Inauguration Day Is Finally Here

In case you haven't heard about it, today is inauguration day. The constitution says that the new President is to be sworn in by noon today. There are so many thoughts going through my head about the significance of this day. I thought I would just start writing a "stream of consciousness" type of a post, with my various thoughts, as if anyone cares. Some of this is gonna sound sappy, but whatever. It's a historic day:

• - I have not seen so much national pride on display on a single day since 9-11-01. Obviously, the nation came together on 9-11 as a reaction to several despicable acts of cowardly terrorism, but today is much different. Today, it's because there is a genuine feeling of hope and brotherhood. Despite the fact that the global economy is in the crapper, Barack Obama obviously has the ability to inspire hope in people. Just look at the above picture of the National Mall in Washington, DC. Amazing. There are supposedly about 2 million people gathered on the Mall to witness this historic event.



• - Even the most cynical among us must acknowledge that Obama has a unique ability to inspire people of all types. It's telling that there people traveling from foreign countries to attend the historic inauguration festivities.



• - I acknowledge that the hope that Obama has inspired could partially be due to a feeling of desperation - a need to cling to something new and positive. Nevertheless, if desperation can lead to positive action, then I'm all for it. If desperation can lead to making the right decision, then embrace that desperation. If desperation can make you proud to be an American, gimme some of that desperation. I'm tired of being thought of as a smug, arrogant country due to the public image of our smug, arrogant President and Vice President. I want America to be great again, and not because we can lob bombs at people - but because people aspire to something more. I want to be a peacemaker, not a war-maker.



• - During the election, and since the election, I have been considering why people would vote for a black man for President when they would not in the past. In addition to Obama's aforementioned ability to inspire, I think it's also partially due to the fact that he seems to be someone who is very different from past black candidates (of which there was only one of significance - Jesse Jackson). Jesse was from the older generation that was closely tied to the civil rights movement, and many people still associated him with that movement. Many older white people were still suspicious of that era of what they considered "black militants." Obama was born in 1961, so while he grew up during the sixties, he was not a participant in any of what suspicious white people might call militant activities.



• - I can't remember what bands played at Bush's inaugural celebrations, but I'm guessing that the bands that are playing for Obama's inaugural parties are much better: Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Usher, U2, James Taylor, Beyonce, will.i.am, etc.



• - We have finally broken from the pattern of electing an endless stream of old white guys to be president, despite the fact our country is one of the most multi-cultural and diverse in the world. What took us so long? It just took the right candidate. In fact, you could argue that Obama is the true picture of America. He's multi-ethnic (white mother, black father). He was raised by a divorced mother (around 50% of marriages end in divorce, according to some experts). He's admitted to using drugs in his younger years (like most of us, and unlike the last two Presidents, who danced around the subject).



• - Does anyone else think it's curious how Israel and the Palestinians took the opportunity to escalate the situation in Gaza during the time after the election, but before the inauguration? They knew that they could pretty much do whatever they wanted during Bush's "lame duck" time. Not that he would have necessarily done anything anyway, but it just seemed like a fortuitous bit of timing. And now Israel has said that they will be out of Gaza by the time Obama is inaugurated. Hmmm.



• - Despite the fawning coverage by the news media, not everyone is happy about the results of the election. Some of the quotes in that article are startling to me. Here's one that is particularly disturbing:
  
  "I don't want the federal government to give away our individual rights. I don't want them to take over our business. I don't want them to take over our religion."
  
  Are you kidding me? They are worried about the government giving away our individual rights after what Bush did with the Patriot Act? And this person somehow has gotten it into his head that the government will "take over our religion," despite the fact that Obama has never expressed any desire to do so, and the fact that the constitution expressly forbids it? You know - the First Amendment. Stuff like this just baffles me. I get the feeling that they're just worried about their guns.

• - For the first time in a long time, I feel obligated to capitalize the word "President." Take that for what it's worth.

So there you have it. My thoughts. Leave yours in the comments it you choose. Or you can grumble to yourself about what an idiot I am, or nod your head in agreement. Either way, in the immortal words of Grace Slick at Woodstock:

It's a New Dawn...

