Only the Sacred Whiffle Duel can save our country now

The time for the Florida, Republican Primary has finally arrived. I wonder if Gingrich will again promise to build us a colony on the moon (more on that later). Actually, I suspect that the big issue tonight will be housing. Florida residents have suffered massive foreclosures, and I’m not just speaking about former homeowners. Many renters of apartments—especially in Sarasota—received less than five-day’s notice that the banks had foreclosed on their landlords, and that they, the renters, needed to take a hike. Perhaps you’ve heard the story of an entire apartment community put on the street two days before Christmas.

Another talking point we can anticipate in the upcoming debate is the question of: Which candidate can defeat President Obama come November 6^th? Each presidential hopeful wants to convince republican voters that he, and he alone, can overthrow Obama. Republican voters have little love for Obama. At one of Gingrich’s recent speeches, his supporters took up the chant: “Send Obama back to Kenya.” Lovely people.

Setting aside the subjects of housing and Obama, Gingrich has spotted another talking point. In Orlando, NASA recently lost government funding. That means that people like me are competing with rocket scientist for low-paying jobs none of us want (or will likely get). At this point, if American astronauts wish to repair their own satellites already in orbit, they will have to hitch a ride with the Russians. John Fitzgerald Kennedy ought to turn in his grave.

So Newt Gingrich has promised to fund a space station on the moon, one he says will become the fifty-first state in our union and provide “tourism.” This is not just ridiculous, acid-trip crazy. It’s also presumptuous, egotistical crazy, as Gingrich has promises to complete this space station by the end of his second term.

Personally, I believe Gingrich knows how idiotic this sounds, and I can’t imagine him following through with the promise even if he could. However, just by making the claim, he can convince many Florida residences that he will breathe fresh life into NASA and our country’s space program. A little hope can go a long way.

Let’s talk Santorum (the presidential “contender”) shall we? Has anyone seen any ads by this guy lately? I live here in Florida, and, so far, I haven’t heard a peep in weeks. Now, it could turn out that he’s peppering the airwaves, and I’ve just missed him at every turn. I have a theory, though. You see, while anyone with the slightest mathematical talents can see that Santorum hasn’t a prayer of winning the primary—much less the election—his lingering in the race is (if polls are to be believed) taking votes away from Gingrich. Is it possible—and I can’t stress enough here that I am speculating—that Romney is giving Santorum an under-the-table incentive to stay in a race he can’t win (and no longer even seems interested in)?

At this point, I’m sick with bipartisan politics. I’m sick of elections. There seems little alternative, though. Right? Well, hang onto your hats, folks. I present the following proposal. I call it My Super Awesome Fix Everything Plan. Here’s how it works. In DC, we build a giant “Circle of Death.” Stay with me here. We then arm all the presidential candidates with Whiffle Bats. Finally, we raise the gates and have the candidates perform the Sacred Whiffle Duel.

You can’t look me in the eye and tell me that this makes any less sense than the system we already have in place.

Speeches

Congratulations to President Obama for an excellent speech last night—though my ears did prick when he mentioned the subject of copyright infringement. I hope that isn’t an indication that he plans to support SOPA or any bill resembling it.

When watching President Obama’s speeches, I love most to observe Vice President, Joe Biden and Speaker of the House, John Boehner. Biden always looks as if he’s about to fall asleep. Boehner always appears on the verge of tears.

Biased as I am, I cannot imagine such compassionate speeches coming from presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich, who strikes me as about as warm as a dead penguin and as empathetic as Simpson’s character, Montgomery Burns.

Gingrich does show a lot of compassion for his own feelings, though. He has called out both a moderator and his rival, Romney at separate debates for attacking him. Never mind the fact that he hasn’t an issue with running his own attack ads or the fact that the moderator who offended him had only alluded to some fair points. The moderator had questioned Gingrich on his alleged demands of an “open marriage” with his second wife. While this might strike someone as a nonissue, it isn’t, because Gingrich claims to fight for “traditional marriage,” which, really would be a man purchasing another man’s daughter to cook, clean, and bear children while she hold little to no say regarding the issue, but I digress. It also seems noteworthy that Gingrich hadn’t a moral dilemma investigating Former President, Bill Clinton’s lack of marital fidelity.

On the note of Gingrich’s supposed request of an open marriage, my pity for his second wife, Marianne Gingrich, remains limited. Marianna had an affair with Newt while his first wife, Jackie, had cancer. Had Marianna any right being struck surprised when her new hubby cheated on her right when she developed health issues of her own?

Returning to the issue of speeches, I can’t imagine Romney giving an emotionally charged speech any more than I could Gingrich. Less so, in fact. Romney speaks the way Daniel Defoe writes. Have you ever read Robinson Crusoe? It reads to the tune of:

And so I considered the possibility of perhaps maybe confronting the cannibals, or not, that is to say, it seemed a definite possible possibility, if perhaps it turned out to be one, though I’m not saying that it was, but it could be, as I knew not what else to possibly do if and when I decided to consider the possibility of a confrontation, which, as of yet, I have not, though I might in the near future—all things depending upon countless variables that I had not yet considered but would once the moment decided to present itself for such a decision, assuming such a moment arrived, which it might or might not, I cannot say which, as I cannot see the future, but if I could, I suppose I would know, but seeing that I do not, I don’t, as far as I currently know at this time . . . .

