Category: Ranting

Funny is so easy, a child could do it

I recently wrote an entry about Audible.com using ads mocking John Kerry to promote its ListenBeforeYouVote.com site, a site that exists as little more than a redirect to the main Audible.com site. I complained about how vehemently opposed to it I was. As I mentioned in that entry, I wrote to Audible.com and received the following reply:

I will bring this to the attention of my supervisors. I looked at the link but could not find what you are refering to, but whomever made the page must know somthing about it. I personally do not consider that fair if they are singling out one canidate or the other, and im (sic) sure it was not our intent to do so. Please eccept (sic) my appologies (sic) on behalf of audible, i (sic) will deffenetly (sic) have someone look at this issue. Thank You!

I thought that might be the end, but it’s not. As I said in that entry…

I don’t know if I’d feel the same way if the only ad was the “George W. Bush is an idiot” version, but I only have the information at hand, which mocks the candidate I support. I hope I’d feel the same way if the reverse had been true. I suspect I’d disagree with the marketing plan but wouldn’t be as upset about the sentiment since it matches my own. That doesn’t make it smart.

That’s about right. I found the Cheney ad on a site that has a more liberal bent, so it’s obvious that Audible.com is targeting the assumed readership of specific sites. Since I don’t stick with just my own opinion, I found both. I don’t know if I’m a rare person who comes across that or not, but it doesn’t change how vile and stupid I think the strategy is. Just as with the Kerry ad, portraying Bush supporters as “closed-minded, reactionary war-mongers” is unfair and untrue.

I’m not as angered by the Cheney ad, but I think that’s because the two ads are different in one fundamental way. Since the Cheney ad is cartoonish, the context implies a marketing tone rather than a mocking tone. Perhaps I’m clouded in my judgement, but that’s my view. I still think the ads are despicable.

(For more perspective, consider these ads featuring Hillary Clinton being elistist and
Ann Coulter fighting Al Franken.)

Better never than late

Remember the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, the one that President Bush said was essential to preserving American society? There’s a new development, courtesy of President Bush. Before I address that, in order to remind everyone of the FMA that President Bush supports, reconsider the language of the proposed amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Put that into the context of President Bush’s comments during an interview with Charles Gibson. Consider:

“I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman,” Bush said. “Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass … laws that enable people to you know, be able to have rights, like others.”

This is ridiculous. Denying marriage and “the legal incidents thereof” to same-sex couples within the Federal Marriage Amendment excludes the possibility of civil unions, yet President Bush says he supports allowing states to create civil unions. While I believe him when he says this (honestly, I don’t hate Bush or think he’s evil; I just think he’s incompetent), his support is an empty token. His statement demonstrates how he views the world in black and white. President Bush supports the FMA even though it blatantly conflicts with his support of a state’s right to recognize civil unions. The language doesn’t matter as long as it accomplishes the bigger goal. That is legislating in broad strokes rather than fine lines.

I’m not the only one who feels this way. After I formulated my thoughts on the President’s statement, I read Andrew Sullivan’s opinion. Consider:

For what it’s worth, I tend to think this is his real position, rather than a belated realization that his extremism on this matter has cost him many votes. But if it is his real position, why didn’t he say so before? And how can he support the FMA which specifically bars the “incidents of marriage” for gay couples? President speak in forked tongue. More to the point, he must surely be opposed to the state amendments in eight states that ban marriage for gays and also anything that even vaguely looks like a marriage. Those states are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah. If you agree with this president, you have to vote against these state constitutional amendments. They bar civil unions as well.

To his credit, the President (through his Press Secretary) did make this statement; everyone missed it. Consider this:

Q: When the President says that the states should be free to pick legal arrangements other than marriage, does that include civil unions, specifically?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, states can make their own decisions with regard to legal arrangements. That would include hospital visitation rights, it would include insurance benefits, it would include civil unions — we talked about this earlier. The President has made it very clear that he would not have supported it for the state of Texas.

Q: Civil union?