Michigan Football and the 2008 Election

I got to ponderin' this morning, and I came up with an infallible and irrefutable theory. I decided that your opinion on the fortunes of Michigan football probably mirrors your opinions on the upcoming presidential election. Here is how I see it:

1. The Future is Bright
This is the group of Michigan fans that, despite their struggles so far this year, believes that the Rich Rodriguez hiring was the right one and the program will flourish under the new coach. Essentially, these are the hopeful optimists who are confident that the spread offense is the offense that will take us into the next great era of Michigan football. These people have observed how the game has changed, and how "three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust" just doesn't cut it anymore. The traditionalists think that these people are naive idiots, and that we are being led down a path to ultimate destruction - as if not making a bowl game one year is some sort of apocalyptic event.

This group consists mainly of Obama supporters. Supporters of Obama are more prone to embrace change, and are tired of the "same-old same-old" of tired Bush policies that McCain offers. But the supporters of Obama don't just want change for change's sake. They truly believe that Obama is a leader who can take us thru the current turbulent economic times and rid ourselves of the Iraq war anchor that is hanging around our neck. Traditionalists think that these people are naive idiots and that Obama is all flash and no substance, and that he's a Muslim pinko terrorist sympathizer - as if talking to world leaders we don't agree with is some sort of traitorous betrayal to freedom loving patriots everywhere.

2. Oh My God, What Have We Done
This is the group of Michigan fans that wanted Michigan to hire a coach with a more "traditional" offensive philosophy; i.e., more like Lloyd and Bo. This group would probably include the guys who already have started the Fire Rich Rodriguez website. There is panic in the air. These guys want to dump Rodriguez now and think that we can still get Les Miles, despite the fact that he already had a chance to come here if he really wanted to, and chose not to. These are also probably the people who are floating the rumor that Rich Rod is talking to Clemson about their head coaching position. They point to all the perceived mistakes and shortcomings of the coach - he can't recruit like Lloyd, he talks to the media more than Lloyd, his offensive system has failed to adapt to the existing talent, etc. They think that Kirk Ferentz is a "maverick." The people from group (1) above think that these people are stodgy old out-of-touch buzzkills, and that hiring a coach with a more "Lloyd-like" offense would have been a huge mistake.

This group consists mainly of McCain supporters who are reluctant to embrace change and feel that the war is a good idea and is totally justified in the age of global terrorism. These people believe that leaving Iraq before being able to declare some sort of "victory" is tantamount to surrender. These people are also convinced that in these troubled and turbulent economic times, they want a president who won't do anything different than the previous administration. Change is something these people can't handle. They think that John McCain is a "maverick." The people from group (1) above think that McCain is a stodgy old out-of-touch rich man, and that electing someone who would perpetuate Bush's failed policies would be a huge mistake.

3. Oh My God, This is Horrible - But I'm Hopeful...
This is the group of Michigan fans that is taking the "wait-and-see" approach to the new coach. They can see how we needed to modernize the offense, bring the conditioning program into the 21st century, and get some new blood in the program. On the other hand, they are also leery of outsiders, and wonder why we couldn't have hired a "Michigan man" instead of some guy from West Virginia. These people are straddling the line on RichRod, and are ready to jump to either side if something happens. Win over PSU this weekend - "I'm starting to warm up to this guy." Loss to Minnesota later in the year - "I'm not so sure about this coach." The people from groups (1) and (2) think these guys are mamby-pamby dispassionate non-fans who can't make up their minds.

This group consists of the "undecided" voters. I'm not sure what these people are waiting for. They can see both sides on every issue, and have some opinions in common with each candidate - "I like Obama's plan to get out of Iraq, but I'm pro-life." You've got 19 days left - make up your mind. They watch the debates trying to find something to cling to, and read all the spam e-mails that falsely claim that Obama is a Muslim and McCain has cancer and is about to die. The people from groups (1) and (2) think these people are mamby-pamby dispassionate boneheads who can't make up their minds.

