One thing we should toss out: Marie Arana’s rant April 20, 2009

This weekend, Marie Arana wrote an editorial for the Washington Post detailing how the Nobel Prize in Literature is decided by a bunch of anti-American meanies and we should get rid of it. I don’t have a problem, necessarily, with her thesis, but her reasoning is so shallow and strange that I had to draft a response:

Marie Arana’s derisive depiction of the Nobel Prize in Literature in the Post’s feature “10 Things We Should Toss” was such a thinly cloaked move towards inserting politics where there are none that I’m surprised you ran it. To read an argument that several of the Academy’s selections are out of touch with modern literature would be interesting; however, Arana’s editorial concludes that we should dismiss the Nobel Prize in Literature because a) the academy is snobby towards Americans and b) they have failed to recognize several great authors.

While compelling works such as Lolita stand out among their peers, they do not confer the sense of “idealism” the literature prize seeks to reward. The prize is awarded to those whose body of work, and specific work during the year of their award, conveys a sense of idealism– not excellence alone. Books are not rewarded solely for their literary merit; they’re rewarded for meeting Nobel criteria. These are not left-wing or right-wing beliefs. They don’t even register on the conventional American political spectrum. This editorial is the literary equivalent of demanding that a popular snack be re-named Freedom Fries.

Additionally, the Academy is under no mandate to be kind towards American attempts; take a look at the NYT bestsellers list and you will see little American proclivity towards literary fiction. Suggesting the elimination of a worldwide literary prize because an Academy member was snide towards Americans is the very type of provincial hubris that frustrates much of the rest of the world.

Selecting a few controversial choices for commentary and deigning the Prize irrelevant because of those choices is also disingenuous. I would say that I found it disappointing that Salman Rushdie was not recognized, but recognizing him would certainly be providing a reward to someone who meets the Nobel criteria and whose cause could be construed as “liberal”– so I have no doubt she is pleased about his exclusion. Marie Arana failed to mention whether J.M. Coetzee, Nadine Gordimer, or Toni Morrison fall within her 15 deserving laureates, but I would be shocked to hear otherwise. If Arana wishes to argue against the Nobel Prize again, I hope she will choose meaningful criteria for her critique, and will provide an example of a worldwide literary prize that does a better job.

…Thoughts?

Why GM has to fail (and the sooner the better) April 15, 2009

There are plenty of blogs out there with this headline, or something similar, tacked on top. Most of them commence with dissections of General Motors’ bloated budget, taking side bets on bankruptcy proceedings, or blasting the Americans who bought GM’s giant cars as the real scapegoats. GM is in the news a lot lately– after all, they just had the auto show in Detroit a few months ago, and there’s that pesky extended bailout keeping them in the headlines.

Despite all this media attention, I have yet to read these words: “Wow. These guys are completely out of touch with reality, and they have terrible ideas.” So let me illuminate for you what the geniuses over at General Motors are using your tax dollars for.

At the North American International Auto Show in January,General Motors had a sweet trick up the sleeve of their collective lab coat– a state-of-the-art solution to the drag caused by sideview mirrors. Those little glass discs mounted on your I-beams are costing you fuel and slowing you down! The solution? Replace them with tiny cameras, mounted on the sides of the vehicle. These cameras will transmit a real-time image of what’s going on behind your car straight to little screens on your dash.

In one stroke of design genius, Ed Welburn– GM’s VP of global design– has taken a feature that is difficult to break barring a physical accident, is more or less essential to safe vehicle operation, and (most importantly) works simply, and has actually spent time and money developing a replacement for said feature that is unreliable, potentially buggy, and unnecessarily complicated. And need I even point out that the screens, wiring, and hardware for this little gadget probably clock in over 100 lbs? Plus, it’ll require energy, generated from your gas-powered engine, to operate. I’d imagine that gain in fuel efficiency is negated by the added weight and energy drain of these little gems.

This is before I even ask: Seriously? This is the company that builds the H2, and this is their approach to improving fuel economy? Tiny cameras? You make cars that get 8 miles to the gallon and you want to talk about fuel economy? Really?

Let’s give them some credit though– GM is thinking outside the box. They’re “collaborating” and coming up with radical new solutions to existing problems! That’s what Toyota does– GM can come up with new ideas, too! Like the PUMA! (That’s Personal Urban Mobility & Accessibility unit to you.) Check it out: Partnering with the increasingly obsolete Segway company, they’ve figured out a way to build a small, two-wheeled gadget capable of carrying people and a few parcels around town! According to NPR, they’re hoping that municipalities will designate smaller lanes next to major roads just for these innovative little gadgets. Genius!

