On Naps, [Bleeping] Swear Words, and Overreacting
Automakers' Whining is California's Reason to Celebrate
January 7, 2003
You know you're long past due for a rant when the last one you did addressed a blurb in a newspaper that no longer exists. That's right: the New Times LA has gone under, because of financing or too many pitchforks, I don't know.
There's so much to cover in 1.5 years. Where to start? 9-11 has been covered incessantly. Who needs to speak an opinion when we have talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX telling the world how we feel?
All I can really say is that 9-11 was a shared tragedy, and the Bushies took it and used it to wedge us into camps. The True American Camp if you support his policies; the Demon Minion of Osama and the Evil Ones Camp if you don't.
I may be able to write about my perceptions of 9-11 someday. For now, I'll rant about that which I rant best: politics.
The Holders of Power in the Democratic Party don't get it. It's not that liberals don't want to listen to other liberals on TV or the radio; it's that we don't want to listen to Phil Donahue. Regardless of the years Phil was out of television, he will never be a "fresh face" or an "outsider." Same goes for a lot of the "liberal" commentators. I would, however, listen to Michael Moore. He may not be as much of an Average Joe as he claims, but his views are populist in nature and he won't apologize for them. I would also listen to Al Franken. Hell, I'd even listen to James Carville. Carville is no outsider, but he believes whole-heartedly in the ideals of the Democratic Party and isn't afraid to defend them. That's what we need -- more guilt-free ass-kickers!
Still, since it seems en vogue to dump all over the Democratic Party these days, I'll go out on a limb and say that it really isn't too bad off. The Dems do control nearly half of the governorships, the statehouses, the Senate, and even the House. The only reason the party is everyone's butt monkey is that it posted "lower than expected gains" in the midterm elections. When large companies suffer the same fate, the stock market goes plunging, so is it any wonder people treat the party like it went from 30 dollars a share to 10 cents? The Dems do have some problems that need to be fixed, but y'know what? So do the Republicans. The Media were so convinced that Republicans were becoming the progressive, cool, tastes great, less filling party that they ignored little things like, oh, that they were still catering to racist bigots in the South. The Republican Party may have once been far more progressive on race issues than the Dems, but that changed quite a bit over the past 40 years, when instead of accepting integration as a fact and helping shape a policy, several racist Dems switched to the Republican party on the promise that they would be loved unconditionally. Many of those newly-minted Republicans still run the party, by the way.
But the Dems do have problems that need to be addressed. The first is that they need to reconnect with their base. Like it or not, the liberals will always be a part of the Democratic Party, and only another major realignment will change that. Ignoring them while groping after the elusive "swing voters" is akin to TV ad execs who ignore the stable Baby Boomer viewership in favor of petty teen males on the supposition that if they can be won over, they will be loyal for life. It is a fool's errand. Swing voters will only be loyal until someone else has their bread-and-butter issue, and then poof! The liberals, on the other hand, are fierce loyalists who have internalized the party's message, or at least see it as consistent with their own values. They will be the ones most passionate about carrying the message out to the population. It says something about the soul of the Democratic Party when so many liberals voted for Nader in 2000. That should have been the wake-up call that something was wrong; instead, the Dems let themselves get bitch-slapped in 2002. Frankly I'm almost glad the Dems posted below expectations, because now they are trying to reconnect with their base. They don't need to cater to them -- a country run completely on liberal values could be almost as bad off as one run by conservatives -- but they sure as hell shouldn't forget them. I'm completely with the people who have had enough of the "Republicratic" party leaders.
The second problem Democrats have is that they lack star power. Except I'm not so sure they do. Remember how everyone was cheering John Edwards and Harold Ford Jr. as The Next Big Thing a short while ago? Not to mention Hillary? They've got a lot of talented people, but no good way for them to showcase themselves. The Clintonian Moderate era in which Ford's talents were most prized has passed, and it remains to be seen whether he can adjust.