            Seriously, Romney is one of the worst public speakers alive, and Robinson Crusoe is the most boring book ever written—and I’m including phone books in this comparison.

Our schools are in trouble . . . but a racist doughboy has an idea!

            There’s no denying that our schools are in trouble. While our federal government sees fit to spend ludicrous sums of tax dollars bombing other countries, and our state and federal governments spend an equally absurd total imprisoning their own civilians here at home, our state governments have slashed and re-slashed their budgets for public schools. This resulted in crowded classrooms, less-than-model lunch menus, fewer buses, fewer supplies, and fewer teachers. In fact, right here in Orlando, eight more public schools are shutting their doors forever. One of those schools was designed for students with disabilities.

Not that long ago, I thought I had landed a fulltime job as an English teacher. I had all the credentials needed (degree-wise, at least), and I had finished a lengthy set of internships. In the end, though, those same schools from which I expected job offers couldn’t manage to hang onto the teachers they already had.

To fight this ongoing, economic crisis, everyone from the county-level-on-up has had to think “outside the box.” One currently approved option is to sell ad space on school buses. While I can think of several ads that would send positive messages to the children riding those buses, I can’t help but picture colorful ads for candy bars, sugary cereals, and moronic television shows.

However, one doughboy has another plan.

Presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich wants to save the school systems by “hiring” its students to perform the tasks that the said system would otherwise pay lunch ladies (I mean, lunch people) and janitors to perform. While I fear for the cafeteria workers and janitors who would consequently face unemployment, I have to admit, this doesn’t strike me as the worst idea Newt ever belched from his angry, self-important fat folds. In my martial arts and Parkour classes, everyone stays after class to help put the gym back together and put away equipment. This builds a sense of unity. It also helps children understand responsibility. As always, though, there’s an expensive catch to Newt’s thinking.
            You see, Newt doesn’t want all children to stay after school and help clean or take turns serving food at the lunch line. He wants only the disadvantaged kids to perform these tasks. Newt’s found many creative ways to verbally dance around this plan, but it always boils down to the same thing. The poor kids will do the extra work, during school hours, while their wealthier (or at least “less poor”) classmates stay in class and learn. It’s a disgusting and dangerous notion.

I can only imagine how difficult it must prove, going to school wearing hand-me-down clothing and carrying around a tattered Goodwill backpack. I can only imagine the embarrassment that must accompany not even having the money for a “reduced price” meal during the lunch break. Now, on top of that, we’re going to ask these disadvantaged kids to mop up after their superior classmates? I think not.

Try to follow Newt’s logic here. 1) We want our children to receive a proper education so that they can perform, in their adulthood, tasks that will better themselves, our country, and our world. This seems an honorable enough goal. However, the trouble is: 2) Our schools are horribly underfunded (We might easily find the necessary funding if we would stop invading Middle Eastern countries. Newt, by the way, vibrates with enthusiasm for instigating a war with Iran—which could also spell a war with Syria). So Newt’s solution is to: 3) Save the schools money by taking students out of the classroom. That’s a little like selling your car for gas money, or like this: 1) My cat is hungry, but 2) I haven’t any cat food with which to feed him, so I: 3) Chop said cat into tiny, minced pieces, can those pieces, and call it cat food. Problem solved.

With African-Americans sharing a burdensome percentage of our nations “disadvantaged,” you can imagine where Newt’s plan will place their children—behind a mop or lunch line. Of course, this isn’t the first time Newt’s bigotry has reared its ugly head. As you may recall, Newt recently suggested that African-Americans should stop receiving food stamps and start earning paychecks. When moderator, Juan Williams challenged Newt at the Republican’s debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to see the offensiveness of his remark, Newt unapologetically refused, and received applause for not doing so.

I could point out that most recipients of food stamps are white, but I suppose that anyone could counter that point by mentioning that African-Americans only represent about thirteen percent of our nation’s population. However, I could further counter (and only slightly redirect my argument) by pointing out that the vast majority of recipients of food stamps in this country do earn a paycheck—a paycheck with which they otherwise could not feed their families.

Part of me assumes that Newt made this remark—one of Newt’s Newtest—only to remind voters that President Obama is, in Newt’s own words, “The greatest food-stamp President in history.” I find it interesting that a republican president helped create an international economy so fucked that the number of American citizens requiring food stamps skyrocketed—but then the Republican Party held it against Obama when he tried to place a Band-Aid over their mess. If Obama hadn’t done so, I’m certain that House Republicans and their presidential hopefuls would jump at the opportunity to say something to the tune of, “President Obama stood by and did nothing as record numbers of Americans went without food.” (Record numbers since the Great Depression, of course).