MR. McCLELLAN: Right.

Ultimately, President Bush’s argument still comes down to this, his fundamental (fundamentally stupid) argument about same-sex unions:

“Look. If you’re interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, without the courts making the decision. That’s through the constitutional process and obviously I think that’s the way to go, because I am concerned that courts are making this decision. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making, on behalf of the American people,” Bush said.

Nine judges made a decision for 300,000,000 Americans in the 2000 Presidential election. You didn’t seem too upset then, Mr. President. How is this different?

Agree with us and the debate is unbiased

Browsing Andrew Sullivan’s blog this morning, I decided to finally click one of his ads to see what it was. The specific ad I chose was for ListenBeforeYouVote.com. As you can see, the ad features John Kerry in a goofy pose with the tag line “He’s tall. He’s scary. He flip flops. Yeah, he’s an idiot.”, so I assumed it that the website sponsor would be some ridiculous, partisan hack who had an agenda othe than debating issues on merit. Every time I assume, I remember why it’s not a great idea. The truth here was worse than that. ListenBeforeYouVote.com turned out to be a ruse to ultimately redirect and attract new subscribers to Audible.com.

Is this a partisan ad?Last month, I rejoined Audible.com after an extended absence. I like the underlying concept and was ready to download new audiobooks to add to my collection. One of the most interesting aspects is the ability to download convention speeches and presidential debates, along with other miscellaneous speeches leading up to the election. This is a brilliant idea. It’s too bad Audible’s marketing department ruined all brilliance with this pathetic, partisan ad.

I’m going to contact them to get an explanation, to determine if they created any “George W. Bush is an idiot” ads. If they did, I’ll express my anger at the stupidity of targeting ads to audiences allegedly predisposed to the partisan sentiment expressed when the underlying product is meant to give the full political spectrum of information. If the Kerry ad is the only version, I’ll express my anger and cancel my subscription.

I’m already rethinking my plan. I’ll still contact Audible to express my anger, but I will cancel my subscription regardless of the answer. This is unacceptable. I don’t know if I’d feel the same way if the only ad was the “George W. Bush is an idiot” version, but I only have the information at hand, which mocks the candidate I support. I hope I’d feel the same way if the reverse had been true. I suspect I’d disagree with the marketing plan but wouldn’t be as upset about the sentiment since it matches my own. That doesn’t make it smart.

Businesses have the right to support any candidate they wish, but with that, the executives run the risk of alienating customers based on personal preference. Unless the business is privately held, the executives need to be certain that the shareholders are willing to take this risk. I’d love it if Audible.com would make the audio of the marketing meeting where this plan was hatched. That would be a brilliant tool for every college marketing class.

This ad is a perfect example of why it’s better for people who run businesses to use their own money to push their agenda. If they show me, the customer, that they’ll use my money to support something I abhor, I’ll take my money elsewhere. Welcome to the real world, Audible.

Believe it or not, he’s walking on air

I knew I’d need Patrick, Protector of Sanity within the Office of Ridiculousness and Incompetence&#153 to deal with an issue of ridiculousness and incompetence, but I didn’t expect it to be so soon. Yesterday, he had to swoop into action to protect me from screaming at another contractor, an individual who expected me to do his team’s job, then complained when I wouldn’t. I could never defend that behavior, but I especially despise it because he went directly to my boss without saying anything to me. For the second time in three weeks. Knowing that his intervention was necessary, Patrick, Protector of Sanity within the Office of Ridiculousness and Incompetence&#153 jumped into action and saved the day.

Again, when I mention Patrick, Protector of Sanity within the Office of Ridiculousness and Incompetence&#153, I can only ask… Ain’t he cool?

