John Stewart: "F*ck All Y'All!"

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. or New York City.”

Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin explained this belief of hers during a campaign rally in Northern Carolina last week.

"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit… …what I call the real America… …hard working very patriotic, pro-American areas of this great nation.”

For the crowd in NC, that was the cue for uproarious applause. Not so further north, where New York city resident and host of the satirical Daily Show responded with two words for Sarah Palin (on behalf of all of New York City.)

“Fuck you!”

New Yorkers were gratified that somebody was sticking up for their city – the de facto capital of the United States and as pro-American a place as anywhere in America. But some critics attacked John Stewart’s profanity, forcing him to clarify:

“…it's not really fair, and it makes it seem like I'm just addressing Governor Palin about this, and I'm not. Just this whole entire theme that there are more American areas of the country, or some people love the country, some people don't.”

To sum up: “What I meant to say is, 'Fuck all y'all.'”

Although John Stewart’s comments are pretty polarizing, he managed to hit the nail right on the head when it comes to the thrust of the Republican campaign for the presidency – following the model which won them the election in 2000 and 2004.

Basically, by spreading the lie that conservatives and evangelicals in the red states (the ones who vote Republican) are somehow ‘better Americans’ than the egg heads, intellectuals and liberals in the blue states (the ones that tend to vote Democrat.)

I’m with John Stewart on this strategy. It’s divisive bullshit and it stinks.

The fact is, you can be anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and a life-long Democrat and still be a damn site better American than a tobacco-chewing, gun-loving Southern Baptist who has an American flag painted on his truck.

This whole idea of ‘if y’ain’t with us, yer against us’ and the insistence that ‘votin’ Republican is votin’ Patriotic’ is just offensive doublespeak intended to split the country in half and make dumb people vote on their gut instinct rather than on the issues.

This rancid attitude is everywhere. On SIRIUS radio, the right-wing talk radio station is called ‘SIRIUS Patriot’ (whereas the left-wing one has the limp title ‘SIRIUS Left.’) On TV and the radio, the right-wing pundits pound each other on the back and praise their rabid right-wing callers with ‘you’re a great American, sir.’

Somehow, lapel-pins, bumper stickers, American flags and ‘support the troops’ stickers have become the currency for patriotism, whereas the truth is the complete opposite of that.

You can have all the bumper stickers in the world, but it doesn’t make you a good American.

Patriotism is not falling into line with the rest of the pack. It’s not blind obedience to a government. It’s not the belief that your religion somehow makes you morally superior and worthy of dictating how others can live their life.

In fact, it’s fighting against all of the above. As famous historian Howard Zinn once wrote: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

It’s time the liberals retook the term ‘patriot.’ Because what’s more patriotic than what they do?

• Thousands of Americans are dying in a bloody war overseas. Is it more ‘American’ to send more troops to that meat-grinder? Or angrily protest the war and attempt to ensure that as few brave American soldiers as possible end their lives, alone, on foreign sand?
  
• What’s more ‘American?’ To enforce your religious beliefs in schools and dictate to your offspring what they can and can’t believe? Or to fight to keep religion out of the classroom and stand up for parents to take responsibility for their children’s spiritual growth - in the privacy of their own homes or churches?
  
• What’s more patriotic? To bitterly attack other American’s inalienable rights to pursue ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ because it upsets your religious sensibilities, or to fight to give other Americans the same rights and protections that all citizens should enjoy, under the ethos that ‘all men are created equal.’
  
• Why is it unpatriotic to question the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution is sacred, yet ‘patriotic’ for people like Sarah Palin to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? How can patriots fight to support one freedom at the same time they fight to deny another? Why is the constitution sacred one moment, yet open to changes the next?
  

The American Nation was forged in the fires of rebellion and dissent – by brave men who refused to knuckle under the tyranny of an oppressive government. Contrary to popular belief, that rebellion continues to this day and it’s not the right-wing who represent the ‘patriots.’

The right-wing have come to represent the oppressive, religiously-driven regime that fights to dictate the scope of free men’s rights.

That’s not very American at all.

Don't get me wrong, the liberals can be just as bad. Gun control, redistribution of wealth... Many Democratic policies (especially the fiscal ones) are are repressive as the conservative ones.

So to help liberally minded people keep fighting the good fight - and to ensure they don't follow the right-wing down the dark path - here is my 'Patriot's Manifesto.'

The Patriot's Manifesto:

1. A true patriot never supports any move to repress freedom, and attacks any move to censor, repress, ban, control or outlaw any existing freedom (from gun-control to hard-core pornography.) Repression is slavery.


