A Stereo Sun Goes To Washington (A Special Election 2008 Edition)

Could there have been a worse time for the worst president in our nation's history to be in power? Terrorism and disease at home and around the world, genocide and poverty worsening worldwide by the day, and climate change becoming more apparent with every passing season. Leave it to W. to deal completely ineffectively with these issues. I mean, could the world have picked a worse time to have this guy lead the charge for change? A man who is staunchly against anyone who is not a) white b) Christian c) American d) straight and e) all of the above. A man who still doesn't know that it's only 100 degrees year-round in Crawford, Texas because he has barely ever left the ranch. And, most depressingly, a man who has managed to take the the opportunity for American to become a world innovator and leader in the fight against the milieu of detriments wreaking havoc in "developing nations," and turn it into an embarrassment, make our country a feared laughingstock, and alienate us from virtually every one of our ostracized allies.

Well loyal readers and friends, after months of being an "undecided" voting citizen -- and even some consideration of abstention from voting -- I have come to a consensus with myself that is sure to stick for at least a week. But seriously, I've done my research this time, and since the Savior John Kerry isn't running this time for me to blindly throw my support behind (and what a shame), I had to pick a new champion for the Democratic party.

Could it be Hillary Clinton? Well, since it's the first name that I mentioned it's safe to say that it's not her, but let me tell you why. Not only has she spent her entire senate career in the pocket of major corporate contributors and lobbyist, but she defends this position and does not claim that she will cease her moneymongering. In fact, she says that these corporations represent her constituency (or at least her wealthiest and fewest constituents) so she will continue, even in the presidency, to act on their behalf. In 2003 when it was up to the senate to stop President Bush and Cockbag Cheney from invading Iraq, Clinton was part of the bloc of Democrats that voted in favor of allowing military action with few limits and no timetable for reevaluation. And, I hate to get personal, but I doubt the moral character of a woman who unequivocally stays with a husband (albeit the President) that cheats on her numerous times, gets caught numerous times, lies publicly about it numerous times, and then gets caught in his lies numerous times. (I love Bill Clinton as much as the next faithful Democrat, and he is an admirable humanitarian and activist, but he was (is?) a shitty and mean husband...doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see him back in that office, though). Oh, and...doesn't she just sound like she is constantly condescending you? If Bush represents the common idiot, she represents the elitist asshole that is addicted to the double-talk (a.k.a. Parsing) that is second in the ruination of this country's media only to the "I cannot recall"s of the Bush Administration. For example, from the debate on October 30, Senator Clinton says:

On Iraq:
1. "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, and bringing our troops home."
2. "We're going to have troops remaining there guarding our embassy, a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against Al Qaeda in Iraq."

On Social Security:
1. "With respect to social security, I do have a plan." (Note: she did not elaborate)
2. "I am not advocating any specific fix until I am approaching fiscal responsibility."

On Immigration (specifically the plan to give illegal immigrants in New York the right to drivers licenses):
1. "I would not say it should be done, but I recognize why Gov. Spitzer is trying to do it."
2. "It makes a lot of sense. What is the Governor supposed to do?"
3. "Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No."

So, as you can plainly see, it is virtually impossible to know enough about what Senator Clinton truly intends to do if she becomes president to have faith in her ability to lead.

Could it be Bill Richardson? Aside from the fact that the state he runs (sorry New Mexico) has been 49th in the nation in education for at least the past 3 years and was named the “dumbest” state for three years in a row (2002-2004) in one national ranking...wait there is no aside from that fact. It's enough to rule him out.



The golden boy...Barak Obama? Critics say he's inexperienced and undeserving of this nation's highest post, but many said the same about Kennedy. And between the Bay of Pigs and the nuclear standoff with Russia they may have been right about him. Obama is a compelling option. He is fiery, charismatic, Black, speaks eloquently, and has great policy ideas. He is pro civil union, pro-choice, and has a comprehensive universal healthcare plan. Did Obama vote to allow us into Iraq? No chance. Would I be satisfied with Obama? Absolutely. Would I be more satisfied with him having about...say...8 years more experience? Without a doubt. Also, any man who threatens military action in Pakistan at this point in America's history needs a serious psychological evaluation.

It seems to me that there is only one viable candidate left to talk about, and that would be Mr. John Edwards (www.johnedwards.com). Over the past few weeks I've been reading through the candidate's websites and have left each one completely disenfranchised. My hopes for this election were dwindling, and between the Corporate-Clinton and the naive Obama I was ready to tune out for good.