If only my car could fly…

Over the last few days, I’ve been having major issues with bad drivers in DC. On Saturday I drove around for an hour looking for a parking space, with zero luck. (It was ok because I was listening to the Hokies, until it wasn’t ok because the radio went out on when Wake Forest had 4th-and-3 from the 5 yard line with less than 10 seconds to go in the game. Tech won, but still.) Not only could I not find a parking space, but I encountered every idiot driver and walking tourist possible. No, it’s not acceptable to drive around me because I’m stopped at a red light. No, it’s not acceptable to walk into traffic when I have a green light.

On Sunday, as Danielle and I returned from Ikea and Whole Foods, I had the joy of merging on to the Beltway, which isn’t as hard as most DC drivers think, as evidenced by my simple demonstration. (Exhibit A: The friendly man on Sunday morning who gave me the finger because I didn’t slam on my brakes as he sped up while trying to merge into my car. I forgot the old lesson that he who is not already in traffic has the right-of-way. Ass.) After getting on the Beltway, I immediately began dodging random junk falling from the pickup truck two cars in front of me. The driver felt it sufficient to throw over-flowing open boxes into his truck and shun any sort of tarp. At 65 miles per hour, what could go wrong, right? Objects I ran over included swimming goggles, cardboard boxes, a lunchbox, and a happy meal. I switched lanes before the inevitable dead fish smashed my windshield.

And then, Monday happened. As annoying as working on government holidays is, I get a reprieve from the Worst Mass Transit System in the Universe&#153 because the highway HOV restrictions are lifted. Driving into the city on a holiday is 25 minutes of Howard Stern-induced bliss instead of 60 minutes of commuter hell. Yesterday, as I drove through the one way street next to my office building looking for a parking spot, I noticed the only other car in front of me stop. Beyond comprehension, the the tail lights lit up and the car started driving in reverse, coming straight at me. As the car got nearer, I stopped my car and honked my horn to remind the driver that I was trying to share the road. When the car didn’t stop hurtling towards me, I shoved my hand into my steering wheel to blare the horn into one continuous note. The car drove in reverse, parallel to my car, with 4 inches of space separating my car from acquiring a blue paint job on the driver’s side to counter the original metallic green paint. What inspires someone to do this just to get a parking space half-a-block behind? But the day wasn’t over.

Leaving the parking garage after work yesterday, I pulled out of the garage and turned right onto the one way street. As a reminder, a one way street means I can only go one way, so I turn right because it’s the only way I can turn, even though going left would get me home faster. After driving about 3 car lengths, an 18-wheeler pulls out of its loading dock as the driver looks directly at me and the empty road behind me. Rather than wait for an extra 3 seconds to let me drive by, he pulled out and proceeded to execute a 27 point turn, including a two minute delay in which the security guard gave me the stop sign (even though I wasn’t moving) and the truck driver left the truck and went inside the building. With the truck blocking the street. Blocking that one way street that I was driving on, in which the only way out was under the truck of over the wall. People are stupid.

To every driver I encountered over the weekend: a little common sense would be nice. Until then, I will now request IQ tests be required of all applicants at the DMV.

That’s enough singing for now, lads… looks like there’s dirty work afoot.

Just when I hoped our elected leaders Representatives could focus on something important, I found this article in The Washington Times. Since many Republicans in Congress seem to forget that we’re in an international war with guns and bullets and bombs, we’re also in a culture war with words and breasts and weddings. Trying to perpetuate the Federal Marriage Amendment, the House of Representatives is voting on the FMA today.

The Republican leadership wants us to ignore this logic:

“This amendment has zero chance of passage,” said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat. “Even if it did, it wouldn’t pass in the Senate. It is another waste of time while the budget is not attended to … the highway bill is not attended to, the energy bill is not attended to.”

And focus on this instead:

“For too long, Congress has stood idly by … and the time has come for Congress to reassert itself,” Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, said Tuesday. “It’s unfortunate that this step is being forced on us by the courts, but that is exactly what is happening. … The only way to protect marriage is with a constitutional amendment.”

“The time has come for Congress to reassert itself.” I know Rep. DeLay uses that as an indication that Congress needs to wrestle the Constitution (and the culture) from the Judiciary, but I also read the “daddy complex” that possesses the Bush Administration and the overall Republican leadership. The next new hit sitcom, probably airing on Fox News Infotainment, will be Congress Knows Best.