2. A true patriot constantly questions his government's decisions on the local, state and federal level, from tax rates and tariffs right up to military action overseas. Blind obedience is slavery.


3. A true patriot never allows religion, ideology or dogma to enter into any part of government - from religion in school to socialism in government. Dogma is slavery.


4. That being said, a true patriot never infringes the rights of an American to believe what they want in the privacy of their own homes, temples, churches or mosques. It's freedom 'of' religion, not freedom 'from' religion.


5. A true patriot never infringes the rights of another American if they don't infringe on their own - from gay marriage to what color your neighbour paints his house.


6. A true patriot questions all established theories - but from a position of logic, rationality and fact. It's fine to question Global Warming or Evolution - but not if your only source of information is The Bible or what you heard on The Bill O'Reilly Show (see Rule #8)


7. A true patriot supports independence in all things - from personally freeing yourself from credit-card and bank debt, to making America totally energy independent. Reliance is slavery.


8. A true patriot worships knowledge, rationality and fact - and strives to learn and teach as much as possible. Knowledge isn't just power. It's freedom. Parents have a duty to make sure that their children know more than they do - and things like 'non-explicit' sex education and teaching religious doctrine instead of scientific fact in school go against that. Ignorance is slavery.

I will admit, I'm no perfect patriot. I walk a fine line on some of the issues I've mentioned above (especially when they concern religion.) But overall, I think the philosophies above are the foundation of true patriotism and you'll find as much of that in New York and Boston as you will in a million Podunk towns across the Midwest.

Sarah Palin? Newsflash. Patriotism isn't dictated by geography OR politics.

Why I Support Barack Obama

I like John McCain. I really do. I like him as a person and as a politician - but the further he retreats into the arms of the conservative core of the Republican party, the more independent centrists like me are forced towards Barack Obama.

So a few days ago, despite wavering back and forth between the two for months, I decided to put my money down.

I bet on Barack Obama.

Don't get me wrong - he's not a perfect candidate by any means. Nor are the Democrats the perfect party. Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae are just two of the many recent examples of continuous corruption and graft overlooked by Democratic politicians (in return to substantial campaign contributions.)

But America isn't the country it was even a month ago.

The right wing talk show pundits warned that Obama would socialize America. In the end, it was the Bush government that nationalised the mortgage industry and is now considering doing the same to the banks. By the time Obama gets sworn in, there isn't going to be any industry left to socialize!

Things are going to happen whether we like them or not. America is being swept away by a current and the President can't change the direction it flows in.

I reached my decision to support Obama for several reasons:

Obama will cut taxes for the middle class - Obama's tax-cut program will give Tina and I back more than twice what McCain's would. That doesn't even include McCain's plan to tax health insurance - taking even more money from middle class people like us.

Obama is more fiscally responsible (although this is debatable)- McCain talks big about cutting pork barrel spending, but his financial plans don't do anything to tackle the deficit or the bankrupt mess that is Social Security. Obama's tax-plan will raise the burden on America's richest 1% - meaning he'll run a tighter ship than McCain. Besides, after eight years of financial ruin, can anybody trust Republicans to be 'fiscally conservative' any more?

The fact that they voted down the $700 billion bailout - yet voted FOR it when $100 billion in 'pork' was tacked on - proves that Republicans are hog farmers just like the Democrats.

Obama is more socially liberal - This is probably what swayed it for me. On issues like civil partnerships for gay couples, sex education in schools and the like, McCain is liberal enough. However, his party isn't and I don't want to see America's liberties trodden underfoot anymore. There are members of the Republican party who want to outlaw sexuality, enforce Religion and turn the 'land of the free' into a twee, homogenized pseudo-Christian Disneyland.

Sounds like a nightmare to me. Have you ever been to Disneyland? Impossible to get a gin and tonic anywhere.

Obama is a better statesman - Nobody will deny that Obama is a smooth operator. McCain, with his gurning expression and hunched shoulders, is the butt of jokes. Obama, on the other hand, is a modern-day John F. Kennedy (just without the sexually transmitted diseases.) If we wanted to pick a president on the basis of who's more presidential, Obama wins hands down.

Obama is a better ambassador - The Europeans love him. The Middle East will sit up and take note when a brown-skinned man with the middle name 'Hussein' takes office. Obama promises to actually tackle problem nations like Iran and North Korea, instead of refusing to talk to their leaders and barking aggressively at them like a chained-up junk yard dog.

Just by electing Obama, America will go some way towards restoring the international prestige that George Bush destroyed.

