The Maverick Tribe

You heard it here first.

Hillary Clinton recently referred to Vice President Dick Cheney as "Darth Vader".  In addition to being unimaginative, this sort of childish name-calling is unbecoming of a U.S. senator.

Thankfully, the rest of us ordinary schmucks can say whatever we want about Mr. Cheney.  And boy, do we (about 80% of us, anyway) dislike this guy.  Ana Marie Cox gleefully responds to his denials about being the most powerful vice president in history and referring to himself as "the flavor of the month".

What flavor would that be exactly?

• Yellowcake Batter Swirl?
• "I'd Tell You the Flavor But I'd Have To Kill You" Mint?
• [Redacted]?
• Shoot-an-Old-Man-In-the-Face'n'Cream?
• Super-fudge Oil Chunk, with Tortured Prisoner Tears?

Wait, wait, I got one of my own, here we go:

• "I Can't Believe It's Not Dick"

On the subject of the Emmy censorship, here's a bit that didn't make the Fox cut:

I don't normally try to encourage thoughtless putdowns of other people's religions.  But Kathy Griffin is not thoughtless, as much as she tries to cultivate an image to the contrary.  Annoying sometimes, yes.  Thoughtless, no.  I don't think Jesus is sitting around helping celebrities to win awards and football players to make touchdowns.  Kathy puts things  into perspective.

I haven't had a chance to update the blog in awhile, so here's a quick bulleted list of what I could have expanded upon had I been more diligent:

• Can we please get past the Moveon.org ad ("General Petraeus or General Betray Us?")?  Yes, it was over-the-top and more than a little silly, so let's just call it that and get on with our lives.  I don't think a highly decorated military general is going to go home crying to his wife or questioning his commitment to the nation based on something someone said in the New York Times.  I'm talking to you, Rudy Giuliani!
• On a similar note, part of Sally Field's Emmy acceptance speech has apparently violated standards of decency for the Sunday evening 9pm timeslot.  What she said was:  "If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any goddamned wars in the first place!"  Whoa, Nelly!  Hide your children, what kind of twisted psychopath is this woman?!  The Fox Network apparently went beyond merely bleeping the expletive, and may have censored the message itself.  From the Don Imus flap, to the Dixie Chicks lynch mob, to the outrage over Kanye "GWB-Doesn't-Care-About-Black-People" West, I don't understand why we're so insecure about our values and principles that we regularly feel the urge to shut people up.  I'm glad we have the Bill of Rights, a document devised with the central purpose of saving America from Americans.
• As the presidential race kicks into high gear, the candidates are concentrating more and more on the "early contests":  Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.  I did a little a research in Wikipedia.  The most populous city within these three states is Columbia, South Carolina.  At about 120,000 souls, Columbia ranks 199th in the nation.  Of the ten most populous cities, only one (Philadelphia) conceivably plays a role in the general election since it lies in a swing state.  Is this enough to help you all understand why urban issues (especially conditions for the urban poor) are all but ignored by presidential candidates?  Is this enough to make you all favor electoral reform?
• Ok, ok, I know, I'm getting a little too wonky.  Here's your reward for making it this far...  Bill Maher's New Rule:  Jet Blew.

As the mainstream media keeps reminding us, this is a choice between change and experience.  Barack Obama promises a new direction; Hillary Clinton claims only she can work within the established system.  The funny thing about this dichotomy is that its contours follow the election of your high school class president.  (I realize that this is the second Hillary/high school analogy I've used, but it's apt.)

Remember?  Class president.  It was Suzy Chapstick against Jennifer Hearts-Over-Her-"i"s.  They'd each give their 30-second canned speeches during assembly in the school gymnasium.  Suzy's would boil down to:  "Vote for me because I was class president last year", while Jennifer's would urge, "If you want change, vote Jennifer".  And so it went, class president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer.  (None of it mattered, of course, because what it would finally come down to was:  whichever girl wasn't being ostracized the week of the election would win.)

The other remarkable feature about the Barack/Hillary change vs. experience narrative proferred by the media is that it's true.  That is the central issue defining this rivalry.  Barack Obama does bring a fresh and unifying voice to the political discourse, but he is a greenhorn on the national stage.  And Hillary Clinton is, well, Hillary Clinton.  Like her husband, she'll build a bridge, except this one back to the 20th century.  It's an excrutiating choice, for me anyway, but at least CNN, MSNBC, and, yes, even Fox News are characterizing this choice accurately.  They appear to understand that it's substantive.

Enjoy it while it lasts.  Before long, we will descend into the season of full blown posturing, with the broadcast media fanning the flames.  Mitt Romney will take a press corps out varmint hunting, to establish his 2nd Amendment bona fides.  Barack Obama will look stupid driving a manure spreader around in Iowa, sucking up to farmers.  (Please, no one get near a tank, deal?)  Someone will be seen clearing brush in dungarees.  And each press outlet will bring in a team of sophisticated pundits to hash out who appears the most "presidential".  Who would we most want to have a beer with?  Who's got the better pecs for fighting the war on terror?

It makes a man wish for the days of Suzy and Jennifer.

Last night I popped some popcorn, put on my favorite slippers, and curled up to watch CNN play the delicious Larry Craig arrest tape one last time.  My favorite part is at the very end, when the cop says:

Embarassing.  No wonder we're going down the tubes.

Ah, Larry Craig, we hardly knew ye, and now you are gon-- Wait!  Wait!  What do we have here?  Another entry to the annals of political narcissism.  

Dude, get over yourself.  You're replacable.

So it looks like the Chinese government feels it needs to put its stamp of approval on the next Dalai Lama.  The current Dalai Lama (who has been in exile from his home country since 1951) will eventually pass on, and, according to Tibetan Buddhist belief, will be reincarnated as another Tibetan child.  So Beijing, not satisfied with conquering Tibet, imposing authoritarian rule over it, destroying Tibetan cultural artifacts, displacing thousands of the agrarian people from their homeland, and remaking Llasa into yet another Han Chinese outpost, needs to have a hand in the identification of the next Dalai Lama.

I am simply flabbergasted at this kind of sinister heavy-handedness.  Remember, this is a Communist regime, with a notorious tradition of official atheism.  To put things into perspective, imagine reading the following headlines in your newspaper tomorrow:

"American churches required to adhere to new version of Bible written by Larry Flynt"

"Cast of Seinfeld chosen as delegates to Iraqi Constitutional convention"

"Jenna Bush to design new line of burqas for Afgan women"

"Madison Avenue firm in bid to improve, modernize Ganesh brand"

You get the picture.

You have to wonder why we're spilling blood and treasure by the truckload trying to bring freedom, democracy, and happiness to that hornet's nest we call the Middle East.  Couldn't we use our enormous international leverage and military might to bring autonomy and freedom to the heroically patient, peaceful people of Tibet?  Seems like a lower hanging fruit to me.  Just a thought.