Furthermore, stars are often made, not grown. It was the Republicans' fortune to be in power in New York City and Washington when 9-11 struck. That made Dubya "I've Only Got Three Ideas and Two Start with Cutting Taxes" Bush look stern and authoritative, and spurred the Media to gush how much he'd "grown" into office, like he was some poor boy from a dusty Texas town who by luck and pluck made his way into the presidential seat instead of the son of a man who spent twelve years as vice-president and president and learned tricks of the trade that no true outsider and most insiders could never have known and undoubtedly used much of Dad's clout and resources to finance his presidential bid even as he appeared to repudiate his wealthy, privileged upbringing. Since then, everyone Dubya touched has turned to gold. Meanwhile the Democrats, still reeling from Al Gore's win/loss and divided between Old-Style Democrats and Republicrats, could not and still cannot mount an effective counter-attack. They might have been more successful if not for 9-11 and Bush's seizure of an issue that on the surface no one can disagree with -- that we need more security against terrorist threats. Yet even if 9-11 had never happened, I suspect the Dems would not have had as easy a time offing Bush and his Spin Doctoring Machine as expected.
Still, what looks golden now could look tarnished tomorrow. All the keepers of the Tax Cutting/Abortion Outlawing/Gun Toting/Religion Indoctrinating flame could find themselves in trouble if Bush stumbles in any major way. If the war with Iraq does not go quickly and suffers major casualties, or if the economy keeps sinking, or if Bush suffers any major embarrassments. The Republican Party looked air-tight before Trent Lott made his racist comments at former (?) racist Strom Thurmond's birthday party, and now articles point out the troubles with the Republican Southern strategy and the fissures within the Senate ranks. Trent Lott hasn't resigned his seat, and in spite of his public comments, is probably still bitter.
I'm a believer in What Goes Around, Comes Around. If someone engages in suspect behavior long enough, it will come back and bite them in the ass. Bill Clinton could point to the years of balanced budgets and economic vigor as his presidential legacy, yet other people (friend and foe) will remember his years of womanizing. Clinton was also adept at stealing the center and weakening Republican arguments, but what worked for him was not sound party policy in the long-run, so now the Democrats are suffering. Trent Lott tried to act as though he were no longer racist, but the last in a string of comments was his undoing. Now George W. Bush may be good at talking folksy and looking "reg'lar," but he can't play down his corporate, undemocratic, rich boy roots forever. Either during his presidency or after, they will come back to haunt him and his party.
The third problem facing the Democrats is that they have had too much success. On this Peggy Noonan and I can actually agree. Social Security is not just a fact, but a right. Civil Right legislation has been passed. Unions have been formed. Women are working. People from "minority" groups go to college and become doctors and lawyers. So at least on the surface, all of the things that got the Democrats' blood pumping way back when have been dealt with. What to do when your ideals seem to be in line with the Establishment? The conservatives therefore can come in with their New! Fresh! Anti-Establishment! ideas that are in fact quite the opposite, packaged in such a way that no one could object without seeming woefully out-of-touch. Cut Government Bureaucracy! More Money for the People! Keep Families Secure! Self-Determination! The Democrats, in response, should put a fresh, innovative spin on their core ideas, like Tolerance and Helping the Poor Become Self-Sufficient.
The truth is, while the Democrats may have satisfied their themes, they have not achieved their goals. Now they are down to the nitty-gritty reality of policy. Policy isn't as fun as theme because it's often dull, falls short of its aims, and can't be fair to everyone. Some of the policies that have been backed by Democrats, like Social Security and certain affirmative action programs, do deserve a going over -- but a thorough going-over, with much discussion, not some lukewarm nod at "fair hearing" while trying to ram through legislation that would dismantle it. The Republicans, meanwhile, have yet to fully implement policies dear to their heart, like school vouchers and school prayer and a "fair" tax system. Therefore they can still point to theory and the few successful models out there and shade it all with the theme umbrella of Helping People Help Themselves. However, if the Republicans pushed through this "progressive" agenda, and much of their throw-back items like outlawing abortions and removing environmental protections, would they have problems? Hell yeah! Back when abortions were illegal, women still had them, and they will continue to have them no matter what. Even committing drug war-style raids won't stop them. As for vouchers, starving public schools would still exist even if a nationwide voucher program existed. The Republicans might dream of putting all child education into the hands of Coca Cola, but truth is, all kids would still require an education, and any system set up would have to take into account the differences in the rates of child learning. There would be problems no matter what, and more than a few would become nostalgic for the "old" system. Religion in schools might not be so noticeable in the more moderate-liberal states, but it sure might make the pious Muslim or Buddhist child feel miserable in a Bible Belt state. And the "fair," which equals the flat, tax system would be skewed toward the rich no matter what. Besides, didn't they try that whole fair taxes, cut government spending under Reagan and fail miserably?