Obama will screw up the Supreme Court less than McCain - Let's be honest, here. Supreme Court judges legislate from the bench. The right wing can crow all they want, but conservatives like Scalia are JUST as bad as liberals like Ginsberg. Whatever happens, the Supreme Court will interpret laws how they want - and in that case, I'd much rather a liberal addition to the bench than a conservative one. I don't like it, but I don't like it less than anybody the Republicans could suggest.

Obama will get things done - By the time the election rolls around, we'll have a Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat-controlled Senate. This renders McCain, as a Republican, pretty much powerless to get anything done unless he crosses party lines. We may not like everything Obama puts forward, but at least it'll stand a chance of seeing the light of day.

It's time for a damn change! So we've just had eight years of the most hated president in recent history... And you want to elect one from the same party? Say what you want about Bush, but I think his failure says as much about current Republican party values as anything about him personally (actually, if he started drinking again I imagine he'd be fun to hang out with.) It is time for a change. It's time for a Democrat. Simple as...

I just want to support him - Perhaps most importantly of all, I support Barack Obama for a simple, silly - possibly even racist reason:

When my son is studying history - and looks back on the historic 2008 election (when the first African American candidate stood for the White House) I don't want to tell him that I voted for the stuffy, white, Republican septuagenarian.

Change is coming one way or another - We can either be part of it, or we can sit on the sidelines and gnash our teeth.

Palin Smackdown

Nobody's going to deny that there's bias in the media - just flick on Fox News and you'll see daily disinformation on a scale Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of.

But when it comes to Sarah Palin... Enough is enough.

I'll admit, I'm on the fence when it comes to Sarah. I like her plucky spirit and determination. I'm not so keen on her religious fervour or questionable opinions on the environment.

(To illustrate my conflict; as keen on hunting as I am, the 'ariel shooting' Palin advocates seems a little unfair. I mean, tracking down a wolf or moose with a high powered rifle makes hunting one sided enough. Targeting them from low-flying airplanes is just thoroughly unsporting!)

But whatever my reservations about Ms. Palin, I have noticed a landslide of negativity being sent her way by the press and media.

It's true that the media tends to have a liberal bias (with the exception of the Fox Propaganda Network.) But I can't remember it ever being quite so blatant before.

Sarah Palin is a nice enough lady. She's got a lovely family and a successful career - one she achieved all on her own, without any of the 'positive discrimination' feminists are screaming for. Sure, she's not perfect. But she's not bad, as far as it goes.

Yet the media is merciless in their attacks against her. Just this morning, I saw her being dismissed as 'a bucket of fluff.' People are openly questioning her political ability, her commitment to her family and even her dress sense.

Come on, guys. It's not only not very nice. It's also dumb. The more the liberal left attack Sarah Palin, the more they galvanise the moderates and the right wing to back up 'that nice little Alaskan lady.'

Not to mention, some of the attacks are just damn stupid.

Seriously, why would the Democrats make such a thing about Palin's perceived 'inexperience' when she's at least as experienced as their own Presidential candidate. I'm sorry, but that's just playing into the right wing's hands.

Whichever way you look at it, McCain pulled an ace from his sleeve when he selected Sarah Palin to stand for the vice presidency. The only way the Democrats are going to trump this clever move is by shelving the attacks against her - completely.

They need to play nice - to recognize Sarah Palin's refreshing perspective, her family values and her political ambitions. They need to pat her on the head, tell everybody what a good job lil' Sarah is doing and dismiss her as a political unimportance. Only then they can concentrate on the main target - McCain.

If they play nice, they won't seen to be mean spirited bullies. It'll pull the carpet out from the Republican's campaign and put them back on a level footing.

But I don't think the liberals are capable of that level of political sophistication. They're just going to team up on this friendly, family woman and bombard her with the sort of mean-spirited maliciousness they wailed about the Republicans aiming towards Hillary.

The scary thing? This election was the Democrats to lose - and a damn fine job they're doing of exactly that.

Why Socialism Doesn't Work

"What we're saying is; there's a limit."

That's Democratic Senator Dick Durbin - and he's talking about profit.

Profit from the oil companies, specifically, but also profit from American businesses in general.

Dick believes that there's a limit to how much profit a company should make - and once they cross that line, the government should step in and redistribute it along the lines of Barack Obama's 'windfall tax' scheme.

Now, I'm as annoyed about ExxonMobile's outrageous profits as anybody. I don't understand how oil prices and petrol costs can be through the roof - yet the 'struggling' oil companies are managing to make the biggest profits in corporate history quarter after quarter.

But at the end of the day, as I wrote about here, I'm totally opposed to the idea of taxing the 'excessive' profits of ExxonMobile and redistributing it to American families.

