The Phallic Symbolism of the lights atop the Empire State building on election night.

Image

We saw them rise,

Side by side,

First red was winning,

Then blue got competing,

Few in the reds,

Had any faith in the blues,

But faith had nothing to do with it,

Only how high you

could

could

could put it,

When finally CNN could call it,

When Ohio finally blued on it,

Where but Ohio,

Who but Obama,

What but blue,

Won that phallic race,

And decided whom would Rule!

So now you know,

That it isn’t the black that’s long,

Nor the white that’s strong,

But a coalition of blight,

Wielding might,

That makes that blue anaconda dong!

Image

Advertisements

Romney Romney Romney

Maybe if Mr. Romney cuts enough of his own taxes he’ll be able to call himself a billionaire. As far as I can tell, cutting taxes is the only policy he hasn’t flipped on so far. Most business men make their first billion. Mr. Romney here, seems to be ahead of the curve on this because his strategy isn’t the free enterprise route but rather the rot the system from the inside route. I give him props for the innovative way in which he approaches this dilema he has; he knows that there is absolutely no way in hell he has a future in the private sector. He is 65 and has been out of work for a decade. But sadly his ambition isn’t curbed by his incompetence. He strives on, beside himself, trudging on the path which he finds himself suitable for. The path that says Factcheckers will not dictate his campaign and that no position is so definitive of him that he may not flip flop on it.
This campaign is the political version of Romney’s glue factory in that, he is running to prove that he is not quite ready for the glue factory. All he cares about is his reputation. A reputation that has him harvesting companies by day and restricting minorities rights by night. Mr. Romney has the social ethics of the Taliban when it comes to education funding and women’s rights to equal pay. He compares rather well with the Al Shabab in Somalia given his stance regarding the role of government in society. He is right on track with rogue reigimes like North Korea and Iran when it comes to his wilful contempt for the UN’s role in the international scene. Mitt’s contempt for the United Nation’s authority internationally exceeds even W’s who infamously invaded countries without cause and without UN backing.
I suggest we give the man who’s policies skyrocketted the Dow and wound down two wars a second chance, before we risk another pseudoreligious, holier than thou nutbag in the white house. It would be a waste, a damn waste, for the American people to shave off 50% of Barack Obama’s potential. Let him finish the job.
Re-elect Barack Obama.

Ownership on the web

ImageNewspapers like The New York Times just don’t respect the internet anymore. It’s that simple. They weren’t born here and they treat the web kike a rental. They might even have it in their heads that this WWW thing is just another fad. Id like to remind these hard copy dinosaurs that other titans have previously denigrated the new god and pretty soon there after filed for bankruptcy.

The particular issue that I’m decrying here is a new policy by The New York Times’ online edition to reduce the maximum number of articles one can view gratis on their site from 20 per month to 10. As a site that had previously lost its lead as the most viewed online news vendor to The Huffington post, this was the wrong move.

For your love of money NYT, you have opened the doors to all the evils resulting from antagonizing Netizens. We have the privilege of being a mere Google search away from viewing similar if not better content from one of your many competitors. The prospect of having to put on a coat and go to the newsstand to pick up a newspaper is no more. Your insult to us is just as swiftly rebuffed. The only difference is that unlike you, we have mobility. We demand our right as Netizens. Our right to content!

How can they justify making it harder for those who still consume their content, at a time when the tide against them is rising. It’s simply alienating to what remaining loyalists they have. It’s these types of “real world” power trips that have probably caused some of the paper’s current ebbing support. The web is too fluid a medium for anyone to think that they can build a wall that will isolate content successfully.

The New York Times’ declining sales have been attributed to the rise of alternative media including competition from social media. This is kind of obvious since The New York Times has the exact opposite strategy regarding content as does social media. The paper seeks to restrict and maintain a hold on content, how its consumed and by whom. Social media, specifically sites like Facebook have very open policies regarding content. The worst it can get on one of these sites is that its specific users can restrict access to their own contributions. Maybe this stark difference in how these organizations, organize content is the reason why The New York Times is in decline and social media is on the rise.

