Words & Pictures No. 8: Inauguration

Watched the inauguration and am unbelievably happy and hopeful about the new administration. President Obama is entering office with an unprecedentedly high approval ratings(well, I suppose Washington might have been more popular, but they didn't poll quite as obsessively back then). I hope he doesn't waste it. He's off to a good start by mandating the closure of Guantanamo. I'm waiting to see what's next.

No He Didn't!

Hah! Okay, they got me. I like this, it even has a nice history lesson embedded in it. Kudos, Marvel, kudos. Now if you can only pick up the pacing on Secret Invasion.

Colbert Wins!

So, apparently over in the Marvel Universe, Stephen Colbert (who's ironic and abortive real-world campaign was for real in the Marvel Universe) won yesterday's election. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Sure, in the moment it's silly fun and I'm sure it'll earn Joe Quesada another appearance on The Colbert Report (making it a great marketing tool), but long term, is this really the best thing for Marvel creatively?


In 2000, DC Comics had Lex Luthor win that year's presidential election (I'd say that a President Luthor would be an improvement over a President Bush, but Luthor did allow Topeka, Kansas to be destroyed by alien invaders, so that's one up for Bush (Oh, and Bush didn't have to be forcibly removed from office by the Justice League, so there's two for him)). I thought it was a great idea story-wise, but that's one of the main differences. DC's fictional president was elected as part of the ongoing story of the DC Universe. Marvel's fictional president is largely a stunt. The other difference goes to the difference between the Marvel and DC Universes. Marvel has always prided itself on trying to tie its world to the real world as closely as possible for a super-hero universe, so the president in the Marvel Universe has always been the same as the one in the real world. Major events in the real world reverberate in the Marvel Universe. Admittedly, it's a silly premise when you think about it too hard (given that the "realistic" Marvel Universe is currently in the midst of an alien invasion story), but it's part of the flavor of environment in which the stories take place. I guess my question is this, do the writers at Marvel really want to live with this long term? Will they or will it be quickly forgotten.

Okay, I'm devoting too much thought to this thing. It's just silly fun, so I'll just sit back and enjoy it.

Good News/Bad News

Good News: President-Elect Obama. I've been an eager supporter of Obama from early on, but I hadn't realized how emotionally invested I was in his candidacy until the networks started projecting him as the winner. I got a real lump in my throat; seriously, this is the most emotional I've ever felt about the results of any election. There's probably more to say about it, but it's so new, I haven't completely gotten my mind around the reality of it yet. But really, how great is this: President-Elect Obama.

Edit: Stephen Fry's response on Twitter sums it up pretty well, "Malagasy people grinning from ear to ear. The world so wants to love America and now they can again."

Bad News: William Jefferson. How does this guy keep getting re-elected (okay, he just won the Democratic nomination tonight, but in this district, the Democrat is going to win). The feds found $90,000 in cash in the guy's freezer and is under indictment for corruption. That old Edwin Edwards quote seems to apply to Jefferson, too: "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy".

Why?

Why vote for this guy? Yes, I understand that he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, but shouldn't we ask our leaders to avoid even the appearance of impropriety? (And honestly, is there any legitimate reason to store $90,000 in cash in your freezer?)

Sigh.

Meanwhile, in California . . .

If you haven't been following the fight over the anti-gay marriage Prop 8 out in California, the New York Times has an interesting article about it. What particularly interested me, were three quotes from Prop 8 supporters buried in the middle:

“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”

“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”

It's as if they're saying, should Prop 8 fail, the ground will open up and swallow up the whole country. The lack of perspective is breathtaking.

I've always been a bit puzzled as to why some people get so worked up over the idea of gay marriage. So a same-sex couple some where wants to get married, what of it? How does it affect the marriage of anyone else? I guess my question for the opponents of gay marriage is, why do you care?

Maybe the problem is that marriage is really two institutions in one. On the one hand, it's a civil distinction tying two people together for the purposes of taxes, property, decision making, etc. On the other hand it's a religious union (even for some non-religious folks, sort of like Christmas). Maybe the answer is to just get the government out of the marriage business altogether. We can just call the civil institution something else (there's always civil union, I suppose), and leave marriage up to individual religions (which would, of course, essentially mean that gay marriage would be available everywhere. It would only be a social convention, so there would be no one who would have the power to object to a same-sex couple having a wedding). And, of course, civil unions would be open to anyone. There, problem solved.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the right will never give up this particular political football. I guy can dream, though, can't he?