My deepest darkest fear is that the conservative Republican voices won't hush until they've pushed through everything under their big umbrella theme. Which is to say, they might not achieve all of their goals in fact, but they'll have achieved the greater cultural shift. Women Belong With Their Families (instead of working or not having a family at all), Good Christian Values, Love It or Leave It, Father Knows Best, Factories! Not Forests, Capitalism! Not Socialism (the definition of the latter including almost any form of social safety net). Looking at this list, I realize that large chunks of the country already feel this way to a degree, and always have; it's just a fear that I, a thoughtful liberal Democrat who believes in individual responsibility but understands how social circumstances can screw you, could be treated as unreasonable, even dangerous, for what I believe. We can say that our democratic society will always have room for all views, but having absorbed a lot of history texts over the years, I know that we can't afford to take these freedoms for granted.
My sister and I once had a discussion, after "Bowling for Columbine," about how much of the problems in the world really effect us, the Wilds. We aren't poor. Neither of us is likely to need an abortion. A change in the tax system might actually benefit our parents. What would really change in our lives if the conservatives changed everything else, other than perceptions, which aren't real? I thought about it a while, before realizing that perceptions may not be tangible, but they mean a great deal. Perceptions decide whether we'll go outside, buy that stock, talk to that new person. Even now that the conservatives have just taken control of government, I can feel a sort of tightening. Perceptions are nothing, and yet everything.
So if I seem to take a very passionate interest in politics, that is the main reason. Perhaps I'll grow up and "grow out of it," perhaps not. Until then, snap back into shape, Democrats! Your country needs an opposition party!
Time for the Where Are They Now? File: Sad to think that some Americans might need foreigners to hate in order to keep from turning on our own. Whatever happened to the school shootings and all of those militias that popped up over the last decade? With school shootings, the answer may be clearer: Columbine was the bloodening to end all bloodenings. It shocked everyone into realizing what they were doing and what they needed to fix. Plus schools clamped down on security in a major way. But what about the militia movement? Did it just sort of fade, or are they just so happy to have foreigners to blame for everything that's wrong in their lives, they can look past the failings of the US government? I can't imagine that they think the government clamp-downs are "cool" now when they weren't a few years ago. I would prefer to think that the movement just lost its bite in the middle of the last decade.
June 3, 2001
Recently settled into my new digs in LA, I went out to dinner with a friend, Danny Bronstein, whom I'd met through Daria fanfiction writing. Right after, we went to a screening of films from students at his school, Cal State Northridge. Well actually, right after dinner, we were pounced upon by a woman and a man who asked us rapid-fire questions about how we liked the food and would we come back, blah, blah, blah. I said the food (pizza) could have been better. Coming from a place of fine dining, it was no better than if it'd been delivered in a Dominoes box. The woman then told us the place we had eaten at -- Vitellos -- was the restaurant where actor Robert Blake (whom I'd honestly never heard of until recently) ate when his wife got murdered in a nearby car. Well color me surprised: I hadn't paid enough attention to the story to hear the actual name of the restaurant, and the whole area was so tranquil and residential, it seemed an unlikely setting for crime. The woman gave me her business card, which convinced me that she was a real reporter (or a very good con artist), and said to look for her article in a week or two.
Well... I didn't watch out for the article that would appear in a paper that I'd never read. But I did mention it to some friends. And they mentioned a few days ago that they'd read it and, um, it wasn't exactly kind to me, Danny, and the other respondants. So I investigated.
