when the status quo frustrates.

Because At Least 2 Other People Out There Care (Now With Funny Picture Added)

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009

…remember how I used to complain about the armor my World of Warcraft toon of awesomeness consistently had inflicted upon her?

Well, once you hit the game’s maximum level and are wearing armor to match, that does essentially go away. You are not only armored to the teeth in terms of your character’s game statistics, you do actually LOOK armored to the teeth as well, even if your character comes equipped with a pair of boobs!

Warning: Remainder of post so choked with World of Warcraft jargon that only fellow junkies are advised to proceed forward.
(more…)

Musing on Flirtation

Monday, March 9th, 2009

I don’t flirt. No, I really don’t. It is a behavioral dynamic of mine that has frustrated many of the single young female party animal types I have gone clubbin’ with throughout the years (and possibly any number of men, though I have no direct complaints to verify that hypothesis as I do in regards to the ladies). In a funny kind of way, it’s a lot like being a voluntary nondrinker in a crowd of drinkers–some of them earnestly try to enlighten you on what you’re missing out on (and get really pushy about you “giving it a try, c’mon!”), some of them simply roll their eyes in amused contempt at your perceived prudery and/or cowardice, and the rest actually get angry at you at the moral judgment of their behavior that they have decided your refusal to engage in the same behavior must be demonstrating.

There are several reasons that I don’t flirt. One, I am by nature a reserved and introverted person. I can be warm and outgoing–it’s a skill I have perfected over the years, to the point that, now, I am generally laughed at if I happen to mention in passing that I am indeed desperately shy and have been my entire life. I had to develop these skills–they are a prerequisite for succeeding in America, land of the worshipful regard for the Good Team Player. However, it exhausts me and I am always quite tense and cringing inside, regardless of the perfection of the facade I present (the unmistakeable signs of social anxiety, as I’m sure all my fellow-sufferers are desperately familiar with as well). So, flirting is simply another level of a type of social interaction that I have had to force myself to perfect and engage in for going on decades now–clearly, hitching it up another notch when I don’t have to is not going to appeal to me.

Two, I don’t dare flirt. It is highly inadvisable for me to ever do anything to encourage a man to think that I might possibly have any carnal interest in him whatsoever, now or ever. On a really regular basis, my mere presence in the visual field of a man–the fact that I’m (a) physically nearby and (b) breathing and (c) not immediately going elsewhere–is enough, apparently, to give him hope that I might possibly want to have sex with him someday. If I so much as make eye contact, more than half the time, that’s enough to have him practically jump into my lap and start telling me all about the business/boat/truck/stocks/house/etc. he owns and/or what great shape he’s currently in the process of getting into. (And God forbid I should crack the smallest of polite smiles.) I really, really don’t dare do anything more that might possibly be construed as encouragement. And no, this is not just a problem in bars or dance clubs, as one might suppose–I just started a new job and it’s already starting to rear its irritating head there as an issue. (Aside: one would think that the fact that I am clearly being paid to hang out there might be a clue that I am not actually wondering around the job site just hoping to stumble across my dream man, but apparently, the hope in some breasts never dies.)

Three, I have very strict internal standards in regards to fidelity, both sexual and emotional. If I am in a relationship where we have both agreed to be exclusive, I can’t be morally comfortable with even the appearance of myself giving any romantic or sexual encouragement to another person. I know that a lot of folks are devoted to the “fun” of flirting and will likely take deep offense at the idea that there’s any real harm to it–but honestly, I’ve seen it turn out to be harmful in the vast majority of situations where the flirtation goes both ways. (Admittedly, not when it goes one way only, but then, what you’re doing by flirting with the unresponsive is being an irritating jerk–this is regardless of your gender.) I am not opening that door, thanks but no thanks. And it must be admitted that I have spent the vast majority of my sexually active years in one “exclusive” relationship or another. Flirting has come up when I have been uncommitted and therefore free to do whatever I want, but if I am aware that the would-be flirter is involved in one himself (and he quite often is), the same strict standards will not allow me to engage in that behavior with him. I can’t bring myself to knowingly encourage behavior that might be damaging to someone else–there are plenty of unattached men in the world with which to fulfill any flirtatious desires I might have. There can be no justification for engaging in it with someone at another’s expense.