For a start, Exxon is an American company and the benefit of making all those profits internationally is that this money comes back to help boost the American economy.

Secondly, the likes of Exxon are public companies - there isn't a big, fat cat boss-man enjoying these outrageous profits. They're redistributed already to shareholders, hedge funds and even my 401k.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the idea of taxing these 'excessive' profits violates Roland's Law of the Three Rabbits.


Roland's Law of the Three Rabbits is economics distilled down into a form simple enough for a numpkin like me to understand - and it works like this:

There are three rabbits: Max, Toto and Bozer. They live in a burrow and spend their days collecting carrots to eat.

• Max isn't too smart a rabbit, so he only manages to collect one carrot every day.
• Toto is a smart lil' bunny and manages to collect three carrots every day.
• Bozer is a mediocre rabbit and scoops up two carrots every day.

As the system works, Toto's hard work is rewarded and he gets to eat three times as many carrots as Max. But Max isn't starving.

However, Bozer gets elected chief rabbit and declares that the current system is unfair - that every rabbit is entitled to two carrots a day and Toto needs to give his third carrot to Max to even out the share and make all the rabbits equal.

Max is overjoyed about this - Toto less so.

So much 'less so,' in fact, that he starts getting up later and enjoying a more leisurely day - going out and collecting only two carrots instead of his normal three. That means, when he comes home, there's no third carrot to give to Max so he goes back to only having one, while Toto and Bozer both have two - leaving neither Max nor Toto happy. So from a system in which two rabbits were happy, Bozer introduced us to a system in which only one rabbit is.

It's all hinged on a specific fact about humanity - unless we're given motivation to go that extra mile (like eating a third carrot) the vast majority of people will only do the bare minimum to get by. Or, as the great American Thomas Jefferson more eloquently explained it:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson

This is how capitalism works - and if Barack Obama or the Democratic party started capping profits, the only thing they'd manage to do is convince companies to stop working so hard to make a profit in the first place.

Less profit means less money in the economy. That means less money coming in from taxation - which means the government needs to increase taxes to make up the shortfall. That leads to even less money in the economy...

Basically, capping profits leads to only one thing - capping productivity.

Now I can applaud all sorts of things about Barack Obama's campaign and his politics, but when it comes to stuff like 'windfall taxation' and capping corporate profits, I'm deeply skeptical. I honestly don't think the Democrats 'get it.'

In life, there are one carrot rabbits and three carrot rabbits. The only problem with redistributing carrots to less advantaged bunnies is that, at the end of the day, we'll all just wind up with less carrots going around.

Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead!

Can it be possible? Is the Hillary Campaign Train finally derailed?


Well, last night Barack Obama wrapped up enough votes to seal the Democratic Nomination for the White House - but Hillary still isn't conceding.

Not yet - not until she gets at least a consolation prize, like the Vice Presidential nomination.

If Obama does choose to pick Hillary for that slot, they'll make a pretty unbeatable duo in the upcoming elections. If he doesn't, he'll still most likely put up a strong contest for the White House. Don't take my word for it - while Ladbrookes are offering strong odds of 5/4 on McCain (meaning a £4 will net you £5 if he wins, plus your original four quid) the odds on Obama are an astounding (and unprofitable) 4/7, meaning if you place a £7 bet you'll only stand to win £4 if he takes the election.

Snce there's money involved, I'm generally willing to accept those odds as gospel.

But would Hillary take the Vice President spot? Would Obama even offer it to her?

It would certainly make history for Hillary to become the first female Vice President. But Vice President isn't exactly an important or significant role - even John Adams, the first Vice President, admitted that the position was "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

But this might be the closest she'll ever get. At 60 years old today, Hillary would be nearing McCain vintage by the time she got the opportunity to run for President herself - and if Obama was to last two terms, history generally dictates that the opposing party 'gets their turn' meaning Hillary could realistically be 76 before the next Democratic president heads to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Vice Presidency might be the only opportunity Clinton has to make her own mark on American History. You can't really blame her for fighting so bitterly to secure it.

The Election Aftermath

Well, the voters of New Jersey have spoken.

On Election Day 2007 - which I covered here - the people of Middlesex County voted in resounding support of their incumbent mayors, with only South River's Robert Szegeti getting booted off in favour of Republican challenger Raymond Eppinger.

And while this leaves South River with a 'one party' local government (the mayor and five council members are now Republican) the rest of New Jersey remained grudgingly loyal to the Democrats - although how they approached the four 'voters questions' revealed that they want their democratic representatives to rein in the spending and stay fiscally conservative.

North Brunswick's mayor, Francis 'Mac' Womack III was welcomed back for another term - and good for him. He's done our township proud.