I'd expected to find a dumb puff piece entitled "Food Still Good at Vitellos in Spite of Murder!" and instead found a dumb, mean-spirited puff piece. You may recognize the kind: they take your responses and twist 'em around so you sound as stupid as possible while the reporter sneers at you in words. Recognizing almost none of my answers, I fumed over the degredation of journalistic standards that had taken place. Plus, they misspelled my name! Damn them!
Actually, on second reading of the article, I thought it was more amusing. Or rather I would if it were about people I'd never heard of. ; > In any case, I decided two could play at this game. I wrote a little response, which I'm loathe to send because I'm worried the reporter might print it with a response to the response, designed to make me and Danny look even more pathetic. But there's nothing wrong with printing it here...
So some blonde chick who looked like she'd had her tits done and her pet photographer accost my friend and me as we're coming out of the restaurant. She shoves her tape recorder in our faces and starts pounding out questions like a jackhammer.
--What's your name?
Kara Wild. [A good reporter would then ask me to spell it.]
--What do you do?
[So much for that assumption. Better not tell her anything that resembles truth.]
I'm an ex-student.
--Where do you live?
[Lie.] North Hollywood.
--What did you have to eat?
[Jesus, will you fucking slow down for 10 seconds?]
Pizza.
--What did it cost?
About $14-15
--That's ridiculous!
[Actually it's pretty standard price for a pizza that size. But if you want to think that, okay.]
--Was it any good?
Would you like some? [You look as though you haven't eaten for months.]
--No, that's okay.
[Then quit wasting our time.]
--Did you know this is where Robert Blake's wife got murdered?
Oh, really? [Finally something interesting to talk about.]
--So we're interviewing patrons to learn what they thought of the food.
["The real reporters were busy chasing the story. They didn't want us to get in the way."]
Fascinating.
--Do you want your picture taken?
Okay. [If it will make you go away.]
--Say cheese!
[Please tell me that's a camera.]
--Great! Look for your words to appear in next week's issue.
[Great. They've got us on file, now.]
November 26, 2000
[Warning: These are the partisan predictions of a Democrat. Sensitive Republicans are advised to steer clear.]
1) George W. Bush will become the 43rd President of the United States. His term in office will be marked by gridlock, partisanship, and criticisms that he is either too lazy or too immature to do his job properly. However, because people's expectations of Bush from the get-go will have been so low, many will be pleased that he did not bring down the country or blow up the Middle East. As with the debates, they will therefore conclude that he did a "good" job, and feel he is worth electing to a second term.
2) The economy will falter, but not in time for the 2004 election.
3) Hillary Rodham Clinton will decide NOT to run for the presidency or vice-presidency in 2004... but not before seriously flirting with the idea, setting up expectations that she will definitely go for it in 2008.
4) Al Gore will run again in 2004. Bush will attempt to portray him as a boogey-man who wants to "divide" America the way he did back in 2000, conveniently overlooking his own role in extending the election. He will scare enough people into believing him and those people, wary of more partisanship, will give him the election in 2004.
5) The name "Lynne Cheney" will come to represent all that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" once did.
6) Jeb Bush will never be elected president. Why? Because the United States will be suffering from Bush fatigue by the time George II leaves office. While it has been acceptable for members of one family to hold legislative office at once, it hasn't been for more than two family members to weild executive powers. The idea of a succession between father-son-brother conjures up images of monarchy, and we Americans would like to believe that we are beyond that.
But what about the Kennedys? you ask. Well JFK was the only one who actually served as President. Robert might have gotten elected, but if so, it would have been as much because of his brother's murder as because of his own assets. And who knows whether he would have even run if Joe Sr. had also served a term. That isn't to say that Jeb Bush won't try to run for president, or his son George P., but somewhere along the way, Americans will decide we have had enough of the Bush family running our country.
November 2, 2000
We've heard a great deal about the apathetic non-voter. Well I'd like to address the apathetic voter: nearly as much of a cancer to democracy as the non-voter. The destructive effects are more insideous, though, in that at least on the surface, the voter is "doing his/her part as a U.S. citizen." Yet how well are you serving democracy if you barely understand the issues or the candidates whom you'll be voting for?