What do you think of flirting? Do you enjoy it, and if so under what circumstances? Are you unusually good or unusually bad at it? Has flirting ever gotten you in trouble, either with others or with yourself? Share, share!

(This is all Hugo’s fault, by the way.)

But ALL Comics are like that!

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

I feel like I should write a follow-up post on my fairly week review of the Watchmen below. In hindsight, I feel like it would have been more effective to just go “Open Thread on Watchmen, what does everyone think?” as opposed to actually write anything at all. The point was to invite discussion, not really to come to any kind of conclusion (and thus all the “I’m not really sure what the author’s intent was” and “there’s a lot to chew on” and “what does everyone think?”). The scene that stuck in my head the most was the attempted rape scene, and that’s really where I wanted to focus the discussion.

However, either I failed, and/or people failed at reading comprehension (I KNOW that just because something is shown doesn’t make it good). But, there is something that I want to address and come to a conclusion on: that of “why are you complaining about the women’s costumes, all of the comic book heroines are like that”.

This phrase is normally in response to something perfectly normal like “Why the hell do they put women in armor-less, skin-tight latex and wear high heels? It’s completely impractical.” The phrase “all of the comic book heroines are like that” is supposed to deflect criticism, which to me is doubly-funny, because if anything it makes it worse that a creator is falling into sexist cliches of comics. I think the idea is that we can’t get mad at a singular creator for something is endemic in a particular genre, but I’m calling shenanigans on that as well. The author has the choice of what to do with his characters, and if I’m falling down on Moore in this particular instances it’s because this is his work (or a new manifestation of it). I clearly need to read the book, to see what his flat work was, because in the movie, it was depressing to me to hear them get so close and then just fall flat. When Laurie (SS II) goes “Oh, and those silly costumes we wore” to Daniel (Night Owl) I hoped that this was showing some sort of self-reflection, instead of just her trying to find the silver lining in giving up something that she clearly missed. But later, it’s the exact same costume she wore; the unprotected spandex with the thighs showing, and high heels. If it was some sort of self-reflection, why not put on a costume that has some sort of protection, or at the very least flats? Every one else’s costume is much more practical; the only two that don’t have any protection are Dr. Manhattan (who is functionally invulnerable) and Rorschach, who is wearing appropriate attire if you’re looking to blend in and sneak in shadows (which he does). It is only her that is vulnerable and looks like a sex object.

In the movie, you also see the original Silk Spectre, awash in makeup and getting dirty comics sent to her which she seems to treasure. Silk Spectre is supposed to be a heroine, but she seems to be remembered as a sex object and not as a crime-fighter. This movie does nothing to dispel that idea; there is no flashback of her kicking ass and taking names; just a brief shot of her after a fight, mugging for a camera, a picture of her pregnant and serving what looks to be a Thanksgiving dinner, her on the side of a plane, and in the superhero line up right before she gets raped. In fact, the most screen time she gets is of her almost getting raped by the Comedian, and as I said before, she gets in one off-balance punch before she gets taken out. We as an audience never get to see her as anything but a sex object either.

If anything, the fact that she gets raped ended up with my friend going (the one who didn’t read the comic) “Why was she a superhero, anyway?” In one way, it does kind of make it look like she shouldn’t have been. She had no superpowers, and neither did the Comedian, so if one of her compatriots could rape her, so could the criminals she was theoretically (but off-screen) taking down. I think that logic is somewhat stupid; you could say that none of them should have been off fighting crime because they were so vulnerable.

Something truly subverting sexism in comic books would have them be strong in their own right, not just eye candy. When SSII decides to flout the Keen act and go and rescue people, she would have had a costume that was less impractical. I appreciate that when Daniel and Laurie walked down the dark alley (perhaps looking for trouble? I kind of got that impression that they were looking for a rush) that she seemed to be taking out as many as Daniel was (what I could see through my fingers; I’m the first to admit I don’t like that kind of violence, which is why I don’t like Iron Age comics). Of course, she was in a mini-dress and heels in that scene, as well.

Just because “everyone does it” doesn’t make it okay when one person does it. When you have “heroines” in costumes that do nothing to protect them, and then heroes in more practical costumes, you have heroines for eye candy, and not ass-kicking. And finally, go read this post at “Girls Read Comics (and they’re pissed)” because she said what I said, only probably better.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Saturday, March 7th, 2009

I went and saw Watchmen yesterday. It was a pretty good film, if you like iron age comics (which I’m not a huge fan of). I haven’t read the comic books, but the gentleman I went with has and he claimed it was a mostly faithful representation of the comic book.