Portland, Oregon, I can see you rolling your eyes. It’s called a bicycle– you have them all over. Look, it’s a nice little idea in some ways. But once again, completely out of touch with reality. It looks like a less-functional, more-dangerous version of the SmartCar– and it would require municipalities to dramatically change how they manage traffic instead of working within the existing frame.

All this amounts to reinventing the wheel, over and over again, but making it square. It’s like trying to bail out a sinking cruise ship with a Dixie cup. General Motors, please go the way of the dinosaurs (except don’t, for the love of all that is sacred, do anything remotely linked to oil…). They’ve gotta go before they have another chance to think or build things.

Blog for choice 09 January 22, 2009

In honor of the 36th anniversary of  the Roe v. Wade decision, I’m blogging for choice. It is fundamental to remember that the right to choose is a hard-won and newly-defended right– despite the explosive scientific and medical advances of the 1950′s and 1960′s, religious doctrine guided by the hand of sexual oppression still determined abortion policy in much of the United States in 1973. Not the decisions of women and their doctors, but the doctrines of religions despite the clear delineation of church and state outlined in our Constitution.

The enforcement of that separation, combined with the right to privacy outlined in the 14th Amendment, provide women with the right to choose abortion without approval from government, husbands, boyfriends, parents, rapists, judges, or police.

It’s become clear in the subsequent years that the overwhelming majority of women do not view abortion as a method of birth control (a favorite argument of the religious right), but rather as a last resort. Despite the assertion that women use abortion as birth control, the same religious right fails to see that women must be provided with quality education about and access to viable methods of birth control– the only realistic way to reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.

The right to abortion must be protected and defended on a federal level. The states’ rights argument is a shield that would allow individual states to violate a woman’s constitutional rights. Abortion should be safe and legal, and ideally, rare. Rare because it’s a choice nobody likes to make, and that isn’t taken lightly; rare because good reproductive planning should decrease the amount of surgical and chemical abortions necessary. But not rare because the government intervenes and tells women what to do with their wombs.

Here’s a fascinating video on another blog for choice: How to stump anti-choicers

How have they never thought about the answer to this question?

And below, from the DNC’s 2008 party platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Defend and protect your rights, and report any organization that tries to intimidate or tread on your right to choose by reporting them to your local NARAL/Pro Choice America chapter.

Yo DJ, that’s my DJ January 7, 2009

Some say the best club DJ is the one who plays songs you’ve never heard but instantly love, or the one who perfectly blends tracks. I disagree. We all know the best DJ is the one who plays your request when you slyly sidle up to the booth and wittily shout, “HEY! Do you have The Roots/Sweet Caroline/David Allen Coe?”

This DJ is the best because when s/he plays your jam, you are the coolest person in the club– the music master is taking advice from you. You are also smugly responsible for everyone’s good time. Awareness of this supremacy usually leads to the busting out of your finest dance moves and shouting, “yo DJ! That’s my DJ! Thanks dude!” after the first verse. For a few minutes, you are Tony Manero.

While I am far too familiar with the elation that accompanies hearing a requested song, I’m not a DJ. I’ve always suspected that they meet Saturday night song requests with equal amounts of derision and resignation (“Really? Don’t Stop Believin’ again?”). I think DJs probably prefer the patron who approaches the booth and says, “that’s an awesome track. Do you have anything else like it?” and lets the DJ do their thing.

Jason is one of those awesome patrons. He read my blog on Christopher Hitchens’ antireligion argument and asked, “How seriously can/should we take the arguments of someone with an evidenced record of poor reasoning and inappropriate public statements?” So I pondered and pondered, and decided that the works of such individuals should be analyzed while we do the following:

1) accept that a broken clock is right twice a day. (Unless it’s digital.)
2) use our own logical reasoning and assessment skills to determine whether their argument commits logical fallacies or goes too far in selectively employing facts in order to prove its point; in other words, does this argument hold water, or is it complete BS?

These rules keep me reading the blather of George Will and Karl Rove every week, despite that I disagree with damn near every word that comes out of their mouths. Will’s arguments are often rooted in conservative philosophies, and are a little more palatable than Rove’s blatant mischaracterization of facts in an attempt to remain relevant. But I read ‘em both, to stay informed and also because… sometimes they’re insightful.

