THIS WEEK - McCain, Obama, Anyone Else? Oh Well, There's Always Beer!
Lately, we've been avoiding having full-blown discussions about politics. But this week we can't resist looking at a few issues related to the '08 elections in the U.S. Ex wants to know if McCain has anything to offer the American people. You might find some of the answers surprising! Would a President McCain still pander to a religious base that didn't support him in the election? Then: Given that we all agree Obama would be marginally better than McCain, why do we tend to give him such a hard time? Can you say "pissed off," boys and girls? (0:00)
Obama's brand: Change. But it now comes with a secret ingredient: No-change-o. Does anyone buy that "change" line anymore? Was his FISA vote a deal-breaker for you? It was for some of the Herd. We discuss why that single vote was so important to us as atheists, freethinkers, and lovers of the Constitution. Some of us theorize about what was behind it, but what the fuck do we know? (15:18)
We look at the American political system and examine why it's so difficult for third-party candidates to get elected. Lots of voters seem to want choices besides the Demopublicans, yet it's hard to find a viable standard-bearer for the great idea of ... what? Can any of us suggest a political position that a potentially successful third party might embrace? Philly explains how he thinks a new party could get off the ground. Ex, though, seems fixated on dogcatchers. (28:18)
Another Goddamned Puzzle and Another Goddamned Poll and Another Goddamned Ten Minutes of Your Life spent listening to this drivel. In our free-for-all ranting segment, our resident artist is annoyed at the reactions to The New Yorker's Obama cover and the resulting controversy about visual satire. We see this as yet another problem fed by the Left as well as the Right. Evo tells about a college instructor who lost his job because he told his class that the Adam-and-Eve story was a fable. Somehow this leads us back to a brief discussion of the tragic and infuriating case of Madeline Neumann. (46:12)
[NOTE TO SOLVERS of Another Goddamned Puzzle: The podcast is recorded on Thursday nights, 10:00 Eastern time. If the Exterminator has received your correct solution by then, you'll be mentioned in the puzzle segment. If your solution is received after that but before the new podcast is posted (around 1:00 a.m. Tuesday, Eastern time), you WILL still be credited as one of the Puzzling Listeners for that week, but obviously — duh! — you won’t hear your glorious name announced. Sorry, Venjanz and Aly, you didn't know. Not that you're a couple or anything. In fact, we don't even know if Aly is male or female. Not that there would be anything wrong with you folks being paired up whichever he/she is. However, the Herd would like to announce officially that it wouldn't wish Venjanz on anyone.]
Opening Music [00:00]: excerpt from "Another Goddamned Draft"
Bridge Music [13:54]: excerpt from "One of Many"
Bridge Music [29:22]: excerpt from "Swing to the Left"
Bridge Music [44:56]: excerpt from "Disco is Not Dead"
Closing Music [1:08:11]: excerpt from "As Jazzy as I Get"
(All music: copyright 2008 by Rachel Murie)
This Week's Goddamned Links
The FISA "Compromise"
Why the FISA Vote Mattered
Bloggers on Obama's FISA Vote
Third-Party Presidential Candidates
The New Yorker's Infamous Obama Cover
The L.A. Times on Editorial Cartoonists
Adam & Steve (Bitterman)
Madeline's Parents: Criminal Complaint & Police Reports (PDF)
Puzzling Listeners
Aly
InTheSkyGirl
Venjanz
Yunshui
Give this post a thumbs up
I dig this post
Vote up on The Atheist Spot
Reddit
del.icio.us
35 comments:
Fuck you, whoever wrote that.
Venjanz approved of this message.
Come on now, you know you ain't so easy to take, but you've grown on us over time, like a fungus, so we can't go wishing you on people. It's an aquired taste. You know that saying, one person's truffle is another's rash, or something like that.
Sorry, Venjanz. I, personally, think that section about you was deplorable. If it were up to me, I'd fix you up with everybody in the whole wide world and probably some animals, too, and perhaps even a few really good-looking plants. As Philly points out, some people like truffles and some people like rashes -- although I've never met a rash-sniffing pig.
I'm thinking maybe OG wrote it. Although I'm betting she'll deny it and say it was Evo.
Hey man, set me up with whoever you want, I'd screw a snake if you held it straight for me. That wouldn't count as a threesome BTW, so you can put away the Viagra, old man.
This is my current girlfriend:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harold_davis/92795394/
Philly I feel a tad betrayed, you talking about how I'm hard to take, have an acquired taste, and talking about my personal rashes and fungus problems. Your mother has a big mouth.
That said, good podcast guys, I enjoyed it.
Venjanz:
Your girlfriend looks nice, although a little too moist for my taste. Does she have a sister for Evo?
Yup:
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Fungus/Phallic/DogStinkhorn.jpg
This particular podcast seems to be going to the ...ummm. dogs. And in such a short time, too.
Well really I think the whole Herd can agree that we're all about people being free to make their own choices, and not having things imposed on them, so for that reason alone we can't force Venjanz on anyone. Still, we can help spread the word that he's available, so here you go people, see for yourself that he's a fungi. I mean, look at that smile.