Technically, the film was very strong. There were scenes that were very comic-book-esque, without actually being comic shots like in 300 or Sin City, and to boot, they were some awesome shots. The casting was about perfect for the characters, although I think the characters weren’t terribly well-rounded (though that might be intentional). My only real quibble was the music; pick any over-done cliche war song from the 60′s that they like to stick in Vietnam movies and it was there. That, in and of itself wasn’t so terrible bad (again, it might have been intentional) but the fact that they engineered it so it was the loudest fucking thing ever was really annoying to me (particularily since I think that the movie theatres have the sound too loud in the first place).

Spoilers below the fold (and trigger warning for a rape scene)
(more…)

SmackDOWN!

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

Just beautiful. ::sniff!::

The Non-Feminist Reason to Not Look at Porn

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

The internet is for porn, thus sayeth Avenue Q. And while that is probably right, the internet is also for viruses, one of which is on my laptop as we speak. I have a virus that my friend is busy mucking out of my harddrive, that I probably got while I was looking for some decent, non-exploitive, porn. This’ll probably take another day or so to fix, so it’ll probably be another few days before I can write anything.

I now return you to your regularily scheduled internet.

Sexual Dimorphism (remix)

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

This Vox dude is turning out to be a real trip. Of course I always keep in mind that a single, incoherent, poorly written blog article does not speak to the entirety of any particular blogger’s ability–I’m sure I’ve cranked out enough of those to paper at least one wall of my basement. But two of ‘em in a row…that can’t be a good sign.

Voxalicious’s opening words in yesterday’s blog entry, following up his diatribe on the new Battlestar Galactica series:

As long as my masculinity is again being called into question, I suppose it’s as good a time as any to answer a few of the regulars who emailed to ask about what’s been going on in the workout front

What does working out have to do with masculinity..? No idea here; I’ve been working out since I was thirteen years old and I’ve been a girl the whole, entire time. As a matter of fact, that was the year I got my first period..! (TMI, no doubt. Sorry, folks. :) )

particularly about an injury I’d mentioned a while ago. I don’t know if it was age getting the better of me or if it was just my propensity to overtrain, but something deep inside my shoulder had been bothering me for a long time, so I finally listened to Spacebunny and kept my bench under 165 for about a year.

Oh, wait. It’s weightlifting! Oh, well, I’ve only been doing that since I was eighteen. Maybe my gender switched polarities or something in those intervening five years. Of course, that was also the year that I first got knocked up, which makes it difficult to believe.

The rest seems to have helped quite a bit; today was my second heavy lift in over a year and the shoulder held up fine without even a twinge of discomfort. It felt great and everything except the very last rep at 270 went up easily.

No, no, now I get it! He lifts really heavy weights. Much like our sure knowledge that no woman has ever knocked a man out with a pugilistic blow, we also are just as positive that no woman, anywhere, lifts really heavy weights. And if she DID lift heavy weights, they would never be anywhere near as heavy as TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY POUN–

Women’s Olympic weightlifting records.

In the 58kg (128lb body weight*) class: 522 lb
In the 69kg (152lb body weight*) class: 605 lb
In the 75+ (165lb+ body weight*) class: 671 lb

*Weightlifters are classed by body weight–not knowing Vox’s body weight, I put up a nice range above for him to fit himself into.

My recommendation: Try defining your masculinity in some other way than based upon how much weight you can lift.

(Previous musings on sexual dimorphism here.)

I have done evil things to children…

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

…by feeding them the Big Lie: the false promise of the Happy Ending.

Makiko, who heads my theatre company, just finished directing a local elementary school play in English, an adaptation of four tales from “The Brothers Grimm” for third graders that she’s been putting on there for the past three years. Once upon a time, she finagled me into writing a song for the big finale, wherein Sleeping Beauty’s curse is lifted, and her castle (portrayed by all 75 children in the cast) wakes up. I show up for the last couple of rehearsals each year to play the underscoring and accompinament on a live piano. This year, I must say the show was in fact a stunning success. We may have ruined a few more young lives, tempting them with the siren call of the theatre.