So, there you have it. Where do you fall in the spectrum? If you're a Michigan fan, please weigh in. I'm a man of science. I want to attempt to prove or disprove my theory. From this post and previous posts, I'm sure you can guess into which group I fall...

Barack Obama and "Distortions"

Barack Obama distorted the bible? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't just about every single preacher do that? Religion is largely based on religions leaders interpreting ancient texts (the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran) and presenting them to people in such a way that they decide that your interpretation is the best one and the one that makes the most sense to each individual - and then those people give you money. Whether these interpretations are "distortions" or not is a judgement call. One man's distortion is another man's interpretation. Senator Obama read the bible and picked out a passage and mentioned it in a speech, including an interpretation of what he thinks it means. How is that different than Reverend John Doe picking out the same passage and using it in a sermon on Sunday, providing his own interpretation of the passage? Isn't the entire reason for different sects of religions (Islam - Suni and Shia; Christianity - Catholic, Protestant; Judaism - Hasidic, Reform) the differing interpretations of their religious texts? Even within religious sects like Protestants there are sub-sects like Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc.

I guess my point is this for this Dobson fella: calling out someone for "distorting" the Bible is really treading on shaky ground. If you are going to call out Senator Obama for distorting the Bible, you better start calling out every clergyman in the country for distortion as well. He just didn't like Obama's interpretation. To Senator Obama, perhaps Dobson's view is a "distortion." Pot, meet kettle.

I hate hypocrisy. I'm outraged at Dobson's outrage.

Scandal! Scandal!

Well, it's 2008, and Bill Clinton's past is coming back to haunt him again. The former President's sexual misdeeds are about to be capitalized on yet again by his "victims," Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers. Apparently, these two women are creating a website to describe in detail their encounters with Clinton. Let's begin with the assumption that perhaps Americans are hungry for more details of a former President's sex life. Fine. It's a stretch, but stay with me here. Gennifer Flowers may have an interesting story or two to tell, because she allegedly had an affair with Clinton for twelve years. There could be lots of interesting stories about deviant behavior, possible Clinton perversions, dressing up as Little Bo Peep, beastiality, whatever. But she already told her story in her memoir published in 1995. Are we to believe that she held some stuff out of the book, and only now is she willing to reveal new secrets? Paula Jones' claim is that a state trooper took her up to Bill's hotel room once, and he propositioned her. That's it. And she already told this story to a grand jury. You wanna pay $1.99 to hear Paula Jones retell a story of a single incident that's already in the public record? You wanna pay $1.99 to hear Gennifer Flowers retell a story from her book, which you can probably find for $0.99 in the bargain rack at the local thrift store? Be my guest.

Now, let's forget about my assumption that people still care about this. Talk about striking while the iron is ice-cold. What year is this again? If it was 1998, this might be a good idea. But it's not. I'm not about to claim that there are not suckers out there that are willing to spend money on stupid things (there undoubtedly are), but asking people to spend $1.99 to hear two women retell old stories does not seem like an idea that is destined to succeed. In fact, I would not be surprised if this website is gone in a couple months.

One word to describe this ill-concieved business venture: dumb. What, you have a better one? Put it in the comments then...

Politics and Sports

Strange Stuff In The News

John McCain says that the war in Iraq will be over by 2013. Wow, that's a relief. I was worried it might go on a long time. Just five years to go, people. If the war does indeed end in 2013, that will make it a ten year war - longer than the US involvement in WWI and WWII combined. Thanks for the reassurance, Johnny Mac. I'm definitely voting for you now.

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector says he wants a Senate inquiry into the New England Patriots notorious "spygate" controversy, mainly because both NFL teams in his state lost to the Pats during their playoff run on the way to their victory in Super Bowl 39. I think it's a wonderful idea, since there is nothing else worthwhile that our legislators need to spend time on. Other sports-related "controversies" that Spector should insist on investigating:

- The brown smudge on Kenny Rogers' hand during the 2006 playoffs
- Tom Brady's "Tuck Rule" fumble
- Danica Patrick running over a member of a rival's pit crew
- The BCS
- The Colorado vs. Missouri "5th down" game from 1990
- Michael Jordan pushing Bryon Russell out of the way before hitting game winning shot in 1998 NBA finals
- Matt Leinart's hot tub party
- Matt Millen's draft record

I demand hearings! Go get 'em, boy!