Of course, it is hard to know whom to trust. It seems like the last thing this country needs is another Southern-drawl, smiling, nodding, sweet-talking, pompous ass. A woman or African-American may just be the catalyst for the change we so desperately need. Does Edwards sound phony? Is he constantly blowing smoke up my ass? To be honest, it does sound like it at times. But his voting record speaks for itself (except for that little Iraq vote...oops). John Edwards has NEVER accepted money from a PAC (lobbyist) or corporation with a wish-list. He has a 100% record with Planned Parenthood, an original and effective universal healthcare plan (copied by Hillary Clinton months later), supports the separation of Church and State, believes in equal rights for people of all sexual orientations in civilian and military life, supports troop reduction and withdrawal within 1 year, and has plans to significantly reduce carbon emissions EVEN IN LARGE CORPORATIONS by 2010. Overall, his decades of legislative (unfortunately not executive) experience will be wisely used in guiding his effective governance of our country.

I have been searching for the perfect candidate, and I now realize that there is no such thing. However, John Edwards is the only candidate that makes me feel like I will not be voting for the lesser of two evils. He stands for something important, and is willing to work to mend America's broken image and repair our fracture place in the global community.

Still, though...I really wish Al Gore were running.

Christmas Music: More Like...ChristmASS Music

Let me set the scene:

2007 years ago, a little babyJesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem. Three Kings were guided by a star to visit him with gifts because, of course, they knew he was the savior of the human race. (Note: 2007 years later, the human race is still far from saved...but that is for another day.) This is the story of Christmas as we all know it. Then, although we take a 30 year break from his life, a 30-year-old babyJesus has undergone a spiritual transformation, and the rest is history.

But what happened in those 30 years? Did babyJesus have a psychotic break and start believing he was the son of God? (Happy Hanukkah, by the way.) Did he go into a cave in the desert and shroom or take peyote for 12 days straight, only to come out having heard the voice of the Lord, his father? More importantly, did that voice tell him that 2007 years later his peaceful teachings and claims of saviorhood would be twisted and contorted into the worst form of musical torture ever imagined?

Now, those of you who know me will remember this side of me from such episodes as "Jake Doubts His Faith" and "Jake Becomes an Athiest," or even more recent ones such as "Jake Searches for Spiritual Answers" and "Jake Learns to Meditate." If you've known me for more than 5 years, you may even remember a time in my life in which I may have been considered sarcastic, cynical, and even bitingly hilarious. For the remainder of this post, I will slip back (in fact, I already have) into that frame of mind. There will be little intellectual musical conversation, if any at all, and I will rant and rant about how bitter I am about how God/babyJesus-awful Christmas music is.

(Another note: I truly despise all holiday music, including but not limited to Adam Sandler's "Hanukkah Song," but this post is dedicated to the most popular of holiday musics: that which is composed and recorded for and about Christmas.)

There are some bands, namely the Trans Siberian Orchestra, one John Lennon song, and one Dave Matthews Band song that is never played on the radio, that lend credence to the feelings that Christmas music is at all worthwhile. However, I hardly think that two songs can overturn almost a century of tortuous whining about little drummer boys and holy and/or silent nights. This was all much more of a problem for me when I had to drive to school every morning without a CD player in my car or be a three-year-old running errands with a mother who doesn't mind Christmas music at all. Nowadays, I use the ole iPod or Pandora and am able to avoid the entire month of December on the radio. Sure, I go to Duane Reade and the bank and the grocery store and get immediately bombarded with holiday spirit. And for those 10 minutes, I want to hurt everyone in the store. Luckily the sound of jingling sleigh bells can hardly be heard at all over the full volume of my headphones.

I think the worst part about Christmas music is that it is neverchanging. I don't know how many times I have heard Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band cover "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," but I can tell you that on any given radio station that is owned by ClearChannel it is played at least twice an hour. I simply don't understand how people aren't sick of the same songs year in and year out. I heard a Josh Groban version of "Oh, Holy Night" the other day in the doctor's office and I nearly walked out. How many times does some oversinging, overhyped trendy artist have to cover Christmas songs before the act loses its novelty? For God's sake, even NSync had a Christmas album.

It's as if the state of the music industry weren't bad enough already...instead of giving a month over to talented new artists, radio stations dedicate 11 of 12 months to Beyonce, Chingy (sorry, bro), Fall Out Boy, etc. and 1/12 to the same Christmas music as last year, the year before that, and back and back until 1985 (probably before, but I can only attest to the past 22.5 years).

Maybe it's not Christmas music that bothers me...maybe it's just the dumbness with which everyone seems to fit right into the status quo that enjoys what Christmas and its subsequent style of generic, repetitive, mind-numbing music represent. As one wise sage (Douglas V. Bermingham) puts it, "You seem to be saying that Christmas bothers you because it's the apex of our cultural year. it is a time of the greatest consumption of everything (extended out as long as possible). As for the music end of it, it promotes idle drifting back to a time when everyone in the country was, for lack of a better word, brainwashed into associating happiness with presents, presents and presents...and i think we should get some peyote."