So, for your appreciation, here is the rehearsal version of the big finale, “Fairy Tales Do Come True”. It features cameos by the Brementown Musicians and the witch from Hansel and Gretel. (For the record, I wrote and recorded this well before my recent foray into Muppetophilia. Though of course like most people my age, as a child I certainly was a Muppetophile.)

(Download link)


Creative Commons License

Fairy Tales Do Come True by Quin Arbeitman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Unrelated personal thoughts about blogging that nobody actually wants to read but probably will anyway though I don’t know why you’re inflicting it on yourself when I gave you fair warning, after the jump.

(more…)

Finally! I’m so excited that I get to weigh in too

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

Photobucket
My heroine when I was aged 7 or 8 (far left). Other than the long hair, it is distressingly difficult to tell her apart from her two penis-bearing companions. I’m really amazed that Vox approved of this.

Amanda at Pandagon writes fairly often about the new Battlestar Galactica TV series. I don’t really read those posts beyond the occasional skim, primarily because I don’t watch the show and therefore the in-depth angst and debating about character motives, plot lines, etc. end up being pretty meaningless to me.

As it turns out, though, I should’ve been commenting on ‘em all, all along! This dude, who I have vague memories of reading about a few years ago and coming away with the impression that he has bad hair that he’s really proud of (and my memories are so vague, I may even be confusing him with someone else, but that would mean that I have no memory of him at all–so let’s hope, for his sake, he’s at least the bad-hair guy)…but as I was saying–

“Vox” (that is his name, right? Like, that’s such a classic Battlestar Galactica name, too!) begins his article by stating the following:

Starbuck goes off on the new “Battlestar Galactica” in a 2004 essay that looks increasingly on target as the current series fades away.

“Starbuck?” By this does he mean “Dirk Benedict, the actor who played the character “Starbuck” in the original series..?” This strikes me as an odd way to refer to a person–like stating that “Conan” gave a speech about the state of California’s budget last week. Then again, I’m not sure that Dirk Benedict has actually done anything of note since his role in the original Battlestar Galactica series, while Arnold Schwarzenegger has, so maybe that’s not the best comparison I could make. But anyway, I’m going to have to fly with the assumption that we are talking about Dirk Benedict, as it’s never cleared up one way or the other during the course of the article.

The embedded paragraphs, presumably from “Starbuck,” are pretty lame. Whatever “Starbuck’s” acting qualifications were or are, a future as a professional writer does not seem to be in the stars for him. For instance, slamming the current remake because it doesn’t conform to the old-school moral principles embodied by, he holds up as examples, Margaret Thatcher and Katharine Hepburn–and the flaw here, he states, is because the current remake is clearly female-driven. Which makes me wonder what men he thinks were in control of the programming of the Margaret Thatcher and Katharine Hepburn cylons that rendered them “male-driven”…or really, if anything resembling “thought” entered into the writing of those paragraphs at all. I would agree for sure that “emotion” did, though, especially this part:

The male characters, from Adama on down, are confused, weak and wracked with indecision, while the female characters are decisive, bold, angry as hell, puffing cigars (gasp!) and not about to take it any more….

As I recall, the only character on the original series who puffed a cigar was…oops, you guessed it…”Starbuck.” Hell hath no fury like an aging B-grade actor’s signature prop scorned! I admit I did feel a pang for him when I read that “cigar” line, though. Poor guy!

But back to my original theme–why I never comment over at Pandagon on the Battlestar Galactica threads, nor have I written anything at all anywhere on the subject–because, as I said, I don’t watch the show. HOWEVER–! Vox has taught me that that is not a requirement to parse the thing down to its bones–these are the only requirements you need!

1. Quite liked the cheesy original show
2. Watched about three minutes of the “re-imagined” version

Well, hell, me too! On both counts! So let’s see what the Voxster has to say:

In that three minutes, the blonde Cylon chick murdered an infant in its stroller, then had sex with someone as her metal backbone glowed red.

You know, my three minutes of viewing time ended up being a sequence where a bunch of people were standing around talking at each other in a vaguely spaceship-y, futuristic setting. I also failed to bird-dog Janet Jackson’s exposed nipple during my viewing of Superbowl XXXVIII. I wonder how it is that I never tune in in time to catch the interesting, anti-family-values shit, like evar. Is it all a massive coincidence of timing, or is it perhaps more likely that I don’t run around desperately searching for the most sensationalist viewing bytes in any given programming to enable my powerful need to be self-righteously offended? Hard to say.