<sigh> The Bible-thumping Republicans don’t like it much when President Obama feeds the hungry. They don’t like it much when he heals the sick (socialism!). These Bible-thumpers would have called Jesus Christ a commie bastard and booed Him so loud He would never have gotten another word out edgewise. Just saying. . . .

Too little too late? Let's hope not.

                Have you ever dealt with a parent who refuses to treat their screaming, four-year-old brat as a child? These parents try to reason with their children, to “treat them like adults.” Of course, they ought to treat their children as children because the little bastards are children. The portions of their brains that handle negotiation and cooperative thinking haven’t yet even fully formed. These children scream in movie theaters, restaurants, Kwanzaa feasts probably, and anywhere else where I might dare attempt to read a copy of Newsweek in peace. While these brats scream, their parents try to bargain with these volcanic tykes. My point? Those screaming toddlers are the current Republican Party. Those parents trying pointlessly to treat them as adults? They all perform a spot-on impression of President Obama.

            Throughout his presidency, Obama has tried to treat his political opponents not as opponents, but as adults with viable—even if opposing—points of view. In a perfect world, this behavior would make him a role model. We do not live in such a world.

For years now, the Republicans have made it crystal clear that they will never cooperate with Obama. Their only goal is to prevent Obama from achieving anything so he will consequently lose his bid for reelection. They’re screaming four-year-olds, demanding that they get their way. Obama is the unrealistic parent, believing that he can achieve with them a mature compromise.

As much as it turns my stomach to say it, Obama is going to have to start swatting butts and suspending cookie privileges. “No Barney, until you finish fixing the national budget.”

            Obama’s desire to create a compliant environment could cost him, and it could cost many Americans. The American voters see him as the one “in charge.” The final authority figure. As George W. Bush put it, “The decider.” He’s not. He shouldn’t be.

In America, we have a balance of power. You may recall Checks and Balances from your high school government class. The president only represents one-third of that system. The other two hold him in check. Granted, his portion of power is heavy for a single person to possess, but he is not the final voice of say-so.

            The false impression that the president is the “decider” misleads voters to buy into the Republican game of Wreck Our Business and Blame it on Our Manager So One of Us Gets His Job. No business but the American government would ever reward such strategy.

Obama’s only chance of winning back his fans comes at the cost of treating adults as children, of acting as if he is the final authority.

            It pains me to admit it, but Obama dropped the ball when he first slid into office. He had a majority in the Legislative Branch. He should have used it. Only recently has he started to show some serious backbone and a willingness to push back when his political opponents bully him. His recent rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline is one example. The pipeline would have run oil from Hardisty, Canada to Houston, but the House gave Obama a deliberately insufficient amount of time to determine the pipeline’s environmental impact. If Obama approved the pipeline, House Republicans could say that Obama recklessly endangered the environment. If Obama rejected it (as he did), those same Republicans could say that Obama killed a bill that would have created thousands of jobs (as they did).

            Reports have surfaced that “Big Oil” threatened to support attack ads against Obama if he vetoed the bill—as if these people would have supported him otherwise. I’m proud to say that Obama stuck to his guns and refused to pass the bill. However, this close to the next presidential election, his actions may prove too little too late.

In the words of Tom Clancy (or Harrison Ford, I suppose): How dare YOU, Mister President?"

                First off, I want to take a moment to cast a quick apology. Back in May, I, irate with my roommate, the Bill, wrote an angry blog about him. Since then, he has fixed a few things in his life. So in the spirit of fairness, I would like to say that he is now a part-time student and that he plays his video games with the volume turned down to an acceptable level. Yes, he still doesn’t have a job. Yes, he still screams curses at his video games. No, he no longer plays those games sixteen hours a day, every day. He plays them eight hours a day, every day. He now also watches cartoons eight hours a day <sigh>.

Anyhoo, with that out of the way, I would like to move on to the main topic of this week’s blog (yes, I’m trying to do this weekly now. We’ll see how that works out. For any one of my whopping three followers who hasn’t tuned in recently, take this to mean that there might be an earlier blog or two that you’ve missed and perhaps you might consider backtracking a bit).

                So. President Obama. What the fuck, dude? Can we talk? I’ve heard your speeches both in person and on television. I shook your hand not that long ago. I am an active member of the Student Democrats at the University of Central Florida. I voted for you. However, I’m less than thrilled to hear that you ended 2011 by signing into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), also known as the Indefinite Detention Act. This bill’s second title is far more honest. This law strips away the rights of Due Process for anyone—American citizens included—if they are arrested as suspected terrorists.

                I can’t quite tell you, Mister President, which aspect bothers me more: The fact that several members of the American government (including John McCain, who was, himself, a prisoner of war) pushed for the passing of this law, or the fact that you, Mister President, admitted that you did not. Yes, you yourself admitted that this law stood unconstitutional, and yet you passed it “reluctantly.”

If George Walker Bush had done this, it would have filled me with rage. You did this, though, and it fills me with something far worse . . . disappointment.