Will’s pet tactic is to use an analysis of a historical event (war strategies, Supreme Court decisions, presidencies) to support his position (usually the antiliberal one). By choosing carefully, Will can argue for the conservative stance; here, he uses the rising cost of healthcare to argue that socialized medicine would be a disaster. His statistics are fine, but his final assessment is flawed. Because Medicare has gotten it wrong, he declares that government can’t get healthcare right. Even though I disagree with Will on this subject, he’s sometimes on-point– like when he said that governments shouldn’t throw their clandestine operatives under the bus a la Valerie Plame. Right twice a day.

Karl Rove is a different breed. While his definition of “fact” wouldn’t get past a third-grade history teacher, he’s a shrewd political mind. He authored the Bush 43 talking points and can deliver them hook, line, and sinker, plus he got Bush 43 elected… twice. His inexplicable stream of op-eds in respected publications always push the neo-conservative agenda, but he’s also able to assess the entire political playing field in real time. He’s like Tom Brady– he can change the whole game by spinning it his way. Therefore, although Rove lives in a fantasy world where Bush 43 is a misunderstood genius, he had a keen eye for the 2008 elections (saying that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be able to overtake the charisma juggernaut that is Barack Obama), and was able to see plainly what cost the RNC so many seats in 2006. Rove is an evil, evil man who has no problem lying to the American people and to the President he serves, but he’s also got a sharp eye.

So, even though Hitchens supported the Iraq war, he also supported Danish newspapers as they faced a firestorm for publishing Muhammad cartoons. I can get behind that. And even though his book “God is Not Great” is sometimes hysterical, and is in certain chapters a disjointed excuse for him to rail against organized religion, he is right that “Religion Poisons Everything.” Additionally, since Hitchens is one of these George Will types instead of the Karl Rove type– that is to say, he uses rational arguments to assert occasionally questionable positions, instead of using blatantly false and misleading information to get money or power– I am willing to hear him out.

I figure that if we can’t engage those with whom we disagree and find some common point, they will run off to a cabin in Montana and mix up 55-gallon drums of explosives. Or, you know, vote Bush/Cheney. To go back to the broken clock, Bush 43 is currently attempting to slide some protections for the oceans under Dick Cheney’s nose– which means I may have to repeal my longstanding statement that I cannot find a single Bush action or doctrine with which I agree. If no one is right 100% of the time, I guess no one can be wrong 100% of the time, either.

Now I’d like to make your ears bleed a little bit by displaying the only sensible thing Ann Coulter has ever said: “Harriet Miers isn’t qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on The West Wing, let alone to be a real one.” Now that is one busted clock who managed to get something right in her miserable life.

This is for my bitches November 6, 2008

This is for everyone who said we couldn’t rock the youth vote…

This is a referendum on the poor choices that 51% of the electorate made in 2004…

It’s a real mandate for change, instead of a Supreme Court-delivered sham victory grotesquely twisted to allow a group of diabolical men to wreak havoc on the United States under the guise of a “mandate from the voters”…

It’s my generation standing up and saying, We’ve done this your way for 40 years. It’s not working. It’s our turn.

This is about realizing that it’s Christian to stop worldwide hunger, pollution, rape, and needless death at least as much as it is to blindly prohibit abortion.

This is me saying I didn’t just vote Obama for selfish reasons — I did it for my mom, and for my grandmother, because I believe he is the right choice for young and for old, for Americans.

It’s my answer to four years of asking, America, do we misunderstand each other so fatally?

This is me having my Michelle Obama “proud” moment. Not just feeling patriotic about living in a country where civil liberties most people only dream of are guaranteed; the pride that must have been felt by greater generations when they realized their achievements were more than the sum of their parts.

This is about the right to belief being contingent upon upholding the Constitution that protects it.

This is the first day of the end of Republican anti-intellectualism. This is the rejection of Karl Rove’s tactics. This is the moment when attitudes of individuals around the nation will start to shift as they learn that the quality of a person’s mind is more nuanced than the color of his skin.

This is not going to fix everything, but it’s a start.

Let’s talk about guns for a minute. June 26, 2008

The Supreme Court’s first-ever ruling on the Second Amendment– a sharp 5-4 split striking down the Washington, D.C. ban on handguns that’s been in effect since I was a child– touched off a lively discourse between myself and my significant other about politics, guns, and the law. It also revives the “bitter-guns-religion” comment the RNC seeks to use against Obama every day between now and the general election.