Any other shananigans Senator Spector needs to be made aware of?

Politics and Christianity

I suppose political posts might get more frequent as we get closer to the November election, but the latest ploy by the Democrats has me a bit perturbed.

Clinton, Obama put politics aside to discuss faith

It appears the the Democrats are trying to steal some of the Republicans supposed stronghold on Christian voters. Why does religion have to enter into the world of politics? Should it matter to voters whether or not candidates are Christian or Mormon or Hindu or Jewish or Muslim (well, strike that last one - for obvious reasons, there's no way a Muslim will get elected president any time soon)? If it does, then why? Personally, I don't want my president making important national security decisions based on religious faith. I want decisions based on facts, science, expert consensus, and what is best for the country. Religious or not, I don't want a President who goes off half-cocked with half-baked ideas about half-truths put forth by half-wits (remind you of anyone that's currently in office?). I want a President who makes fully informed decisions with the help of competent people who give him good information about real problems. I don't care what god or gods they pray to (or do not pray to). I'll take a sane atheist or pagan any day over a zealous Christian fundamentalist.

Anyway, it seems to me that the Democrats are needlessly pandering to people who think religion should enter into their thought process when they enter the voting booth. Obama and Clinton seem to be playing a game of "Who Loves Jesus More?" Maybe I'm naive about this, but I think the vast majority of people are able to set that aside when they vote for President. Just stick to the issues, and leave the Christian grandstanding to the Republicans. They're better at it anyway.

Let me hear it - do you make your Presidential choice based on religion?

*By the way, I certainly don't speak for all of the people associated with this blog. I expect to hear some dissenting opinion from those guys. We are politically and religiously diverse, and any disagreement you have with my opinion is purely with me, The Assman. I am the Assman, and I approved this message.

Celebrity Endorsements

With the tight democratic race leaving the nomination up for grabs even at this late date, celebrity/athlete endorsements could make the difference between winning and losing - despite the fact that anyone who looks to celebrities or athletes for guidance on anything, much less electing the leader of the free world, is like asking Elton John for tips on how to meet women. Anyway, here are some of the more notable (but not necessarily significant) celebrity/athlete endorsements for each remaining candidate:

Barack Obama
50 Cent
Originally endorsed Hillary, but has since switched to Obama. I'm sure Obama is pleased to have a former crack dealer on his side.

Leonard Nimoy
Spock says that Obama is the only logical choice.

Samuel L. Jackson
"You better vote for motherfuckin' Obama! He's one bad muthafucka!"

Mickey Hart, Phil Lesh, & Bob Weir
The boys actually held a "Deadheads for Obama" concert in San Francisco back in February. The tricky part will be getting stoners to remember to vote.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Roger Murdock also heartily endorses Obama.

Tons of Kennedys
The Kennedy's are hacked off about some comments Hillary made about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She praised LBJ, and did not mention JFK. Most of the Kennedys are endorsing Obama. Sounds kinda junior high-ish to me.

Jay Paterno
"Oh yeah, dad, well I'll show you! I'm supporting Obama! Oh, and can I borrow the car tonight? I promise I'll be back by midnight. Daaaad, I KNOW we have practice tomorrow."

Jeff Tweedy
He participated in a "Barack Obama - Change Rocks" event in Chicago in December.

Gross generalization: From the looks of this list, I'd say the typical Obama endorser is a current or former drug user, drug dealer, or alcoholic.

Hillary Clinton
Chevy Chase
Once attended a "key party" in the 70s with the Clintons. He got Hillary. Bill got Charo. The rest is history.

Bob Vila
He thinks that Hillary is more masculine than the other candidates.

Ann Coulter
Coulter considers Hillary more conservative than McCain. Interesting.

Martha Stewart
Unfortunately for Hillary, she may not be able to vote due to her felony conviction.

Magic Johnson
Hillary's tallest celebrity endorser. Also, his talk show lasted a full two months while Chevy Chase's talk show lasted only six weeks. Advantage - Magic.