Random Video featuring Ron Howard for Obama

With thanks to Occasional Superheroine for posting it first:

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

Bravo, General

Colin Powell appeared on Meet the Press yesterday to endorse Obama. I'm certainly happy about that, but I'm even happier with a statement he made during the interview:

And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

It's what's been missing in the responses from both campaigns to the assertions that Obama is Muslim: "So what if he is?"

Candidates Bring the Funny

Both the presidential candidates, according to tradition, spoke at the Al Smith Dinner last week, and both gave pretty funny speeches. Who was funnier? You be the judge:



I think McCain's speech was probably a little funnier. It's a fine line to walk for a politician, to keep the jokes sharp enough to be funny, but not so sharp as to seem mean-spirited. I think McCain was a little more confident in his ability to walk that line, and so was able to push his speech into slightly funnier territory than Obama who seemed to be playing it a little more cautiously. Still, you've got to know that Obama got some laughs from me when he declared that he was born on the planet Krypton and sent by his father Jor-El to save the earth. That's some serious geek-cred he earned with that one and the MAD magazine reference.

Thoughts On the Debate

-So, this Joe the Plumber guy, as often as he was mentioned I assume he's in the running to be Secretary of Labor . . . or at least official White House plumber

-I thought Obama did a good job putting the Ayers thing to bed, very clear answer to the issue. I also thought McCain's statements about it were a bit ridiculous. It seemed like he was saying, "I don't think it's particularly important, but let's talk about it anyway." It would have been nice if Obama'd stuck up for ACORN, though.

-I wonder if Obama will be hurt by his laughing while McCain was making some charges against him. It could be seen as dismissive.

-I'm not sure if I believe that it was an accident that McCain called Obama "Senator Government" or not. If it wasn't, then kudos, 'cause it was a clever little dig. If it was an accident, McCain should look at it as a happy accident and use it again.

-Obama gave McCain a little too much credit, lauding him for his stance on torture. Sure, McCain started out very good on the issue, but lately he's caved far too much on it and Obama should have called him out on that.

-I think Obama won the perception contest. He came off as calm and confident. McCain seemed to be less so, grasping for any opening he could get. However, since this lines up neatly with what I wanted to see, my evaluation should likely be taken with a grain of salt.

-I don't think I heard McCain say Maverick once. My most sincere gratitude to the senator.

Hee-Hee

You know, I'm not one who thinks that McCain meant anything by referring to Obama as "that one", but doesn't make this any less funny.

There's a site and merchandise and everything.

Thoughts On The Debate

-Hey! Belmont University! My mom used to work there (and I took a semester's worth of General Ed classes there, too).

-Why is it, that when Brokaw said they were using online questions, I couldn't help wondering if they'd be along the lines of: "WTF! The economy totally got pwned last week. IMHO you guys are teh suck. YMMV."?

-Tom Brokaw was certainly the most forceful moderator we've had so far.

-Obama's defense of his relationship to Fannie Mae was a little weak. I think McCain probably scored some points there.

-How is a spending freeze that doesn't include "defense, veterans affairs, or other vital programs" really a spending freeze? Doesn't that exemption cover just about everything?

-So, McCain can deal with the issues of health care and energy at the same time, but he couldn't both run a campaign and deal with the economic crisis?

-The best way to solve the climate change problem is nuclear power? Really?

-I think Brokaw wanted to smack both of them around a bit.

-League of Democracies? Is that like the Justice League?

-Despite my rather flippant attitude to the whole affair, I think this was actually a pretty good debate. Lot's of good information and the candidates actually answered the questions posed to them. That said, it wasn't likely to change my mind on the candidates. Unless Obama unveils his universal kitten drowning plan or McCain reveals that his economic bailout plan consists of giving me, individually, $700 billion dollars, my vote's pretty well settled.

Thoughts On The Debate

- How hard is it to pronounce nuclear correctly? It's noo-klee-er!

-Palin certainly is a rambler, isn't she?

-I'd like to declare a moratorium on the word "maverick."

-Palin did a pretty good job making Biden pay for primary statements.

-The office of the Vice President is unequivocally part of the Executive Branch. READ THE CONSTITUTION, DAMMIT!

-Sarah Palin did a good job sticking to her strengths and avoiding any serious mistakes, but she seemed a little too rehearsed to me. I didn't get a sense that she was thinking on her feet.

-Biden, while he lacked Palin's frenetic energy, seemed a bit more comfortable and came off, at least to me, as more sincere.

-Palin's dig about looking backwards was pretty good, though I liked Biden's response, "The past is prologue . . ."

-Biden needed to call Palin on not answering the questions.