According to the punditry (although how much do you want to believe those guys?), the election will be decided by such voters in the swing states. They know nothing about politics, supposedly, until about two weeks before the election. Two weeks: plenty of time to get a handle on the complex issues that not only affect the individual, but the other inhabitants of this country! The rest of us -- those of the party bases -- will be good little drones and vote along party lines.
Now, when condemning the apathetic voter, I should point out that this is a blanket condemnation. Voting along party lines can smack just as much of apathy, particularly if you're voting because your family has been affiliated with a party and you've never known it any other way. C'mon, that's a cop-out and you know it. But at least many voters are party-line voters because they have a core group of issues that are dear to their hearts, and they know that the candidates running for office will honor them in some way. That suggests that they are in touch with issues greater than what's in their pocketbooks. At the same time, party-liners can't afford to be complacent and expect that their candidate will always stick with the party line; in both parties, there's plenty of evidence of movement away from the hardcore group.
Anyway, party-liner or undecided, here are some reasons that the apathetic voter uses to justify voting for a candidate. Therefore, they are my:
Reasons NOT to vote for a candidate:
1) He seems like someone you could have a beer with.
Sorry, but that will never, ever happen, unless you're being used as one of the President's lackeys to illustrate a point on television that he is in touch with the "real" people. As opposed to the holograms, I suppose. The Prez will never have a beer with you, never visit your town except maybe if there's a disaster, will never read your letter, and will never pay heed to your petty concerns unless they somehow serve his greater interest. Cynical-sounding? Yes. The president doesn't care about individuals beyond his inner circle; he's thinking about the people as a whole, for better or for worse. But just the same, don't expect to be on a first name basis with this guy.
2) He seems real.
Do you know how much acting it takes to come across as real to a mass audience? Why do you think Ronald Reagan held such mass appeal? But the bottom line is this: the President spends maybe a fraction of his day addressing the American public; the rest of the time he's haggling with Congress, haggling with interest groups, and holding meetings on policy or foreign affairs. And that doesn't include all the time he spends fundraising. What matters more is how well he can perform those tasks, not on whether you feel comfortable. And what is more: just because he seems like he would have empathy for your concerns doesn't mean he would. What matters are the concrete results of his actions, not his demeanor.
3) Oprah likes him.
Oprah likes John Gray (Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus). If that doesn't say enough, then how 'bout this: who cares what Oprah thinks? You don't know her, and she doesn't know you.
4) He did not make any dumb comments this week.
5) He did not blink too much.
6) He does not make me feel stupid because he knows more than me.
Okay, this one refers to Gore, though it could apply generally. The president deals with every nitty gritty aspect of our country -- he'd better know more than I do! And I want to know that he knows more than I do, because I certainly don't have exhaustive knowledge of all the issues.
7) I flipped a coin. It was heads.
8) My life's going pretty well and I don't really care who wins, so I'll just vote for who annoys me less.
Again, the President won't be buddying up to you with a beer. You'll very rarely see him, in fact. And chances are, irritation factor won't matter in the long run -- any candidate will annoy the crap out of you before the end of his term.
9) My family's always been with this party, so I will be, too [see above].
10) The ad on T.V. told me to.
The person who does vote for president for those reasons is contributing to the absolute trivialization of the election process. He or she is also showing a total lack of concern for his/her fellow citizens, saying in essence: "I know this president's decisions will effect the rest of you, but your problems aren't mine, so who cares?" If that is to be the voter's attitude, then I say it's just as well he/she not vote.
Now on the other hand, an informed voter -- one who reads the newspapers and the voter guides, who spends more than ten seconds pondering each candidate's merits -- is honoring democracy no matter what. That's why I can't get upset with many Naderites, even though I'm a Gore supporter. They see a guy who shares their vision of a world that is less corrupt, and they want to support him, even in the face of pressure from the two big parties. While I would question their assumptions that Gore and Bush are interchangeable, or that a Bush victory would "bring about the revolution," I can't help but admire their enthusiasm. They care about the issues that affect this country a lot more than a great many voters, and they could very well help reenergize the American elective process. If only.
