international stage, but the US never elects anyone experienced anymore. The last what 5 or 6 presidents were governors? This election is very unusual with a senator going to win, one way or the other. The key thing that differentiates Obama from Palin is that he earned his spot. He formed a very well-run organization, he campaigned his ass off, and he beat Hillary in a tight race when she was heavily favored at the start. In the process he spent many months under the media glare and has been fully investigated and all the mud that can be thrown was, and little of it stuck. If Palin had been running for president for a year, and had won primaries and convinced people she was qualified for the highest office, I don't think there would be so much media buzz about her now. There would have been when she was first gaining prominence, and she would have sunk or swum at that point based on her own skills. That didn't happen. McCain plucked her from obscurity, despite the fact that he hardly even knew her and his staff had hardly vetted her. It's a wildly reckless choice, made purely to try to boost his support from the fundies, and to steal white women away from Obama's camp. And it looks very successful in that attempt, but that doesn't make it any less cynical or foolish. It's not like he wants her to be some ambassador or serve in his cabinet; he wants her to be the VP, and it's not like McCain is 50 and healthy. He's an old ass man, and he's had a lot of health issues. He'll be the oldest first term president ever, if elected. I don't think he's going to drop dead, but I can't envision any scenario in which he doesn't miss at least a fewmonths of service to various medical issues. Which means the 2nd in command is far more important in this election than most of them. Cheney was scary, dangerous, and wielded far too much influence, but at least Bush was still in his prime. Even if I were neutral on the policy issues, I'd have a really hard time voting for McCain at this point. I loved my grandparents, but I hardly trusted them driving a car when they were in their 70s. And they hadn't suffered through years of aging in dog years while in military prison in Vietnam. #: 9:01 AM posted by Flux Palin is stupid. Did you see the Gibson interview? She didn't have any clue what she was talking about (Bush Doctrine what?), and her answers were clearly coached. She doesn't know her ass from apples. I'm through electing folksy stupid people. The Iraq war's failure was caused by Bush's complete ignorance... "Sunnis? Shites? I thought they were all Muslim!" She was choosen for purely political reasons.. and her tits and lipstick. The thought of her actually running the country is uber scary. We don't need folksy idiots... we need SMART PEOPLE. WE NEED PEOPLE WHO KNOW SHIT, who cares if they appear "elitist". Don't you want someone running the country who is smarter than you? #: 12:46 AM posted by Anonymous Anon #2 here (I don't log in because it boots me off of my custom google home page whenever I do) You're free to like or dislike Palin as you will, but what gets me is the inexperience angle...she's got infinitely more governing experience than Obama -- in fact, she's got more governing experience than anybody else on either ticket combined. She's actually been elected and re-elected into more than one office, something again Obama lacks (he ran unopposed into his current seat, you remember). What I find amusing is how the move is being derided as purely political (which it was) while people say that Obama SHOULD have made the purely political move of selecting Hilary as his running mate. Like it or not, this is a popularity contest. One which Obama was winning hands-down until McCain started picking up his dropped balls. #: 8:54 AM posted by Anonymous Anonyn #1 or #2 (technically I was 2nd) It doesn't matter how much experience she has managing Alaska. That's not my point. My point is that she is stupid. She was clearly ignorant of world affairs in the only interview that I've seen her give. Does she know anything outside of moose-dressing and shotgun marriages? Obama has a smart and thoughtful leadership style. While that doesn't necessarily preclude him from making mistakes, this is what we need right now after the "govern from the gut" kind of leadership we've had for the last 8 years. Palin represents this in its purest form, and I fear if she is ever called upon to be president. We can't have idiots running the country. #: 11:58 AM posted by Anonymous You're anon #1 (I don't know how you'd be two, seeing as how your comment appears first...); I'm #2 CONFUZZLED YET?!? To your comment, stupid or not, she knows how to govern people better than anybody else on the ticket. 60%+ approval ratings through 4 elections say pretty compellingly that she's doing something right, no matter how stupid she may be to you. On foreign policy, it is my opinion that Obama and the left in general are ignorant of the dangers facing this country. Bush certainly didn't do things right, mind you, but Obama's suggestions would undermine some very tentative victories we're fostering on multiple fronts. In a word, his foreign policy is stupid. So we have come to a crossroads: who is the stupid one? Gauging stupidity as a proportion of someone's agreement with your position is NOT the way to go about measuring it. If you disagree with the Republicans' position on foreign policy, then don't vote for them. But calling them stupid will do little more than turn off any ear that doesn't already agree with you, not to mention outing you as a radical partisan. And since the media has alienated just about every woman in the nation over this Palin fiasco, closing ears and rabid partisanship should not be your goal if you truly want to see Obama's goals enacted. #: 7:01 PM posted by Anonymous You know you guys can sign a damn name when you post. You don't have to use a blogger ID; just write an alias in the comment box, the way we did in the prehistoric days of the internet, before user DBs existed! #: 7:41 PM posted by Flux Hmmm alright I'm anon #1... but I think there be more than 2 of us at work here... 4 elections? She has been governor for 2 years so the first 3 elections must have been for mayor in her hometown of 9,000. I was basing my opinion of her stupidity on relatively objective standards. In the Charlie Gibson interview she demonstrated a complete ignorance of world affairs. She was clueless when he mentioned "bush doctrine," and she gave repeatedly scripted answers when asked about Israel. It seemed like Bush all over again - deer in the headlights look and everything. Iraq turned out to be a crapfest because Bush knows nothing about other cultures and filled his administration with religious jesus freaks. So no it's not relative. Obama is smarter than Bush/Palin. Do you really have any doubt that if you put them on jeopardy, Obama would fkin kick their asses? True, there is more to governing than just worldliness, but as Bush demonstrated, right now ignorance of the world is truly dangerous. #: 11:10 PM posted by Anonymous Post a Comment << Home Archives May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2012

Archives