So let’s talk about it for a minute. Let’s talk about why the handgun ban was (and remains) entirely appropriate, why Bittergate is founded on a comment that, linguistically, makes a whole lot of sense, and why the positions I hold don’t run counter to my belief that law-abiding deer-hunting, target-practicing, crime-avoiding citizens in all 50 states have a protected right to own firearms. (AND I support the Brady ban.)

First of all, the argument for gun ownership that’s predicated on the immediate availability of a citizens’ militia is a joke. It would take a catastrophe we can’t even imagine for United States citizens to get off their sofas, load up their guns, organize, and take on an enemy. Prime example: on 9/11, I didn’t see all the gun owners protecting the Pentagon or encircling the gates to airports cracking down on passengers and sniping potential terrorists. The U.S. military & government handled that. Besides, wars aren’t fought by troop formations in militias anymore. The closest thing I can foresee to minutemen enforcing the law of the land is a solo vigilante enforcing his own brand of justice across the land. We call those “mass shootings.” The closest thing I can see to Americans protecting their way of life from a meddling or misguided government? Waco. So don’t tell me that gun ownership is some form of national security. It isn’t. That’s why we have a military and defense budget that are beyond compare.

Next up: The handgun debate. I grew up an hour outside of Washington, D.C. and I remember (even after the handgun ban was in effect) being keenly aware that Southeast was a good place to go if you wanted to get clipped by a stray bullet. Now, I know what you’re going to say: Handguns legally purchased by law-abiding citizens aren’t the issue in gun crime. And you’re right. They’re probably not. But the D.C. handgun ban is an important tool for law enforcement agencies. If they spot pistols on petty criminals who can’t be charged with much else, there is a law on the books that allows prosecution of those individuals, instead of letting them drive up the rate of gun violence. Banning handguns in the District gives law enforcement reason to believe that anyone who would willfully break that ban and carry a gun is probably not going to use it for shooting Pepsi cans.

The handgun ban doesn’t necessarily stop handguns from getting into the hands of would-be criminals. But it does create a scarcity of handgun dealers within the District. If handguns are outlawed, you can bet fewer stores will stock the clips and magazines for 9- and 8mm guns or .357s. The ban does make it just a little bit harder to commit a gun crime… and when one is committed, it makes the punishment a little harsher.

So some do-good lawyers are up in arms about this (no pun intended, but I’m keeping it). It’s a total violation of civil rights. Right? Is it really, or is it a wedge issue that the right wing can dramatize to keep their coffers full of donations during a campaign cycle? If the self-professed small-government types were that concerned about civil rights, they’d take up the issue of tweezers and shampoo in a carry-on bag long before they’d take up handguns in D.C., don’t you think? Oh but wait. That’s no longer a civil rights issue, it’s a national security issue?

Washington D.C. is unique from all the other states in the union. It’s not a state, and it’s not a city belonging to the State of Maryland or the Commonwealth of Virginia. It’s an independent federal district governed by Congress. D.C. is the international representative of the United States across the world, home to our embassies, our agencies, and our entire judicial, representative, and executive system. There are all kinds of bizarre laws that apply to the District and its residents– diplomatic immunity, an absolutely zero-tolerance DWI policy (if you get pulled over after one beer, it’s off to the chokey), can’t build higher than the top of the Capitol. You can’t even carry a pocketknife there. Why? Because it’s the nation’s capitol. And it’s different.

If banning handguns in the District of Columbia is part of a program to dramatically reduce overall crime (which it did) and make D.C. that much closer to a model city, I don’t see the problem. Owners of rifles, shotguns, and anything else that could be construed as a recreational firearm are welcome to own them in D.C. But handguns don’t make law-abiding citizens that much safer– in fact, in situations where the victim pulls a handgun on their attacker, they’re more likely to have the weapon turned against them than they are to debilitate the attacker. If you’re really that worried about it, get some damn mace!

Now, onto Bittergate. Let’s parse this sentence, and I’ll explain to you why Barry would have defended it if the average American newsviewer didn’t have the attention span of a hamster. About the former Southern Democrats, the Blue-Collar Blue Staters who have gone red, Barack Obama said the following:

“So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government” … In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it.”