Of course, I don’t mean to paint everyone who supports the Republican Party as an evil person who hates anyone who falls into the “Not Like Me” category of “Those People”. There are rational conservatives who understand that conservative beliefs don’t require being a minion for the party line. Consider:

Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican facing a re-election challenge, plans to vote against the measure. He feels it unnecessary to amend the Constitution to protect marriage but says his district is closely divided on the issue.

“I don’t win votes either way on this issue,” he said. “I just find it hard to understand why we are doing this so late [in the year]. It seems so political to me, and so divisive.”

Also, consider this argument by California Republican Rep. Christopher Cox (it’s from an opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal):

“For Republicans, who believe in federalism, the [amendment] is an uncomfortable fit,” he wrote. “Republicans have not shied from even the unpopular exercise of federal power over the states when it has been warranted. … But when it is not warranted, neither should we succumb to the temptation to federalize what the states have handled well for centuries.”

That’s the most spot on argument against the FMA and what Congress is attempting right now. Believe whatever you want about same-sex marriage, but understand that a constitutional amendment is not the conservative response. Not only does the FMA seek to ingratiate discrimination into our most important document, it seeks to further extend the federal government’s power over Americans. We need to move on as a nation. There are legitimate issues facing us and this isn’t one of them.

My final thought on this (for now):

“This week the House will begin the process to protect marriage in America,” Mr. DeLay said. “The American people … need to know where their representatives stand.”

On your last point, Rep. DeLay, we’ve never been more in agreement. It’s a shame you won’t appreciate that I will cast my vote against my Representative if when he votes for the FMA.

Does he get food stamps, too?

From The Washington Post:

Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos acknowledged publicly today that he is willing to strike a deal with Major League Baseball to allow the Montreal Expos to move to Washington if certain conditions are met.

“Those conditions are the preservation of the franchise, the protection of the asset and the safety of the revenue stream,” Angelos said this morning. “If those ingredients are present, an agreement can be struck.”

How does he intend to accomplish this, we might ask. A logical question. Will it be through the incompetent iron fist with which he’s run the Orioles for more than a decade? What about protecting the asset? Wearing that Orioles uniform is enough, I guess, since Angelos doesn’t seem to bother with who is wearing that uniform. Will it be by signing Barry Bonds, as Orioles fans amusingly seem to propose every off-season? And the safety of the revenue stream? That sounds a lot like the crazy folks who believe the Federal Government can’t decrease taxes because then it won’t generate enough revenue to cover expenses. Operating a business isn’t only about the revenue side of the income statement. Incurring costs in a prudent manner also makes sense. I assume the Orioles are a business, which means that it’s not entitled to a minimum revenue stream from the residents of Washington (and Baltimore).

The solution is simple: put a good team on the field, with a good atmosphere and reward fan loyalty with a commitment to winning from ownership/management. What a concept… (Are you listening, Dan Snyder?)

That’s too easy a solution, of course. Consider the likely outcome:

Major League Baseball President Robert A. DuPuy is scheduled to meet with Angelos today to resume discussions on financial compensation for the Orioles. DuPuy and Angelos, who met for several hours on Friday, are expected to discuss a regional sports network that would televise both the Orioles and the Washington team’s games and be owned by both franchises. Under the proposed discussions, the Orioles would receive the greater share of revenue, according to baseball sources familiar with the proposed package.

Baseball also is believed to be proposing that it will guarantee the amount of annual revenue that the Orioles earn, as well as the team’s value, according to two sources familiar with the talks. Under the proposal, Major League Baseball would make up any shortfall if the Orioles’ annual revenue falls below an agreed upon threshold, according to sources.