Venjanz - I write the notes.
However - I am always edited. In this week's case I was heavily edited. Personally, I believe there's someone out there for you. Someplace. I'll leave it to you to figure out who the "editor" might be.
This particular podcast seems to be going to the ...ummm. dogs. And in such a short time, too.
They started it!
Evo:
I'll leave it to you to figure out who the "editor" might be.
Well, now you've given away that it's OG. Everybody knows she's our editor.
Venjanz, I, for one, apologize to you on OG's behalf.
In fact, you may not know this, but I defended you in an argument with her the other day. She said "That Venjanz is not fit to eat with pigs!" I said, "Oh, yes he is!"
Hey, Ex, why weren't we included in this article?
I agree with Ex about Obama's sloganeering. Candidates from the party that is not in power always campaign on the theme of change. After all, it's easy to whip up opposition to something stupid that the incumbent has done. My bullshit-meter always goes off when a candidate preaches about change. The louder the sermon gets, the louder my meter buzzes. I'm getting a vicious headache from all the clatter!
Well, now you've given away that it's OG. Everybody knows she's our editor.
Let's set the record straight. If I was going to insult Venjanz, I'd do a good job of it, not the piss-poor, mamby-pamby little insults you concocted last night.
And, you know, I like the guy. He's not half bad once you get past his environmental-bashing, Reagan-loving, over-the-top, cynical, sarcastic ways. Get rid of the first two and he'd fit in.
And the only thing he has to do with pigs is drawing Muhammed screwing them.
The FISA article you linked to was good. Thanks.
The Dems and Repubs have made it very difficult for third-parties to get fair exposure in the current political structure. The rules regarding inclusion on ballots, etc., are rigged to the protect the two dominant parties from serious opposition. Only parties or candidates with lots of money can afford to endure and jump over all the obstacles that have been set in their ways.
Philly's point about long-range planning is right on. When I was attending a Christian college (decades ago now), my education profs talked about how important it was for our graduates to join the NEA and attain leadership positions. Ralph Reed, who was Pat Robertson's brain (his Karl Rove) in the rise of the Christian Coalition, focused on grass roots building from the local elections up; think school boards - it's no accident that Christians are visible in boards across the country and have been for 20 years or so. I'm not talking conspiracy theory, just good organization.
Great links, Chaplain.
So can anyone give me a quick run down of what the lowest political offices are? I'm curious. I want to know how to start seizing power. :)
Chappie said:
I agree with Ex about Obama's sloganeering. Candidates from the party that is not in power always campaign on the theme of change. After all, it's easy to whip up opposition to something stupid that the incumbent has done. My bullshit-meter always goes off when a candidate preaches about change. The louder the sermon gets, the louder my meter buzzes. I'm getting a vicious headache from all the clatter!
The difference between this and previous elections is - Bush. After 8 years of the absolutely worst President is US history, worse than Grant, Harding and Nixon combined, the word "change" actually has meaning with the possibility of bite. To a certain point, it's not just another slogan. Well, it is, but it a slogan that, once fleshed out, I can get behind.
One word doesn't do it. It's what it means that counts. Which is why Obama has to have his feet held to the fire. make him define it, and stick to his definition.
And, you know, I like the guy. He's not half bad once you get past his environmental-bashing, Reagan-loving, over-the-top, cynical, sarcastic ways. Get rid of the first two and he'd fit in.
And the only thing he has to do with pigs is drawing Muhammed screwing them.
Yeah, I never did get my fatwa for that drawing, I guess I'm not big enough yet. I will try again in a few years.
Love isn't quite the right word about how I feel when it comes to Reagan. Awe or adoration would more accurately descibe my feelings for the man, who's bust will one day grace Mt. Rushmore.
As for the other thing... I don't bash the environment, I just don't drink Gore's Kool-Aid, and am put off the the GW fear-mongering of the MSM.
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.
Damn it haven't been able to hear the show yet.
Sean, have you been busy or are you having a problem with our site?
John,
No worries with the audio, short on time with me being on the run from the Catholic church and taking swipes at "The Potter's House" and "Mormons" over legal 18+ pornography.
Sean, sounds like you're having all the excitement.
Yeah. maybe we should get him on the show to give a report?
SI,
Only to glad to grace your podcast with my elite personage:)
You might want to wait until after I have filmed some protesters and met the porn star (who happens to be an ex-evangelical)that has stirred up the porn contoversy in our hick town.
By the way did you guys have a sedative in that beer, I swear x was more subdued, didn't have to adjust my sound down once.
We now make him sit across the room from his mic. That's all. Ex subdued is an oxymoron.
Sean:
If you think I was subdued, you may not know that I was talking without any mic at all. I was just "projecting" my voice as best I could, and the closest mic picked it up from a few states away.
Ahh that explains it. How silly of me to think that anyone could subdue Ex :)
(begin rant)
I was bamboozled by Obama. Or was I? I even went to my first caucus. Now I'm not sure why. I swore to myself that I would never vote again.
You know, voting for one side of the coin or the other wasn't my thing. Then Obama comes along and I thought he was going uphold Church-State separation, that was my first take.