And the kicker:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Please tell me what is wrong with that statement? Because I understood it the first time I read the transcript. And this is not me parsing words, this is just me paraphrasing what I hear in that statement:

“People in working-class areas feel frustrated with their government because, 25 years after manufacturing jobs have packed up and left town, it feels like their government’s economic policy has forgotten them. They don’t feel like trusting government solutions anymore because they have been burned. This economic mistrust has translated into a broader general mistrust of the United States government. Since the broader economic worry isn’t something that’s easily divided or articulated, these voters focus on easy explanations and arguments about illegal immigrants stealing jobs, or whether the government is interfering with their right to own guns, because they are easier positions to debate and defend. Since the government isn’t listening to them about the economy, they speak up about more divisive, hot-button issues in order to express their frustration.”

Now are you seriously going to tell me that isn’t totally true?

In conclusion. President Obama isn’t going to take away your .386 deer rifle, and he’s not making fun of your religion. He might try and put some windmills on your Appalachian mountains in place of the mountaintop coal removal that’s decimating the landscape, but he’s not going to destroy your way of life. You don’t need a pistol in the District of Columbia and you don’t need a damn M-16A2 to shoot opossums.

News snacks June 24, 2008

It’s pollinator week… (toast the bees)

Also, James Dobson is not only dumb, but also confused, and should take the route of Jerry Falwell… Dobson’s inability to apply logic to theology probably explains his evangelical persusions…

Charlie Black says what we all agree is probably true, even though it defies logic that terrorism incidents on Republican watch somehow encourage Republican rule…

And finally (can’t find an article for this)… the UN condemns the ridiculous election interference in Zimbabwe. So we can relegate it to the pile of other things the UN strongly verbally condemns… Genocide… etc…

Loving right now… June 19, 2008

OK. So, every time I log into WordPress lately, I type out some diatribe against Joe Lieberman, the Republican party, American corporations who build land mine parts, or ethanol.

And you, dear readers, paying $4 for gas and most likely counting the weeks until 43 & co. are out of office… I just don’t think you feel like hearing more of that. So without further ado, let’s talk about a list of random stuff I’m into right now that you should consider, too. I’ll try to make it a regular thing.

First stop: Monday’s show at the Black Cat rocked. The band was Firewater, and they’re self-described as gypsy punk jammers. Unfortunately, that immediately brings Gogol Bordello to mind, and they happen to be much less obnoxious and much more groovy than that. Think tribal drums, a gleefully unchained lead singer, and a freestyling trombone/French horn player. Their MySpace is here.

Next up is the Palace of Wonders (also in Washington, DC. I know…) If you could find a bar out of a Tarrantino set that didn’t actually make the final cut, this would be it. The bar is the kind of total don’t-give-a-f, 70s jukebox deep cuts and sweating bottled beers joint you see in movies but don’t think actually exists. The boundless cool of indie-burlesque tattoo girls combine with a kitschy antique sideshow collection in this venue, which hosts different acts every night of the week. Last time, we saw a babealicious bellydancer swallow two-foot swords, spit fire, and dance with a seven-foot python. Her equally badass husband escaped from a suspended straitjacket, and their performance was interspersed with a guy who shoved acupuncture needles the whole way through his arm and walked on broken wine bottles.

In other news, the ultimate babymaking song has arrived. For a while, Dmitri was all about Sensual Seduction by Snoop Dogg (sorry, but that’s weak compared to my O’Jays and Teddy Pendergrass playlist)… but it appears there’s a tiebreaker. Al Green & John Legend have recorded a song. Together. Wait for it… it’s called “Stay with Me.” I don’t know how this slipped under my radar, but it is literally just a babymakin’ jam. It’s as if someone mixed “Lifted” and “Let’s Get Married” into one sweet, sweet jam. Sexy jam ’08. Last summer I was about waking up to “Mary Jane” by Rick James (don’t laugh) and a little “Crush” by Daaaave. But you just can’t step to the Reverend.

Last thing I’m into that you have to try because I’m such a trendsetter: cucumber sandwiches. Open-faced, on toast a bit of whipped cream cheese and a sprinkling of fresh dill. It is delicious, and now it’s in my keyboard. I hope the tastiness makes it into the blog post here. Peel the cukes a little bit (make them stripey) before you slice ‘em.

Right now, Mike Meyers is on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. We’re not worthy!! We’re not worthy!!

Check out this lazy-eyed slag May 8, 2008

Hillary Clinton’s most unattractive supporter is playing dirty with Nancy Pelosi. In yet another desperate last-ditch attempt to garner the nomination for Clinton, one of her key supporters– and a major donor to the Democratic party– is threatening to stop contributing to the 2008 Congressional campaigns of Democrats unless he gets his way. He’s told Nancy Pelosi to finance revotes in Florida and Michigan.