There’s a term for this: greenmail. We don’t look fondly upon the corporate thieves who mastered the art in the 80’s, so why should Major League Baseball encourage it now? The worst part of this debacle is that it encourages Peter Angelos to continue his Napolean complex, feeling like he runs the most important franchise in the most important city and that fans should feel honored to have the privilege of rooting for the Orioles. (Are you listening, Dan Snyder? You have the first two, but you need some serious reflection on the privilege thing. Your equation is reversed.)

Those of us in the D.C. area know that we’re not Baltimore residents. We want and deserve our own team. (I liberally use the term “we” and “our” when I mean to imply that I want the Expos to move to D.C. so that the Phillies will play here 9 or 10 times every summer. But I’ll still go see the Expos Senators because Scott Rolen will come here, even though the right team traded him away like a moron ripping up the winning lottery ticket because it was only $35 million instead of $75 million. Not that I’m still bitter or anything foolish like that.)

Since this seems like an inevitability now, I’ll close with the obvious: for those of you who support one of the other 28 teams in Major League Baseball, enjoy paying your corporate welfare higher ticket prices because your team’s owner is about to bow down before a bully. It probably won’t matter to fans of the Evil Empire&#153 New York Yankees, but it might to the fans in Cincinnati and St. Louis, where baseball is more religion than business. I’m just saying…

I’m stuck in the sand; give me the wedge.

From The New York Times:

The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that “liberals” seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.

The mailings include images of the Bible labeled “banned” and of a gay marriage proposal labeled “allowed.” A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: “This will be Arkansas if you don’t vote.” A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.

Here’s the Republican National Party’s explanation:

In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.

“When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,” Ms. Iverson said. “These same activist judges also want to remove the words ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance.”

I definitely read the “We made a judgment error, we shouldn’t have sent that” in her statement. But, really, we all need to run for the hills and thank God that the Republicans are looking out for us. Consider Ake Green:

Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful.

Not possible here? Think again. We have experts in America who can offer definitive proof that we’re in grave danger:

But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, “We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech.”

Some people want polygamy to be acceptable in America but we’re not about to embrace that. The First Amendment he speaks so proudly of also holds the same rights for people who don’t go to church and who don’t believe that gay people are bad. Just a thought.

As for Mr. Land, he does offer this:

Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. “I wouldn’t say it,” he said. “I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far.”

Reassuring.

In this mailing, the Republican National Committee sends the “Compassionate Conservative” family value message that it’s ok to lie as long as it’s about “them liberals and queers and commies and faggots and activist judges”. And fear? Yep, that’s a good family value, too. We have to protect ourselves from them.

What outcry would we hear if Democrats mailed something like this? But President Bush didn’t send this, so he’s clean, right? Plausible deniability. Wait, let it have its effect, then denounce it by saying you had nothing to do with it and didn’t know about it and find it diabolical. Sorta like the anti-Kerry Swift Boat commercials, no? Pitiful.

I bet CIA was the information source indicating that liberals want to ban the Bible. No wonder the Republicans were so determined to believe it and act on it.

Pride for the low, low price of $0

Today’s news that Yahoo is buying MusicMatch is amuses me. I’d slowly begun moving away from MusicMatch because v8.2 and up is like the old Netscape browser. It’s bigger than it needs to be, including every possible feature a user might need, as though it’s supposed to be an operating system. So it’s as slow as a slug crawling through molasses. When the software isn’t locking up my PC. I might be willing to give Yahoo a chance to get the software into shape, but I still haven’t gotten the $5 back that they stole from me last September, so they can go fuck themselves. Hello, iTunes.

Not that I hold a grudge or anything childish like that…

Speaking of holding a grudge against the evil fascist empire that is Yahoo, I’ve switched my e-mail to Gmail, Google’s new free e-mail service that offers 1 GB of storage space. It’s not Yahoo, so it’s a winner. The ease of use within Gmail’s interface kicks Yahoo’s ass, so that’s a nice bonus.

Now for the shameless hucksterism… (is that a word, hucksterism?)