-I don't think Biden or Palin hurt their respective tickets, but neither do I think they significantly helped them.

The Blame Game

There aren't many politicians coming away from this bailout bill thing looking good, and it's because so many of them have fallen into the trap of name-calling and finger-pointing. This morning, when it was thought that the bill would pass, McCain makes a speech claiming some of the credit for the success and knocking Obama for not being as involved in the process, then when it fails, his campaign issues a statement saying it's all Obama's and the Democrats' fault. Now, I don't think anyone can realistically lay the failure of the bill at the feet of McCain anymore than he would deserve the credit had it passed, but if you're going to try to claim some of the credit for success then you have to be equally willing to accept some of the blame for failure. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership made a statement claiming that the decisive votes were lost because Speaker Pelosi made a partisan speech on the floor of the House shortly before the vote. I suppose the intent was to lay the blame for the failure squarely at Pelosi's feet (and certainly the Democrats deserve their share), but if I were to take the statement as truth (which I don't), it certainly paints a picture of House Republicans that is petty and short-sighted. The implication is that these twelve Republicans were ready to vote for the bill, and therefore, one would assume, believed it was in the best interests of the country. But then Nancy Pelosi said something mean so they decided to vote against the bill. I'm not so cynical about politics to believe that our elected officials are that childish. The real failure was selling the bailout to the public in the first place. Of course you're going to have a hard time getting votes for the plan when the majority of the public falls into the catagories of "opposed" or "undecided". It doesn't help that left leaning organizations have been trying to use the financial situtation to hit the Republicans for their past policies. It may be fair comment to say that the Republican policies are responsible, but right not pointing fingers is getting in the way of solving the problem. Really, it seems like, other than a few "Chicken Little" pronouncements, that our leaders have been talking to each other too much and to their constituents too little.

It's days like today that are to blame for so many people being so turned off by politics. What a mess.

Random Video featuring Double SNL

I'm almost ready to root for McCain to win in the hopes of getting four more years of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impression.

Almost.

If Obama wins they're going to need to work on the Obama impersonation, it's not quite there yet.

McCain's Bailout

I'm of two minds about Senator McCain's suggestion that Friday's debate be postponed. I'm not conflicted over whether it's a good idea or not. Oh no, I think it's a terrible idea. I just can't decide if it (along with his decision to suspend his campaign) in well-meaning but misguided or crassly manipulative.

I managed to catch Senator Obama's statement later in the day and found that he was expressing the same reaction I had had to McCain's decision. In a time of crisis it's all the more important for the presidential candidates to be out there making their cases to the people. I remember a week or two ago I heard one of the TV talking heads, I forget who, in a rare moment of insight make the point that this election is more important than the current economic problems. The next president is going to be the one who's in charge of leading the country out of not only the economic troubles, but all the problems we've got ahead of us. There's not much time left before election day, it would be foolish of both the candidates and the electorate to waste any of it. Further, as Obama pointed out, a president is going to have to be able to multi-task effectively in office. There's no reason that the candidates can't continue to campaign and do their part to help with the current situation. I could see changing the topic of Friday's debate to domestic issues (since those are the issues at the forefront of people's minds), but cancel it? Don't be silly.

I suppose the real question now is will the electorate be impressed by McCain's choice or will it come back to haunt him.

Mr. Smith

I caught a little bit of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington on TV last night. It should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I really identify with the worldview seen in Frank Capra's films, but what really gets me about this one is how it's still relevant to politics today.

I think Capra's movies sometimes get a reputation for being simplistic or naive. I think this reputation largely comes from people who's only contact with his films is ignoring It's A Wonderful Life every year at Christmas. It's not a world without darkness or corruption. Mr. Smith is a film all about corruption, but it's a realistic portrait of corruption. Sen. Smith's main opponent within the Senate is Senator Paine, who's in the pocket of the corrupt political boss. Paine is clearly corrupt, but you can see that he was once a good man, in fact I think he was probably once just like Smith. But then he realized he had to make compromises to get things done and it just snowballed from there. We all know what the path to hell is paved with. The idea that Capra is so good at capturing in his films is that a good man can make a difference.