Social media grew up with the web. It doesn’t exist without it. That is why sites like Facebook and twitter teat their users like MVPs and not like annoying hobos who want free content. The problem with The New York Times is that it acts as if there is any future scenario where it exists without the web. It’s looking longingly at a time when squares were named after it and balls dropped in its honor. Reality check NYT, it’s not 1851 anymore. You’re no longer the toast of the world.

Hundreds of millions of people log on to Facebook daily. You’re just lucky if you can get a measly 30 million. The web is like a brand new country club. You see in the old world you may have been considered as something. But here, online, there are millionaires, and there are centimillionaires!

My advice to “the Old Gray Lady” , adapt or die.

Will Mormonism become Mitt’s Bradley effect?

Is there an anti-Mormon analogous to the Bradley effect?

Okay, so as I understand it, the Bradley effect is a polling phenomenon wherein white people said they were going to vote for a black candidate in greater numbers than they actually did. Its named for a particular black  mayoral candidate from the eighties. Admittedly this effect hasn’t been logged or documented during elections in the past decade or so. This has been attributed to increasing trust among white voters for black candidates running for elective office. It could also be as a result of white people polling more honestly and generally having the confidence to express their genuine opinions.

My task here today is to explore the concept of how personal opinion interacts with personal embarrassment. A recent poll showed that only 8% of Americans view Mitt Romney’s religion as a factor determining whether or not they would vote for him. Mitt Romneys religion is quite conspicuously the least relevant fact that those polled have considered in choosing who to vote for.

Upon analyzing this slim figure I’m astonished at the idea that only such a low number would admit to the pan-human trait of religious intolerance. I mean are these the same people who for years were fighting in Northern Ireland in defense of such concepts as Catholic v.s. Protestant?

Now here they are presented with the ideological rift between Christianity and Mormonism and only 8% consider it an issue? The founder of Mormonism was himself  assassinated simply for expounding his doctrine of the eventual transition of humans to the level of God. Jesus the Christ was killed, so the story goes, for proselytizing his belief that he was the son of God and the savior of mankind. The very founders of these religions were the first of their respective faiths to experience the very intolerance of which Im writing.

Mormons in America represent about 10 million people in the general population of 313+ millions of people. So its safe to say that the vast majority of Americans are in fact not Mormons. Of these, am I honestly to believe that only a mere 8% consider the alien nature of Mr. Romney’s religion an issue? The only words suitable that come to mind are those of the character Gregory House from the medical drama “House” ; “Everybody lies!”

I now try to imagine a random person on the phone answering these question about their sometimes politically incorrect views. I think about just how many random people out there, when given an opportunity to act like what they believe to be a typical voter, would have the mettle to answer that they do in fact have a problem with candidate Romney’s Mormon faith. The very heart of middle class sensibilities is rooted in denying  the less pleasant aspects of the world and of ourselves. True suburbanites have an editing faculty built in. The kind that says, ” Hating Jews is definitely wrong; Hating Blacks is probably wrong and Hating Mormons is…” Well that last part is what we’re examining here today.

Please note that I’m not decrying polls in general. The problem here is not in how these polls were conducted but in those who were polled. These polls assume a deep rooted and academic certainty will result from their carefully worded questions. Their side cannot possibly account for just how irrationally self-conscious some people can be when forced to instantly question their own morality. Denial is usually the first stage or this sudden awakening. Acceptance is inevitably the last. And in between is a variable cocktail of ingredients ranging from realism to self deluding bliss. But at that instant of facing one’s true and disappointing self, denial is the most common first defense. So when in fact a person is asked cold whether or not Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs or religion will be a determining factor on whether or not they’re gonna vote for him, I maintain that an automatic “No” would be a lie for most middle class individuals. They simply have too much to lose by telling the truth. Namely themselves.