He's definitely intelligent -more so than the monkey fuck we have in office now...but now that the hype is a bit died down I see that he's just another goddamned politician.
I know he's going to say whatever he needs to say to get elected, but I thought he wasn't going to tread that path.
Is it possible he's just pandering and when he gets into office he'll let faith based initiatives die a slow painful death, or do you think he'll really follow through on his 'threats'? (that my word).
What I would like to see in a president:
End the war in Iraq right now.
End the war in Aghanistan right now.
Accepts and upholds to the principal of church-state separation.
Someone who supports science, and isn't scared to come out and say things like...he/she accepts evolution as a fact.
And last, but not THE last thing, is a president who wants to see all Americans with fuckin' healthcare. An optional universal healthcare. It's there is you need type of thing.
(end rant)
(begin rational discourse)
• The next President can't simply end the war in Iraq. The responsible thing is what Obama is suggesting, that the goal is to get forces out in 16 months, but that might not be possible in whole or part if situations go bad. Even the "monkey fuck we have in office now" has come to realize this, which is why he's saying "time horizon".
Although we shouldn't have invaded, we did. What's done is done. Our responsibility now is to try and make right what we broke. I thought it was quite clever yesterday for Obama to say in his Berlin speech that it will be the responsibility of the world to aid the Iraqi people.
• Invading Afghanistan was justified, but just like with Iraq, we have a responsibility to fix what we broke. Thankfully Afghanistan is a NATO mission and not ours alone.
I'm with you on upholding the church-state separation, but I'd say simply that the next President or any President should uphold and defend the ENTIRE Constitution. It's not like the bible where you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore.
I'm also with you on Presidents supporting science and trying to ensure people have healthcare. I think both Obama and McCain have plans for this which are flawed. McCain's won't ensure everyone gets covered and Obama's appears to be easy for people to exploit and could actually make some insurance companies fold up.
Regarding Iraq:
Yes, well - I have no problem with fixing what you broke, or to put it another way - if you break you, you buy it. Maybe reparations are acceptable? The job of the military is not to fix anything. It's to invade and destroy. That's their job. Hence the guns, tanks, etc. You know....
Also, we need to take a look at the paternalistic attitude that we take toward other countries. Our "help" SHOULDN'T be done in such a way that tries to mold them in a way we see fit.
What kind of strings will be attached to this help?
Afghanistan:
I don't know that UN being involved gives the US any more right to be there than without.
Is there any progress being made there at this point? Is the goal worth the price being paid?
I lean toward Red on the Iraq issue and towards Philly on the Constitution.
I think you can "end the war/occupation" without simply throwing up your hands and saying "we're outta here. Your problem, Iraqis". The carrot might actually go a lot further than the stick at this point. If they refuse the carrot then that does kind of relieve our responsibilities. Not our responsibility for our past actions, but responsibilities to continue working with them.
Afghanistan is a little different, because there are some really bad dudes who are using that country and Pakistan to stage and regroup. Like war or hate it, some times you have to fight. There are groups of very extremist Islamics who are going to have to be dealt with violently. That doesn't mean you have to totally give up on peaceful solutions. It does mean that they take a back-burner position until people who are willing to fly planes into buildings show some real willingness to join the race (the human race).
Philly is totally right that you don't pick and choose with the Constitution and things like the 4th Amendment are just as important as the 1st. That's what's so disappointing about Obama.
The job of the military is not to merely "invade and destroy" but also to protect and defend. What good are reparations? If Iraq erupts into civil war, what would be an appropriate amount in your opinion, and who would you pay? We have a responsibility to ensure Iraq gets on its feet, but unlike McCain's plans, that responsibility is not one for the next 100 years, although his plans, imo, are less about responsibility and more about exploitation and Imperialism.
The plan to invade Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden and the Al Quaeda leaders being protected and sheltered by the government of that nation was just. If Microsoft blew up some buildings killing thousands in another nation and the US shielded them from being held accountable for that crime, the world would be justified in taking action against the US. Now the subsequent mishandling of the Afghanistan invasion, worst being the decision to go invade Iraq, has no bearing on the validity of whether we should have invaded.
Protect and defend? If so - then why are they in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I know, this is a new type of war being fought. Terrorism is different.
And who is this Bin Laden person you mention? The name sounds familiar, something I heard uttered a long time ago.
Didn't we support the Taliban back in the day? Something about Russians or something... I can't QUITE remember. Are these the same bad guys we're fighting now?
I mean shit, if you bring a pit or rot into your house and it mangles you or a family member, you only got yourself to blame.
If we're are talking about defense and protection, then I guess we could look at the fact that the U.S. has not been invaded by armies of other nations and in this it seems that the militaty is successful - but do they need to be in Iraq or Afghanistan to do protect and defend.
Shouldn't other countries be invading the U.S. given our history or invasion and fucking with other countries - it would be in their interest to do so.
If it's to prevent terrorism, then truly the best way is to monitor every person in this country and every person who enters into this country.
A a total lock down - think North Korea. :)
I understand the issue dealing with the constitution. It's all good. I'm just mentioning the church state thing because it pisses me off.
Post a Comment