I’d just like to point out what blatant arm-twisting this is. Last time I checked, a contributor threatening to withdraw their fundraising support unless they get their way was called SPECIAL INTERESTS. So, now the tables are turned– Hill’s got the special interests doing her bidding?

In other news, this guy is responsible for some amazing movies. It’s a shame that, despite his wealth and relative influence, he hasn’t been able to alter his underground-mole-with-a-goiter appearance. I guarantee you that, when Weinstein made that threat to Pelosi, she put his tiny balls in a jar like Lucy Liu when she decapitates that guy in Kill Bill. Nobody messes with Pelosi.

False Media: We don’t need it, do we? April 22, 2008

Look– I know we live in the land of the 24-hour news network. It’s in their best interest to present ongoing conflict, because dramatic cliffhangers and endless parsing of statements and phrases are the things that keep analysts’ heads bobbling 24 hours a day. That’s why we have a “neck and neck race” for the Democratic nomination. That’s why, at every electoral contest, it’s a pitched battle between Obama and Clinton, and why Clinton’s ability to draw traditional blue-collar Democrats is somehow regarded as a qualification for office instead of a residual benefit of her husband’s presidency.

But this is not a neck-and-neck race. Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, the popular vote, states won, and funds raised. Even after the superdelegates are accounted for– and Barry O has 234 to HRC’s 258– he’s still ahead. Given that Clinton faces Obama’s statistically insurmountable lead, her surrogates give a spun string of reasons as to why she must remain in the election. The voters should all get to speak, for example. Well, so far they’ve nominated Obama, so I’m okay with that. But the talking point I really enjoy is that a Clinton victory in Pennsylvania proves she can win a traditional Democratic constituency that is pivotal to a general election. When you break this down, it’s that she is the preferred Democrat among the working-class constituency. Preferred Democrat. It’s completely disingenuous to imply that any Democrat wouldn’t take these traditionally party-line voters, which leads to the Obama counter-argument that his campaign attracts non-traditional voters. Swing votes; those are essential to winning a national election. Independents, disillusioned Republicans, the youth vote, and the disenfranchised minorities will be among those electing Obama. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that, because the Pennsylvania Democrats are pretty evenly split between the two candidates, they won’t vote for whomever is the nominee in November. Ridiculous.

I don’t wonder why the Clinton campaign insists on saying this race is neck-and-neck. She wants that presidency, and is willing to stick out the race as long as there is a glimmer of hope. What I do find fault with is the media’s indulgence of that campaign’s hope. Statistically, it’s impossible for her to win the popular vote. She’s pitting hope against hope that the superdelegates coronate her, and while I have a little legitimate fear about this, I simply can’t believe the convention will swing that way if Obama shows up with a higher popular vote count than Clinton.

What I do wonder is why the national media coverage of this race has been so irresponsible. The divisiveness we blame on our government, our President, could be better pinned on CNN and Fox News. Every word and phrase that comes out of these two candidates’ mouths is dissected beyond belief, scrutinized for any potential controversial topic, and clip-tested for soundbytes. Furthermore, the spin of these candidates is regurgitated and reported as fact– when a Clinton surrogate comes on the news and says she still has a chance, anchors tell us she still has a chance, too.

This uncritical presentation of word vomit from our politicians is endemic in the national media. The same shoddy journalistic standards allowed the Bush administration to use news networks as propaganda channels in the leadup to the war in Iraq, with the Situation Room and Sunday talk shows reporting only the latest wartime talking points instead of performing due diligence, and now those same pundits insist that the Democratic nomination hangs in the balance at every turn just so they have something to talk about.

Our national media is sorely lacking in critical thought and analysis. Analysis isn’t parsing a candidate’s daily behavior for a sensational story; it’s looking for patterns and systemic traits beyond the nebulous “momentum” factor that is randomly attributed to the media darling of the day. It’s doing the math and seeing the statistical impossibility of Clinton catching up to Obama. It’s taking a critical stance against the DNC and finding out why they don’t impose more stringent regulations on their superdelegates, and why those superdelegates don’t all voluntarily pledge to follow the will of the American voters. It’s asking better questions than “do you believe in the American flag” during a candidates’ debate.

Honestly, I couldn’t care less whether Obama crossed Tony Rezko on the street one day or that HRC went fishing outside Scranton when she was seven years old. None of that is what I want– I want substance, questions that can’t be evaded. And you wonder why I listen to NPR and read Mother Jones. At least they investigate these topics with a little more depth.