One thing that I did notice as I was watching last night, that I've never noticed before, was that the film seemed to have something to say about race. The thing that stuck out is late in the film. The Boy Rangers (the Boy Scout stand-ins, because the real Boy Scouts organization thought the film was too subversive) are working together to get Smith's message out to the people. Right there, working along with the white boys is a young African American boy. Nothing is said about it, and other than race the kid is just like his compatriots, he's just doing his bit like everyone else. This may not seem like much, but let's put it in context. This movie was released in 1939, not a point in history particularly well known for racial tolerance in small town America. Would black and white kids be interacting so freely with each other? More to the point, for this young boy to be in the film, wouldn't Capra have specifically set out to cast an African American child? Wouldn't the default have been to have had another white boy? Maybe I'm making too much of this small detail, but it just stuck out to me for the first time last night.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington should be required viewing for every American. It's a great showcase for our political system, both the good and the bad. And, of course, the fact that a number of the most oppressive governments of the last century have banned the film certainly argues in its favor as well.

That Will Teach Him To Be Folksy

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

How dare Senator Obama make such a mean and sexist comment about Governor Palin.

What? You don't see Palin's name in there anywhere? Why, it's clear as day! He uses the "lipstick," the same word she used as a punchline in her convention speech. She owns the word now. From now until November, anytime someone uses the word lipstick, they're clearly talking about Sarah Palin (and I think she gets a nickle for each use, too). At least, that's what the Republican Party seems to be suggesting.

Sigh. Whatever happened to the John McCain I was happy to vote for in the 2000 primaries? The one who seemed like a decent and reasonable guy. The one who wasn't afraid of speaking unpopular truths. One who fought against the corrupt politics that we've all gotten tired of. The one who's 2000 campaign was tanked due to a vile smear campaign. I guess he's taken an "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy. He's been adjusting his positions in a crassly political way in the years since 2000 trying to get this year's nominations, still, when it became obvious that he would win the Republican nomination this year, I had hopes that we might have a higher level of discourse this year. Maybe, just maybe, the candidates would debate policy rather resort to this old-school childishness.

Silly me.

"Do you really want to go there, Senator?"

The McCain campaign has released a new ad making misleading claims about Senator Obama's sex-ed record. Putting aside the misleading nature of the ad, is this even a topic McCain wants to get into? His running mate supports abstinence only sex-ed (is this McCain's position as well? Does he have a position) in defiance of all common sense and an example in her own family of the uselessness of such a curriculum.

Look, I've got nothing against abstinence as a concept, and certainly it should be included in a sex-ed curriculum, but the idea of it being the only inclusion is ridiculous. It's like trying to teach the alphabet by only discussing the vowels, it's woefully incomplete. If human history has taught us nothing else, it's taught us that people, especially hormonal teenagers, will have sex. Better to arm them with the knowledge of how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease than leave them to fumble around in ignorance.

It's always baffled me that so many pro-life advocates are against effective sex-ed. If you can reduce unwanted pregnancies through education it won't matter whether it's legal or illegal.

Bah. It's really frustrating when peoples puritanical hang-ups get in the way of sound public policy.

Just Answer The Question!

I had CNN on earlier today, and they were saying that McCain had pulled out of a scheduled interview because of this segment from last night:



The McCain campaign contends that CNN crossed the line with this questioning. How? It seems to me that the problem was that the spokesperson was evading the question that Campbell Brown was putting to him.

Well, actually, the problem was the spokesperson trying to assert that being commander, as governor, of the Alaska National Guard equates to significant military experience. That's just silly. Almost as silly as the assertion I heard earlier that the fact that Alaska is the closest state to Russia means that Palin is an experienced foreign policy hand.

Livin' Like A Refugee

It seems my decision to leave to evacuate the Big Easy ahead of a formal evacuation order was the right one as the order was given today. I'm very pleased with how the government, state, local, and federal, have been handling the preparations for Gustav. I wasn't down there for Katrina, but they seem to have the situation well in hand this time around. We'll see in the next few days if my confidence in the preparations will prove well founded. Fingers crossed that the loss of life will be nil and the damage negligible wherever Gustav comes ashore.

In the meantime I find myself in Atlanta on an unintended vacation in Atlanta, visiting my family here. It certainly beats the hell out of having to evacuate to a shelter, but I'm still eager to return home and get back to my life.

Meanwhile, Michael Moore continues to make it difficult to like him with the following comment (as reported by Fox News, which I'm sure took no small amount of joy in reporting a story that makes Moore look bad):

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said. “To just have it planned at the same time, that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for Day One of the Republican convention, up in the Twin Cities, at the top of the Mississippi River.”

This is the perfect example of what happens when someone becomes to invested in the us vs. them school of partisan politics. Every little thing becomes part of the game and the big picture is forgotten. Naturally, there are those on the right expressing outrage at the statement. I only hope they were equally as vocal when some in the religious right made statements about Katrina being a punishment from God.