But really, it’s all about how the bitchez suck and if you really start to analyze it, how they don’t even qualify as real people. Really! The Voxster:

Whatever modicum of vague interest remained after that was destroyed when I heard that Starbuck had been given a sex change.

It would have been interesting if Dirk Benedict’s character had undergone a sex-change operation and started demanding that his fellow Galactites refer to him as “Starbuckina!” But sadly, no–what Vox means is, the character of “Starbuck” is a female character, which is really about the worst thing you can do to a character–change it from a male to a female. Why is that such a henious and hideous offense, though, you may ask..? Does the part involve the character being a sperm donor or writing his name in the snow without using his hands..?

Nah. But Vox doesn’t really say why it’s so offensive. He makes a few rather vague allusions to “realism,” though he fails to pinpoint exactly why a character being female instead of male is not realistic. (I feel “real,” and I’m, like, a chick–am I delusional? Anything’s possible, I suppose!) Maybe his lack of clarity was brought home to him in his comments thread, because he provided an update to the original article where he dragged a comment up from the muck to use as a clarification of the whole realism aspect:

Watching Kara Thrace knock out guys in the boxing ring and stand toe-to-toe with men twice her size, I realized its nothing but PC schlock.

I can’t really speak to any actual scene in the new Battlestar Galactica that the commenter above is referencing–I can’t say if it looks “realistic” or not. However, I’m trying to imagine it looking less realistic than, say, Sylvester Stallone kicking Dolph Lundgren’s ass in Rocky IV or Ralph Macchio becoming such a master of martial arts after a few months of washing Mr. Miyagi’s car that he can kick the ass of any number of dudes twice his size and with decades more unarmed combat training–aren’t cinematic fight scenes frequently exercises in suspension of disbelief? Or does the presence of Teh Penises on all of the actors sufficient to suspend ALL disbelief no matter how unrealistic the pugilistic comparison..? Teh Penis! because men use that when they engage in hand-to-hand combat…!

Yes, it’s gotten silly. And in case you didn’t think that has been clearly enough underlined, Vox underlines that his own self:

You know, given that a woman has never been known to knock out a man in several thousand years of pugilistic combat,

No woman has ever knocked a man out! Oh, that NEVER EVER HAPP–

Gosh, that took about three seconds of searching YouTube.

a dead giveaway that “she” was a robot

Ha ha, yeah! I think I’m done here.

Hailing From the Planet “Hydrocodone,” Maybe?

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

That’s my best guess as to why what’s coming out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth bears absolutely no relationship to the reality that the rest of us citizens of the United States are currently living.

Jumping into the Wayback Machine–picture it: 1994. Yours Truly is a 21-year-old married mother of an eighteen-month-old, just about to start her first semester of college. She has no computer and only watches TV when forced to do so by either her equally young husband or small son (some things sure haven’t changed)–she gets all her information on what’s going on in the wide world outside her small apartment from, get this, newspapers and magazines! (Wow, does that seem Neolithic, though.) Anyway, one day she picks up one or the other of the latter, and sees a large, smirking, suited Conservadroid adorning the front with headlines screaming beneath–“Oh, That Rush Sensation!”

Mildly curious, she flips through the pages til she gets to the relevant article–”The new face of fear for liberals everywhere!” it breathlessly proclaims (or something like that–this was fifteen years ago, people). While she did not, at that time, particularly consider herself a “liberal,” she was interested to discover more about this man who supposedly had them all quaking in their boots–! Further perusal revealed that this Rush Limbaugh person had a radio talk show, so she resolved upon giving it a shot–she herself thought there were some real issues with the standard set of “liberal” beliefs as she knew them, and she wanted to hear somebody really tackle them in a populist fashion.

Heh. Well, she listened to him. And he was…well, stupid. As in, unintelligent. Clearly unintelligent. Objectionable too, yeah, sure–but she didn’t really care about that–she cared that he was D-U-M-B. This was the terror of the libs..? but he wasn’t even BRIGHT! Hadn’t stupid people opposed to liberal ideals already abounded for generations..? What was so special about THIS one..?