But in any case, all I can do is urge whomever is reading this, and is an American of voting age, to resist falling into the apathetic voter category. It's too late for this election, but for the next one, in two years:
1) Start reading and pay attention early.
Campaigning for each election has started earlier and earlier. Paying attention early will help you catch the candidates' numerous waffles and changes of direction, so that if one claims to be consistent, you'll be ready to answer with a snicker. Then you can decide which candidate has made fewer, or less severe, waffles and omissions.
2) Never, EVER listen to campaign ads.
They always distort and omit, even the positive ones.
3) When looking at a candidate's record on the issues, be sure to look at the context surrounding that record.
Candidates will try to take credit for things they had little to do with. Or, especially if they were once legislators, they will be tainted by votes they cast in order to pass an important piece of legislation. For instance, a Congressperson may have had to suck it in while voting for a major environmental bill that had a rider allowing for more dam building, because he/she knew there wouldn't be another opportunity to pass another such bill. So pay attention to the circumstances: they may make a candidate look better or worse than he/she really is.
4) Pay attention to their campaign contributors.
5) Urge a friend to do all of the above.
Does that sound like a lot of work? Well sure it's a lot of work -- democracy is work. And the sooner we all realize that, the better off we'll be.
Automakers' Whining is California's Reason to Celebrate
September 10, 2000
Finally some success! Score one for people who don't want the environment "run over" by progress.
The California Air Resources Board has not relaxed the mandate that 10% of all cars on the road be nonpoluting by 2003. Oh yes, the automakers whined... oh how they whined. They protested that there was no way they could possibly produce enough electrical vehicles in such a short amount of time (never mind that the mandate was pushed back from 1998) and people had no interest in buying them anyway. Wrong. Supporters of nonpoluting cars proved that there was a long waiting list of people who would buy the car if it were available; problem is, automakers weren't making them more widely available.
Automakers also complained that each electrical car costs an additional $20,000 to produce and that they take much longer to power up than a traditional car. Therefore, they are far too incovenient for a society that wants things cheap and easy.
To which I say: every new technology has its inconveniences. And practically every new technology starts off as a luxury item that only the wealthy can afford. Look at cars: available since the 1890's, but not widely distributed until the 1920's and '30's. Or more recently, look at cellular phones. My supervisor at a recent job for a cell phone company pointed out that during the mid-90's, a cell phone cost $175, with each phone minute costing seventy-five cents. At that price, only the affluent on-the-go could afford to keep them, and they suffered for it through whopping bills that surpassed that of their wall phone. But now, a superior cell phone costs $125 with countless free minutes. Needless to say, many more people carry them, and their constant, annoying ringing sound is proof.
Some would argue that cars and cell phones were improvements over the technology that was already there, whereas electrical cars would be just a pesky alternative to good technology. While it's true that car technology is good, it is also true that they run on borrowed time. Oil won't last forever, especially at the rate we guzzle it. And why should we tear up the wilderness reserves in order to suck up every last drop for that joyride along a country road? There's also the small matter of smog and pollution; if given a choice, I think most people would chose a vehicle that wouldn't make the air dirtier.
Electrical cars are not without their faults. At this point in time, they only run at 70 miles per hour max, and the inconvenience of recharging them would probably put some people off. But as with all new technology, it can improve with time, if given half a chance. So how 'bout it, automakers? Quit whining and get cracking.
On Naps, [Bleeping] Swear Words, and Overreacting
September 9, 2000
Now understand that I am not a fan of George W. Bush. However, I am irritated by a couple of the recent accusations made against him.
