Four Reasons Why Our Political System Sucks

Democracy sucks. Why?

1. Because we elect politicians rather than people who actually know what they’re doing. Our political process is designed for the smooth talker, the pretty face who can convince us that if we vote for them, our wildest dreams will come true. The leaders of our country are invariably more concerned about the next election than they are about the country.

2. Because people who are wrong can still vote. Result: W. Need I say more? I think not.

3. Because one president isn’t enough. In this age of mind-blowingly complicated economic problems, energy crises, and intricate geopolitical interactions, Obama isn’t enough. We need at the very least councils of experts (not politicians) to run different aspects of the country, with perhaps an additional executive council to coordinate them.

4. Because the Electoral College makes no sense. Why do we not have direct elections? Imagine where we would be had the Electoral College not been used to catapault W. into the White House in 2000. Again – need I say more? Nope.

What’s the solution?

I have no idea.

Thank Flying Spaghetti Monster, we have a competent president again

Rejoice!

All I can say is, I sure hope he knows what he’s doing. Good luck, Mr. President.

Sarah Palin

Really, there’s been enough said about this topic already. For your convenience, however, allow me to compile a handy Palin Fact Sheet.

-Initially voted FOR the “bridge to nowhere”

-Attempted to ban books from Alaska libraries

-Charged Alaska taxpayers some $493,000+ in travel expenses for her husband and children

-Her church is promoting a conference promising to “convert” gays into heterosexuals through prayer

-Wants to teach the vastly absurd religious notion of creationism in schools

-But, doesn’t even seem to be able to instill “basic family values” in her own daughter

-Generally unexperienced and unqualified

-Claims to be a kindred spirit to families with special needs kids, but cut funding for Alaska’s special education program by 62%

-”Hockey mom” and “(vice) president” do not go together. Like, at all.

-Her hair looks really stupid.

-She’s not going to “shake up” Washington, because the supreme court, the White House, and from ‘95-’07, Congress, are already controlled by conservatives.

-So, she also lies.

-Liars don’t make good presidents.

-Didn’t think polar bears should qualify as an endangered species.

-Wants to drill for more oil instead of addressing the fact that oil will, and is, running out

-In particular, wants to drill in caluacle sanctuaries for endangered species. Like polar bears.

-Is an insult to the intelligence of both women and Americans

-Is disliked greatly by a certain Simon, who has 2 PhD’s and ought to know

But wait! I have left out Palin’s most valuable qualification, which has, no doubt, left my readers anxious and concerned that I might be overly biased against Palin. So, to alleviate those worries, I would like to highlight this vital element of Palin’s resume:

-She hunts moose.

Yeah, that’s right. Moose.

Um.

So there.

Why "misunderestimated" isn’t a word

Surely you’ve heard this. If not, it’s in here somewhere, along with more Bushisms:

Anyway. It took me a while to determine precisely why the not-word doesn’t work. I suspect many haven’t even considered the ramifications of such blatant not-wordness.

It’s like this. “Underestimate” and “overestimate” are specific statements. They both indicate an incorrect estimate. The “over-” and “under-” parts detail exactly how the estimate is incorrect: whether the estimate is larger or smaller than whatever is being estimated.

The prefix “mis” means “wrong.” Or with a second s, “not married.” Ok, I don’t know anything about latin or word roots. However, in the case of “underestimate,” the “mis” doesn’t work (like it does in “misunderstand”). For “underestimate,” an incorrect estimate is already established. Adding a “mis” to it, as Bush does, is unnecessary (and, like, really stupid-sounding). Bush is basically saying “incorrectly underestimated.” “Misestimate” would make more logical sense, because there would only be one negating prefix.

And now, we can all sleep easier for knowing not how, but why Bush is an idiot.

Deliver us from Sean II

After some gruesome descriptions of the Holocaust, Hannity writes:

“I know this is painful to read, but the only way to come to terms with such
evil is to confront it directly. Rather than treating the Holocaust as dry
history, I believe we must pull something deeper from it, something
real — that can make us understand evil more intimately” (35).

Trouble is, upon more careful examination, most of Hitler’s henchmen performing their gruesome tasts weren’t “evil.” They were, as many of them later professed, simply following orders, and had been bombarded with propaganda all their lives. The power of authority is amazing. Consider this 1968 interview with an American Vietnam veteran:

Q. How many people did you round up?
A. Well, there was about forty, fifty people that we gathered in the center
of the village. And we placed them there, and it was like a little island, right
there in the center of the village, I’d say, …and…
Q. What kind of people–men, women, children?
A. Men, women, children.
Q. Babies?
A. Babies. And we huddled them up. We mand them squat down and Lieutenant
Calley came over and said, “You know what to do with them, don’t you?” And I
said yes. So I took it for granted that he just wanted us to watch them. And he
left and came back about ten or fifteen minutes later and said, “How come you
ain’t killed them yet?” And I told him that I didn’t think you wanted us to kill
them, that you just wanted us to guard them. He said, “No, I want them dead.”
So–
…
Q. And you killed how many? At that time?
A. Well, I fired them automatic, so you can’t– You just spray the area on
them and so you can’t know how many you killed ’cause they were going fast. So I
might have killed ten or fifteen of them.
Q. Men, women, children?
A. Men, women, children.
Q. And babies?
A. And babies.
…
Q. Why did you do it?
A. Why did I do it? Because I felt like I was ordered to do it, and it
seemed like that, at the time I felt like I was doing the right thing, because,
like I said, I lost buddies. … after I done it, I felt good, but later on that
day, it was getting to me.
Q.You’re married?
A. Right.
Q. Children?
A. Two.
…
Q. …How do you shoot babies?
A. I don’t know. It’s just one of those things. (qtd. in Milgram, pp. 183)

You’ll note that when asked why he did it, he doesn’t say, “Well, I have a firm belief in my duty to spread evil.” You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who would say that. Consider also Stanley Milgram’s famous study, showing that when given an order by a guy in a white lab coat, 65% of people will do what he says, even if it involves delivering electric shocks to an ordinary guy who can be heard screaming in pain and pleading for release. What Hannity chalks up to evil is a much more complicated psychological matter. Unfortunately, the real world isn’t in black and white.