Jumping forward in time to the present day, no, I still haven’t figured out his peculiar draw. Much like with Ann Coulter, I admit I don’t and have not, since way back when, spent any real time trying to figure them out–lack of interest. It’s hard to respect an opponent, even one who clearly has a great deal of power and influence, who says things that really underscore the fact that the possessor, if not actually in the barely-100′s IQ range, is of an intellectual laziness that ends up producing the same result as if he or she were.

Mostly when I think of Rush Limbaugh (which as I said, is seldom), I remember something I saw him say on TV sometime during the nineties. He was looking at the camera–directly at it–and smiling; and he said, “I’m just a harmless, lovable little fuzzball!” (Now that I think of it, it might have been some kind of infomercial for a book or TV show or even his radio talk show. But I’m really can’t recall anymore.) I remember, though, listening to him say that, and watching his eyes as he said it–he had the smallest, deadest eyes–I’d seen plenty of eyes like that, growing up, on the most vicious of the wife-and-son-beating, daughter-raping backcountry crowd–the ones with fingernails black deep under the quick, years-old stench emanating from every possible bodily orifice, and always ready with a joke to underscore their hatred of women, minorities, gays, and God forbid, fuurreigners. I remember wondering if his devoted listeners actually felt that he WAS harmless and/or lovable, or if they got the joke–he was about as harmless and lovable as the men I described in the previous sentence, but also just as fuckin’ scary–the kind of man nobody messed with if they could avoid it.

But no matter how much I ignore him, Rush Limbaugh does not go away. Here he is again, happy to demonstrate as always that his perception of what’s really happening in the US is the same whether he is actually tripping on something at that particular moment or not.

Rush Limbaugh calls on conservatives to take back nation

Scary. They’ve had it for eight years, and we can all see what they’ve done with it. I mean, this is not me making some kind of brilliant and insightful point. This is common knowledge. This is a lot like the president of NAMBLA demanding that the cops give him back all the little boys they removed from his home.

Rush:

“We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are, because we make the mistake of assuming that people know. What they know is largely incorrect, based on the way we’re portrayed in pop culture, in the drive-by media, by the Democrat party,” the conservative talk show host told a mostly young crowd of energized supporters.

Again…what we know of who they are we have learned in the past eight years of watching our civil liberties gutted, our nation go to war and our economy collapse.

And another thing about that “mostly young” crowd. Was it, by any chance…a mostly male young crowd? The article doesn’t say, but I wonder.

Limbaugh’s impassioned keynote speech, punctuated by chest-thumping, fist-pumping and chants of “USA” from the crowd, capped off three days of talk at CPAC focusing on rebuilding the Republican Party.

“He played to his crowd here,” CNN political editor Mark Preston said. “And this crowd is now energized, something we haven’t seen from Republicans, certainly not conservatives, since the November election.”

Mmm…”Sarah Palin.” And we all saw how well that worked out for the Republican party, didn’t it? What is it about the Republican party that attracts these, well, televangelical showman types..?

Limbaugh used his self-described “first national address,” which ran more than an hour longer than his allotted 20 minutes,

These really massive and flamboyant egos…

to accuse President Obama of inspiring fear in Americans in order to push a liberal agenda of “big government.”

“He wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing the worst each and every day, because that clears the decks for President Obama and his pals to come in with the answers, which are abject failures, historically shown and demonstrated.

For the third time…the abject failure, historically–recent history, the past eight years!–shown and demonstrated, was the answers provided to us and implemented by the socially conservative, internationally Neocon, utterly unregulated “free market” government that I believe Rush Limbaugh has been masturbating to, loudly and on air, for the past eight years.

Well…if Rush Limbaugh really is the “new” face and leadership of the twenty-first century Republican party…one of two things will happen. His stupidity and insanity will come to its natural limits of a quarter or less of the population that are similarly stupid and/or insane enough to drink his up like Jonestown Kool-Aid, and that’ll be that–he’ll become yet another one of America’s quirky political sideshows that give the rest of the world so much fodder for their comedians. OR…he’ll galvanize a sufficient majority of the nation, the one that wholeheartedly embraced the “Patriot Act” and the war in Iraq, that we’ll find ourselves, in four years or so, tumbling back in the morass that was created by the Bush administration. If that occurs, certainly, the majority will get what they deserve. It will be rather hard on the minority that didn’t, but that’s one of the built-in flaws of a democracy.

As distasteful as it is, I suppose I had better keep an eye out…just so I’m not entirely taken by surprise however it turns out.