The first is "Swear Word Gate" (hell, since the media seem so fond of tacking -Gate after every scandal or would-be scandal, I figured I'd beat them to it). In case you didn't know, Bush called a reporter a "major-league asshole" only moments after declaring to a crowd that "We need a plain-spoken American in the White House." The microphone caught it, Bush refused to take it back, and now people are making him eat mud for it. Columnist Maureen Dowd declared that Bush's use of the word "major-league" just proved he was ever the overgrown fratboy. Consequently, she never explained how. Others have suggested this incident just proves Bush lacks the civility or maturity to occupy the White House. One letter to the San Francisco Chronicle stated: "We know what George W. Bush means by [wanting to set] a new "tone," as he just called a reporter an ugly word, a vulgar euphamism for a rectal aperture. Once again, Bush reminds the voters he's just a rich Republican, overaged, overrated fraternity boy."
While I, a sworn Democrat, am tempted to take part in the revels over Bush's snafu, I also think that it would be... well, just plain stupid. I mean, are we to believe that Bush is the first politician ever to cuss out a reporter? That Gore has never done it? Or that a genteel politician, by definition, should never, ever swear? Perhaps in a perfect world, where trees are made of cotton candy and animals prance around singing songs. But this is the real world, where people sometimes use swear words to describe the people they don't like, and Bush's worst mistake was that he allowed it to get picked up by a microphone. I think we, the opposition, should just let it go.
There are plenty of real, substantial things to criticize George W. Bush for. You could start by citing his poor record on health care in Texas, then work your way through his brief experience in elected office (and as governor of a state that traditionally grants its governors little power), his lack of interest in the details of policy-making, his economic plan where the numbers don't quite add up, and top it off with questions about Bush's anti-abortion position and what it could mean if he selected a candidate for the Supreme Court.
Criticizing Bush for meaningless infractions like swearing amounts to us claiming that we've been punched when all Bush did was tap our shoulder. If we pounce on every little mistake Bush makes, we risk trivializing the very real concerns we have about him. Plus, it just seems damned childish. It reminds me of the incident where Dan Quayle spelled potato with an "e" during a school spelling bee. Opponents of Bush and Quayle teased him mercilessly for the mistake, pointing to it as yet another example of Quayle's lack of intelligence. While I won't argue that Quayle is a light-weight politician, does misspelling "potato" prove that he is, unequivocally, a dunderhead?? How many people have misspelled words in our lifetime, raise your hand. Opponents should have stuck to more relevant examples of Quayle's stupidity and left the prancing and the "Nya-nya!"ing in the school yard.
In conclusion, in order to be taken seriously, we the opponents of George W. and his ilk should take the high road and stick to citing the real concerns about this guy, about the kinds of decisions he could make that would affect all of us. Fortunately the Gore campaign seems to be doing just that by not saying anything, other than that as a contender, Bush has to "watch what he says."
That leads me to another rant, concerning criticisms of Bush's nap taking. I've read columns in newspapers and magazines that suggest taking naps means 1) Bush would not work very hard if he became president, and 2) he is not in touch with the American working stiff. Well both of those concerns could be valid, but why assume that taking naps has anything to do with them?
Naps are an important means of regaining energy that will last you the rest of the day. Scientists have determined that human beings experience a "sleepy" period around 2-5 pm each day, where the body temperature cools and the senses lose their sharpness. Studies show that during this time of day, accidents due to human error increase sharply. Therefore, it is important that people take the time to doze if they need to.
But alas, nap taking is stigmatized in our 24/7, always-on-the-go, productivity-mad society. It's a sign that you're lazy, or that mentally, you're still in kindergarten. Nap takers don't want to work hard because if they did want to work hard, they'd be working. Because of this logic, most people are still chained to work schedules that span 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, with precious little time to oneself between 8 and 5 (and I can honestly say that an hour for lunch does not stretch as far as you'd think). Some companies are changing to allow "flex" time for employees, but the changes aren't coming nearly fast enough.
If the unthinkable happens and Bush does become President, his affinity for nap taking might (and I do mean might) have a positive effect on American society. He could inadvertently say, "Come on, you guys. We're bursting at the seams with prosperity; learn to relax. There's more to life than making money." Whether Bush actually could deliver this kind of message has less to do with his taking naps than with what sort of person he is. And whether people stuck in jobs on the lowest rung would benefit is another issue.
But still: as with the case of Bush swearing, I say if you want to prove the guy is incompetent, find meatier examples. Leave nap taking alone!