Billie Jean King
It's quite a surprise that a significant lesbian has endorsed her.

Gross Generalization: From the looks of this list, I would say that the typical Clinton endorser is a current or former lesbian, or has had a canceled TV show.

John McCain
Sylvester Stallone
Like McCain, John Rambo was a POW. Also like McCain, Stallone is short (both are about 5'-7").

Wilford Brimley
He and McCain served together in WWI, and is actively opposed to banning cockfighting. Brimley's mustache has not yet decided on whom to endorse.

Curt Schilling
Schilling is a born again christian. He's also a WWII history buff, and collects knives and helmets from the war. Adds blood to his sock before every start. Fancies himself a soldier.

Tom Selleck
Along with Brimley, Selleck gives McCain two actors with awesome mustaches on his side. Also, he is the heir apparent to Chuck Heston for the presidency of the NRA. More trivia: with all the hoopla over Billy Crystal taking an at-bat for the Yankees in a spring training game this spring, many people forget that Selleck had an at-bat for the Tigers in spring training in 1992.

Gross Generalization: From the looks of this list, I'd say the typical McCain endorser is fond of weapons and/or warfare.

Sadly, Kwame Kilpatrick has not weighed in yet on whom he is supporting. Reportedly, each of the candidates has been in touch with Kwame's people to ensure that he does not even mention their names.

Football Season's Over - How 'bout Some Politics?

Well, the Super Bowl is over, and election season is in full swing. Super Tuesday is upon us. It's a two-way battle on both sides. Clinton and Obama are fighting it out on the Democratic side, while McCain and Romney are battling on the Republican side (Huckabee's all but finished). Here's something interesting (at least it is to me): Every Republican presidential ticket since 1976 has had either a Dole or a Bush. Every single one. Have a look:

1976 Ford-Dole
1980 Reagan-Bush
1984 Reagan-Bush
1988 Bush-Quayle
1992 Bush-Quayle
1996 Dole-Kemp
2000 Bush-Cheney
2004 Bush-Cheney

Ever since all of us associated with this blog have been eligible to vote, a Bush or Dole has been one of our choices on the presidential ballot. So it stands to reason that we should put our money on Jeb Bush or Neil Bush being the running mate of whomever wins the nomination on the Republican side (unless Bob Dole is taken out of cryogenic suspension). Jeb Bush has had some family troubles though. I guess his family is the the Bush family equivalent of Billy Carter or Roger Clinton:

• Noelle Bush (that's her on the right), the daughter of former governor of Florida Jeb Bush, has been arrested multiple times for various drug and alcohol offenses, prescription forgery, and served time in jail in 2002.


• George P. Bush, son of Jeb Bush, broke into his ex-girlfriend's family house and drove circles in their front yard with his car during a fit of rage.


• John E. Bush, Jr., son of Jeb Bush, was caught by the police, literally, with his pants down in a parking lot, having sex with a teen-age girl. He was also arrested for public drunkenness and resisting arrest down in Texas.

Doesn't look too good for Jeb. Neil's family is not so embarrassing, but there is some personal sketchiness there:

• Neil was on the board of directors of Silverado Savings and Loan during the 1980s. Silverado collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.6 billion. Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, but he denied all wrongdoing.


• There was a curious deal earning $2 million with Grace Semiconductor, run by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin.


• Divorced his wife in 2003, in part because of his own marital infidelity. He admitted to having sex with women on trips to Thailand and Hong Kong. The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them. Uh huh.


• His daughter Lauren is a model (shown at right). Very nice.

I don't know who the republican ticket will include, but if the ticket does not include a Bush or a Dole, I know I'll feel a little disoriented. I won't be sure who to vote against. Who am I kidding - I'll know exactly who to vote against.

Interesting bit of trivia that I picked up from wiki. Lauren Bush is dating (or was dating at some point in time) Ralph Lauren's son David Lauren. If they get married, will she be Lauren Lauren?

On the another political topic, I found this nice post from "Hey Jenny Slater" about the upcoming election.