Aside from choosing our representatives, however, voters of New Jersey were asked to vote on four specific 'questions' that effected our great state.

The first was:

1: Should New Jersey permanently dedicate a percentage of revenue earned from sales tax towards property tax relief?

New Jersey said no.

Which was the right decision, no doubts about it. While New Jersey has some of the highest property tax in the whole of the United States, it seems entirely illogical to take money out of one tax pool to alleviate the sting of the other. If New Jersey has such an enormous surplus in their sales tax revenue, perhaps they ought to lower the tax rate?

Or, alternatively, they should use that revenue stream to pay for whatever it is that keeps the property taxes so high?

Although it is more complicated than that. Sales tax is raised on a state level, while property taxes are raised by the townships where people live. It's easy to forget that government in America is a multi-tiered structure and the different tiers have responsibility paying for different things.

But accepting that makes the proposed property tax relief even more illogical. If property taxes pay for schooling, rubbish collection and local police and fire services - things only a particular township benefit from - why should the entire state of New Jersey bail out particular townships via the sales tax?

Because rerouting sales tax revenue to offer property tax relief essentially leaves everybody in New Jersey - renters and property owners alike - bailing out the home owners. Which simply isn't fair.

2: Should New Jersey approve borrowing $450 million for stem cell research?

Again, the answer was a resounding no.

On the surface, I think that's a very good thing. Borrowing such an astonishing amount of money to pump into an uncertain science doesn't make good financial sense. The people of New Jersey pay their taxes to receive the benefit of public services - not to invest in ill-considered business adventures.

My suspicion is, however, that many people voted 'no' simply because of the scary concept of stem cell research. There has been a pretty good disinformation campaign about this fledgling science that has people scared of human cloning and other people worried about the thought of human embryos being used in research.

To reject this proposal because it made poor financial sense is a good thing. To reject it because of ignorance and fear is bad. Stem cell research can be conducted ethically and might offer the chance to repair nerve damage and diseases that are currently untreatable.

It could herald a new era in science and medicine. We shouldn't reject it simply because we want to remain in the blissfully ignorant dark ages.

3: Should New Jersey approve borrowing $200 million for open space preservation?

New Jersey voted yes.

Which is a great victory. A victory because the borrowed $200 million can be invested in keeping the 'Garden State' living up to it's name. Forests, grassland, farmland and plains can be preserved and protected from aggressive redevelopment, meaning a new generation of New Jersey children will grow up being able to enjoy the beautiful countryside.

In America, there are currently 1 million unsold new homes, suggesting that the drive to build, build and build is not a wise one. There are strip-malls and shopping centres enough in New Jersey. While I'm all for supporting free enterprise and market forces, I think New Jersey needs a hundred acres of woodland far more than it needs another K-Mart.

By voting 'yes,' the people of New Jersey created a market force of their own - and proved that preserving the countryside was something they were willing to invest their tax dollars in.

4: Should we revise language outlining when voting rights can be denied by deleting from the state Constitution the phrase "idiot or insane person" and replacing it with the phrase "person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting."

This was another resounding yes - and requires very little explanation.

The Next Step

Back when I was studying politics at Plymouth College of Further Education, we were taught that local elections can mean a lot of different things. Sometimes they can even predict the direction national politics will take.

If that's the case, I think New Jersey has spoken.

Support for the Democrats seems strong, suggesting that NJ will lean towards a Democratic candidate in 2008's presidential elections. However, this support is tempered by a growing demand for fiscal responsibility - and any hopeful candidates should accept and embrace that.

I think this might well prove to be a national trend. With America balanced on the knife-edge of recession, the important election issues are a lot closer to home than people suspect. Jobs. Taxes. Inflation. The Economy.

My father figures the 2008 elections will follow the 1992 ones, with the major campaign issue being 'the economy, stupid.'

It was that mantra, hung outside Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas, that helped lure voters away from the seemingly unbeatable President Bush Snr.

Bush Snr. had seen the end of the cold war and the successful Desert Storm through - but left America in the depths of a recession. James Carville, the campaign strategist for Bill Clinton, coined the phrase 'it's the economy, stupid' to make Americans consider domestic financial issues as well as foreign policy ones.

It was enough to topple Bush Snr, whose approval ratings had been at 80% just the year before.

Now history threatens to repeat itself! With a Bush in the White House and a Clinton standing at the gates. Except this time, the departing Bush Jnr has an approval rating barely half that of his father.

If the local elections in New Jersey have taught us anything, it's that the winning presidential candidate will need to have some sensible spending ideas that will send the American economy trundling out of the doldrums.