To get Gmail, you have to be invited. I got my invite a few months ago and now have 5 invites to give out. I don’t wish to imply that I’m special for having 5 invites. I’ll go all the way and say I’m unspecial because anyone with an account now has invites to give out and I STILL have 5 invites to give away. I’m so lame. So, anyone who wants a Gmail account, leave me a comment with your e-mail address included and I’ll invite you. (I’ll delete your e-mail address from my comments once I invite you, in case you don’t want it there.)

Those 5 invites are mocking me. Don’t make me extra lame by having to beg someone else. Please.

Be a donkey, not a jackass

Dear Senator Kerry:

Stop being a terrible candidate.

I know you want to defeat President Bush in November. I understand that you have a “base” to pander to in your speeches. I realize that it’s hard to sound different from President Bush on foreign policy issues. For the months leading up to the Democratic National Convention, you pretended as though you weren’t running for president. That makes some sense because the facts are out there and seem indefensible to me, but you should’ve spoken out sooner. Unfortunately, I now know why you haven’t spoken out earlier. You’re a bad candidate who doesn’t understand the concept of espousing one message and pounding it into the electorate.

Allow me to highlight your latest blunder, as reported in this USAToday.com story:

“George W. Bush’s wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction on Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home,” the presidential candidate said. “The cost of the president’s go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion and counting.”

Kerry said the “hard reality” is that Bush’s choices have led to “spreading violence, growing extremism, havens for terrorists that weren’t there before.”

“I call this course a catastrophic choice that has cost us $200 billion because we went it alone, and we’ve paid an even more unbearable price in young American lives.”

President Bush is a bad diplomat, a bad strategist, and a bad leader. Got it. Hammer that point over and over again. It’s that simple. But you can’t stop there. A little taste of “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty” theatrics and you’re ready to perform at will. Don’t do that because you keep putting your foot in your mouth. As evidence, I offer this:

“$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford after-school programs for our children; $200 billion in Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford health care for our veterans; $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford to keep the 100,000 police officers we put on the street,” Kerry said.

“He doesn’t believe that America can be strong in the world while we also make progress here at home. He believes we have to choose one or the other. That’s a false choice, and I reject it.”

That’s simple-minded. There is a large, complex, grey area in most issues of this significance. Just because President Bush pretends that the world operates like a black-and-white, wholesome 1950’s sitcom and, even then, usually only sees one of those two colors, you are free to analyze a little deeper. From your statement, you seem to imply that we can choose both with equal commitment. That’s old ideological Democratic nonsense. Lyndon Johnson tried it in the 1960’s and it failed miserably. You’ve referred to Iraq as a Vietnam-style quagmire, but do you really think you’ll be better able to manage a war and an expansive domestic agenda? President Johnson couldn’t do it. President Bush hasn’t been able to do it. How are you better?

The correct answer is “you’re not”. Fixing and finishing (finishing, not ending) President Bush’s foreign policy agenda is critical in the coming years. You deftly hit upon some of President Bush’s mistakes, but pretending like we can just walk away from those mistakes in the next four years is ludicrous. Neither you nor President Bush is approaching our foreign policy correctly. We are where we are. We need to understand that the war on terror isn’t going away. We need a coherent strategy for restoring order in Iraq. We need to demonstrate that the United States is willing to respect our diplomatic relationships and commitments. (I do not mean to imply that we mustn’t act alone if the situation calls for it, but we must eliminate our bully-mentality diplomacy.) We need to accept our mistakes, not as a sign of weakness, but as a sign that our leaders our human. We can’t adjust until we accept that there may be a better way.

America is a great nation. Whether you defeat President Bush or not will not change that. But to fix and improve what needs fixing and improving, you have to begin at the beginning. Make us certain that you know where the beginning is and that you grasp the magnitude of the task ahead. President Reagan used that strategy in 1980 and President Clinton used it in 1992. That focus inspires confidence in your potential. That confidence can make you a great candidate. With that, you might get to be president.

If that’s too much for you, at least stop being a bad candidate.

Thank you,
Tony